Solving the Budget Crisis - Anywhere.

The first rule of budgeting is to look at your costs and priorities. It's as true for governments as it is for people. You look at the various things you spend time and money on and you decide if they actually bring the benefit you once thought.

This is one very dramatic example.



Watch the whole thing, and then realize the overwhelming truth. A positive budget shift of more than 2 billion dollars more or less immediately upon stopping the drug war. In California. Alone. 2 BILLION dollars.

I don't have to be an advocate of recreational drug use or medical marijuana to make that argument. I just have to point out that flushing two billion bucks down the crapper in return for no good outcome, much less anything like the intended outcomes (other than getting politicians elected) is really very stupid.

Let's look at a few other things going on in society. Currently, the majority of incomes are static or going down. This is due mostly to pressure from right wing groups (social and fiscal) who see the solution to everything to be cutting taxes and defunding "entitlement programs" like social services, medicare, etc.

On occasion, I do wonder if they ever think about consequences - at all. For some number of persons denied affordable health care for a loved one or a shot at a decent job will certainly cook methamphetamine to cover expenses. They will certainly consider stealing a BMW to pay the rent.  That is to say, you increase the statistical motivation for crime while at the same time decreasing the ability of  government to statistically decrease and prevent crime. Well-educated people, for instance, tend to have more lawful options, so are less likely to resort to violent crime. At the worst, they are less likely to blow their apartment building up because they couldn't read instructions for cooking  a drug.

Let us also remember that every usage of government comes at the price of something else it could be doing. This is a point Judge Grey makes above; that drug wars come at the price of investigating and prosecuting other crimes which, obviously, should take priority - basic things like murder, rape and robbery.

But it's also less obvious that many things government does are best done because they have diffuse, widespread benefits. Things like public health and welfare; universal, affordable heath care, vaccinations, sewage treatment, even direct welfare programs. These have many diffuse benefits that are obvious only in their absence; allowing ourselves to be ideologically blinded to the macro benefits because the "wrong people" will benefit on the micro level is breathtakingly stupid. Karl Smith illustrates this point.

If we want to build a model of what the government spends money on we would be best to start this way: ask people what social obligations do they believe “society” has. Look around for the cheapest – though not necessarily most efficient – programs that could credibly – though not necessarily effectively– address those obligations. Sum the cost of those programs. That will be government spending.

Contrary to Jonah Goldberg and others who see Canada and the United States as examples of two clashing ideologies, they are actually examples of two different ethic distributions.  The United States is not Canada because there is ethnic strife between Southern Blacks and Southern Whites. That strife reduces the sense of moral obligation on the part of the white majority and so reduces government spending.

I want to be very clear that I don’t say this to paint those against social spending as racists. From where I sit I am betting that most of the intellectuals lined up against expanding the welfare state are naively unaware that their support rests upon racial strife. Otherwise they would realize that as America integrates they are doomed. They are fighting as if they believe they have a chance of winning. Given the strong secular trend in racial harmony, they do not.

I point this out also to show why the major Republican strategy for limiting government was doomed from the start and why I am also not particularly worried about Americas fiscal future per se.

Now, it's becoming increasingly clear - to me at least - that people tend to discount the price they are willing to see other people pay to create the sort of society they would prefer to live in. I'd like you to try and look at this objectively - of course, I would be expecting rather a lot of you to do that. But try to look at the following and say, hm, supposing this actually was a sane idea that could arguably accomplish something positive, how much would it cost, and would it actually make more sense than, say, taking a third of that money and opening drug rehab beds, while blowing the rest on - oh, I dunno, something silly, like flood control?

Dick Morris calls Ron Paul ‘horrific’

If only Dick Morris would tell us how he really feels about libertarians.

During a radio interview with Peter Schiff, a former economic adviser to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, Dick Morris thought he’d be talking about his new book, and seemed annoyed when he found himself discussing trends within the Republican Party.

Schiff, who said he noticed that nearly a third of the people he met at CPAC came from the “Ron Paul/Gary Johnson wing” of the GOP, with the rest in the more traditional conservative camp of Mitt Romney, asked Morris how he thought this would play out in the presidential race.
“I strongly oppose Ron Paul,” Morris said. “I think he’s horrific. He wants us to end the War on Drugs. He wants us to end the War on Terror.”

“Do you think we’re winning the war on drugs?” Schiff interjected.
“No, because we’re not fighting it,” Morris replied.

“We’re not fighting it?” Schiff asked. “We don’t have enough laws against drugs?”

“No,” Morris replied. “We should drug test every high school student. We should drug test everybody that gets a student loan. Anybody that’s using drugs should not get a government student loan.”

Schiff argued that there was something vaguely socialist about the government giving out student loans in the first place, but Morris disagreed, and became increasingly annoyed.

“Peter, I’d like to talk about my book, which is ‘Revolt: How to Defeat Obama and Repeal his Socialist Programs,” Morris complained. “You know what, Peter? You talk to yourself for the next 15 minutes. That seems to be what you want to do.”

And with that, he hung up.

Morris’s feelings about Ron Paul are not a secret, as he called him “crazy” in a column in 2007. But the drug testing for all high school students is new, as far as I can tell. Morris did not respond to a request for comment.

UPDATE: Morris emails to clarify: "Yes, I support drug testing for all high school students with those who fail getting rehab. I support drug testing for all recipients of student loans and those that fail should be tested again and, if they fail, the loan should be terminated."

Let me get this straight here. Socialism is bad, because it presumes that some central planner, some "bureaucrat" has inappropriate power over you, and of course, the obvious objection and argument, that such immense, overreaching structures with their arbitrary rules and institutional mentalities are woefully inefficient at doing anything cheaply or well... but collecting pee in cups along with SAT tests is somehow an exception to that rule? Derisive laughter is the only possible response!

Government is best done when it's focused on what people actually do need and how they actually will behave. It makes a terrible nanny. It does well when it does what it absent-mindedly can to make resources, information and spaces available so that people can most effectively help themselves. Oh, and the best reason for it to do that is because people will help themselves and those who they approve of, regardless of what any particular government might think of that proposition, or who they feel has the "God-Given right" to determine the fate of the majority of people.

Fox doesn't even TRY any more...

My takeway: If you are stupid enough or ignorant enough to think there could be palm trees in Madison Wisconsin, you might still be watching Fox News. Or at least, that's likely the calculus over at Faux, so why put any effort into that Journalism stuff? It's not like the core audience cares...

For the rest of humanity, let the mockery commence.

Oh, as for CNN, and other "Liberal Media," - maybe it might be time to spend more time on the real issues of the day, and less time on Charlie Sheen.

Defeat Stupidity Now

The epidemic of stupidity has placed western culture at grave risk; it threatens our health, our future, our survival as a species. So it's time to wake up and respect the intelligence. If you are not willing to do the heavy lifting required to form an informed and intelligent opinion, you don't get the right to have your stupidity respected. Conventional wisdom is under fire from every direction,  and it does not turn out to be particularly bulletproof.

Matt Blum writes in Wired

Bill Gates Says Anti-Vaccine Autism Groups “Kill Children” — And He’s Right

I get a ton of press releases every day in my inbox every day; most of them I just ignore, but yesterday I got one whose subject, in all-caps and bold, read:

OUTRAGED AUTISM GROUPS AND LEADERS TO ANNOUNCE 50,000-PARENT PROTEST IN NYC AGAINST BILLIONAIRE AND MICROSOFT CHAIRMAN BILL GATES AFTER BEING CALLED “CHILD KILLERS”

So I had to take a look, because I wanted to see what Gates had really said, and about whom. It turns out he didn’t actually use the phrase “child killers,” but he did say that anti-vaccine groups “kill children,” which does pretty much amount to the same thing. I can see why people would be outraged by that — I’m outraged, too, but not in the way the people who issued the press release would like me to be. Because I’m outraged that there most likely are 50,000 people who are willing to protest, when what Bill Gates said is absolutely, 100% correct.

I am constantly overwhelmed by the idiocy of so many people. In most cases, adults have every right to make bad choices, and we all make them now and then — but just making the occasional bad choice doesn’t make you an idiot. No, it’s idiotic to make a bad choice, and then when presented with ample evidence that you have made a bad choice do nothing to correct it. It is mindbogglingly idiotic to not only not correct that choice but to form groups with other idiots to try to convince yet more people to make the same bad choice. And it is dangerously idiotic when the bad choice in question kills children.

But there is a lot of dangerous idiocy out there. As infuriating and as stupid as this is, let us realize that this particular brand of idiocy is a manifestation of the same sort of flaming fucknuttery that has become epidemic in Western Society. And idiocy, when it becomes applied as social doctrine, as the basis for policy, kills. It kills people wholesale.

Now, ask yourself - could anyone who thinks and speaks this way possibly be a good parent, of any child?

Discredit: http://amplicate.com/hate/autism

Blum continues:

It’s unlikely that anyone who still believes that vaccines cause autism is going to be swayed by yet another article pointing out that no, actually they don’t. The original British autism study that prompted the whole anti-vaccine hysteria has been retracted and declared by the same journal that published it to be an “elaborate hoax.” In point of fact, there has never been a credible scientific study that shows that vaccines cause autism. Not one.

But really, this is but one symptom of the epidemic I've been blogging about since I started Graphictruth. There are some things that, if they have to be said at all, cannot be said "politely."

How about the idea that "Social Justice" is "a code word for "anti-americanism" - indeed, for "communism and nazism." At the same time. All at once. 

Well, anyone who can say that out loud fails to understand society, justice, the social forces that made people settle North America; it further reveals that they cannot possibly comprehend Communism, National Socialism (or fascism in general) and are no doubt rather confused about Christianity. 

Perhaps it's rude to observe that one would have to be paid very well indeed to be willing to say something that obviously foolish in public - but while rude, it's certainly true to observe that Glenn Beck is very well paid indeed.

Being an Asshole is not a religion, nor a faith, nor a doctrine. It's a lifestyle choice, a popular choice of those who are obsessed with the use and supposed misuse of the arses of others. One might say it's a tenant of Christian Fundamentalism. I would say that is a pun so vile that those who don't understand it deserve to have it explained to them. 

But more properly, a tenant from the Sermon on the Mount comes to mind: "Judge not, lest ye be judged also." 

I'm autistic, and I'm a blogger. I don't blog about autism, much; but I do have a certain perspective that comes from my neuro-linguistic bias, and in some lights, I think that the thing that is most feared about autistics is that we see things in a different way. The entire story about the little boy who said that the Emperor had no clothes ... well, that kid was likely autistic, by our current understanding of that set of traits. And I certainly see things the way that mythical kid did.

There is always some charismatic idiot who realizes that the fastest route to personal power is to gather a bunch of authoritarian followers and convince them that all their problems can be blamed on "those people" - people so morally deranged they will surely go to hell, and might even be so depraved as to vote for the other candidate. See above - or just turn on your television.


Now, if you delve into morality as stated by those for whom the morality of other people is a matter of great importance, you will find that purity and impurity; the politics of disgust are rather more pressing to them than a working, just, functional society of the sort advocated by Jesus.


Mind you, Jesus said all kinds of awkward things, and it got him nailed to a cross during his lifetime.You don't have to be trained by Jesuits to realize that the Crucifix at the front of the church is intended as much as an object lesson as an inspiration.

Everyone else had the social intelligence to not state the obvious truth that the Emperor was butt-naked - but in choosing to not do so, they were participating in a fraud upon the Court.

Of course, the moral of the story is that the Emperor was grateful. That would be the correct outcome - but of course, as you see from the lead example, it's not the usual one.

There's been much speculation as to whether Gates is on the Autistic spectrum himself. He certainly shows traits I associate with being Aspergers-typical autistic, though it's moments like this where I truly wonder aloud whether we can call it a disorder at all. Certainly it seems remarkable to think of someone like Bill Gates or Einstien as "High Functioning Autistics," as if they'd overcome an horrible condition in order to succeed. I rather think that if they considered it at all, they'd think it patronizing.

One of the criticisms of us is our "lack of social intelligence," and our placing of facts and our "inappropriate fixation on matters of justice" over the feelings of our peers.

Yeah, there's nothing so rude as being correct in public and not being willing to soothe the butthurt of the people who get busted pandering to the wishful thinking of the uninformed and thoughtless. Surely we must do something about that. And we certainly shouldn't expect leaders to exhibit actual leadership. No, they know their place and respect our willful stupidity. Hell, they should found their careers upon it!

Many Americans believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim who is also not a US citizen, and House Speaker John Boehner isn't about to correct them.

The Speaker told NBC's David Gregory Sunday that people have a right to their beliefs and it wasn't his job to tell them what to think.

Last week, 40 percent of Republicans on a Fox News panel insisted that Obama was a Muslim.
"As the Speaker of the House, as the leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?" Gregory asked.

"David, it's not my job to tell the American people what to think," Boehner replied. "Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people."

...he might as well have said, "I got elected by pandering to stupid people."

Now, that's often true enough - hell, and Clinton did it! So did JFK. It's true of every president of any party who ever got elected. The difference is, most of them thought of that as a regrettable necessity, not a fucking mandate!

He just said, out loud, that you'd have to be stupid to vote Republican - and he isn't about to disrespect the stupidity of the people who put him in power. Moreover, he's dumb enough to think that's a good thing to say out loud.

Even stupid people wish to be thought of as smart. So don't complement them for being stupid enough to vote for you. They might not actually thank you for that. Hell, they might grind their way slowly to the conclusion that it was pretty damn stupid to say that.

Having realized a leader is indeed, THAT stupid, you have to be very, very stupid indeed to think that it's ok to have anyone that stupid people in charge of heavy machinery, large amounts of money or weapons of war. Shall we turn to the news? oh, better yet, let's turn to the internet. What do we see? Any examples of things going as smoothly as we have every right to expect of those charged to cope with complex and difficult issues in a way to benefit the people as a whole?

A great many people who think of themselves as normal are choosing to believe any number of comfortable lies in the face of some increasingly urgent realities, and there will be hell to pay if humanity does not cash a reality check soon. Facts matter. If provable facts in evidence contradict what you would prefer to believe, tough. You are wrong. There's nothing respectable about being wrong, and no great virtue in being polite about it.

Wisconsin Cops call for a Fresh Deck and a New Deal

I wonder if Walker truly comprehends what sort of situation he could be in. The entire public service infrastructure wants to see him dangling from a light-pole, but will no doubt settle for a perp-walk and an orange jumpsuit.

And no doubt persons wishing to have a political future in Wisconsin are considering their options.

Meanwhile, folks... let me point out a few obvious things. If you have a mansion or a warehouse, it's probably not a good idea to threaten people who know how to burn it down and get away with it. Assuming, of course, that the arson investigators would notice something as subtle as Molotov cocktail fragments.

But wait, if the arson investigators are laid off... hm. What DOES that do to the insurance claim? Goodness me, I have no idea. At the very least, it complicates matters. Certainly, the current situation clearly has seized the attention of the police department. If I were on a public list of donors to the Walker campaign, I'd be trying to figure out how to distance myself - and my first call would be to my tax accountant!

Consider the math. Non-violent crimes against those donors will have a priority somewhere below jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk.


And all those people who got the tax breaks, for which all this nonsense is intended to fund? Hm... well, if all these public sector workers are locked out - every project that legally requires a state sign-off is on hold. No building permits. No environmental impact statements reviewed. No re-certifications of meat packing or cheese making. Short-staffed or un-staffed, all they could possibly do is shut your operation down, to ensure public health and safety.

And that, of course, is simply the direct, obvious and legal consequences. People laid off in the Department of Public works - won't stop knowing how to use a backhoe. And if broad ditches should appear cutting off non-tax-paying businesses from public roads, well, that would be a firing offense, as well as iillegal. If you had a job, of course, and if anyone was particularly interested in catching you.

...I could go on.

Former Governer Walker - you see, I'm a futurist, stating an obvious future... assholes who say, "I'm the big dog, and you gotta do what I say, 'cause whatcha gonna do about it?" had best stop well short of putting people in a position where being in jail means better meals and medical care than being an obedient serf.
Particularly if the police ain't interested in properly investigating crimes committed by people other than you.

You see, moments like this illustrate why civility and good attention for the sensibilities and interests of your political opponents are vital. Sabotage proper and fair procedure and people will revert to older, but reliable means of ensuring good and effective government.

Tar, feathers and a split rail are a proven means of dispensing with sociopaths. The rule of law is preferable, of course, and that is why it's a traditional Conservative value to colour within the lines.

American Conservatives: this is what you swore to conserve.

I should like very much to credit this illustration, but I cannot. I'd appreciate knowing who made it, and where I should link it, other than imigr.com, for I suspect they may have many other interesting things to say.

This is what makes the United States exceptional. If you wish to prate about "American Exceptionalism," you really must accept that the ideas and circumstances that made the US exceptional in the first place. It was founded on very radical propsitions, that were forced upon a reluctant population by very arrogant and foolish persons blinded by privilege and position. There was a general skepticism that it would work, and indeed, it took a civil war to resolve some of the compromises that made the experiment possible in the first place.

In other words, the American Experiment was a very expensive beta test. It has been, on balance, successful, but it took a lot of bloodshed and pain to demostrate it. It would be less than conservative to dismiss that with a handwave and say, in the finest tradition of liberal ideologes, "that is then, this is now, and history is irrelevant."

The first tenant of genuine Conservatism is this: "We don't care why it works, we see that it does work." Conservatives are not idolologues. We leave that to Liberals, populists, Randians, Marxists, Maoists, Fascists, Dominionist Christians and genuine, doctrinare, actual "islamofacists" who think that a theocratic Calafate is a good idea. Furthermore, Conservatives know this is a game, and the rules exist for a reason, so if you cheat, regardless of the apparent outcome, first, you did not win, and second, the outcome will be exactly the same, in the end, as if you had NOT won.. Save that, of course, it will be your innocent grandchildren who are put up against the wall, not you.

Those of you who seem entirely comfortable with that likelihood.. well, I think it obviously better that you go against the wall now, for your own sins, and not your grandchildren. Though as an Conservative, I also admit that in the long run, it will not matter to anyone outside of your lineage, it should matter to you, and the fact that it appears that you don't understand this argues against any genuine conservatism on your part, much less any protestation of  "family values."

Conservatives support that which works for most people, most of the time. Which means, in effect, upholding the right of all people to do what they damn well please and accepting a broad and evolving consensus as a basic assumption of what "civiliation" entails.

Conservatives care much about things like sewage and the rule of law... not so much about what happens in the bedrooms of people.. unless that requires alteration to plumbing or the adaptation of existing law. And in either case, it's the conservative position that those who wish adaptation to either law or plumbing work for it.

But if they do make their case, it becomes the new conservative reality.

Conservatives do not throw out the baby with the bath-water. They do not cut off their noses to spite their faces. They do not eschew fact in favor of ideological purity. These are the attributes of ideologues, and no true conservative is really all that comfortable with ideological purity. The true conservative response, when presented with a supposed "moral imperative" is to shoot their cuffs, smooth their perfectly tailored lapels and say, "why don't you show me the numbers on that?"

You see, no real conservative really supported the American Revolution. Conservatives were dubious, to say the least. Bad Kings come and go, said they, but Magna Carta and Britannia abide. They waited, and they saw. And indeed, an entire nation was founded upon the inevitable collateral damage. Today we call it Canada, and here in Canada, we are Conservative in the Burkean sense, to the very bone. To underline that point, an entire commonweath of nations have gained not just the liberties of the United States, but in many cases, rather more than that, by virtue of patience and working within the system. Mind you, it took a couple of centuries - but for most Americans - more than half, for more than half were black, hispanic, non-land-owners and not male- that was true as well. So actually, we all did end up in the same place at about the same time, as peoples and nations, by different means, and of course, inspired by each other.

As a liberal, I might argue that it would not have happened without America. As a conservative, I don't really have to care. For a conservative doesn't have to care how we got to the status quo ante, so long as the status quo is sufficient unto the needs of the day - and that that explains our reflexive distrust for the "neoconservatism" of the US variety, for we know it by it's true name. "NeoLiberalism."

That is to say, the offensive presumption that "the people that matter" actually do "know better" than the great masses, and if they should argue the point, that is because they are over educated and getting above themselves. As an elieist snob, I must confess that such a proposition is indeed attractive - but there is a difference between being actually, demonstrably elite and simply asserting the status without evidence.

Those taht would take a wrecking ball to what that does work, not because it fails to work but because it works in a way incompatible with their preferences are insufferable.

As a person that takes seriously the very conservative presumption that government is indeed about the "Greatest good for the greatest number" - well, then, by definition, Neo-liberalism cannot be conservative, for it's about the greatest benefit to the wealthiest few.. at this point in time.  That is to say, it is "penny wise, and pound foolish."


True conservatives learn from history. Mistakes are expensive, and having paid for them once, it's imprudent to repeat the same, obvious errors.

Now, you may be surprised at that, for we have all kinds of things up here that American Conservatives decry - gun control. A welfare state. A universal system of medical care that we defend against US and IMF encroachment like rabid weasels.

That is not due to ideology. That is because we have run the numbers, and they work, for us. The fact that it works for us may not work for YOUR idiological purists, but the only proper response to that is a cheerful "fuddleduck."

As Canadians, we do not believe that there are politics that transcend the personal or the local. We believe very firmly in "Peace, Order and Good Government" and the even more basic civiliational principle:

"No sudden moves; regular offers of food."

We know that is the difference between a dog and a wolf. And civilization is truly based on such essentials; who gets to stay outside in the cold, and who gets to sleep on the bed.

Canadians are not nearly as liberal as the US, historically. We are reluctant to change. If it ain't broke, we damn well won't fix it. Our culture is based on mercantilism and the values of prairie farmers. If you think Enron was evil, you should look up the history of Hudson's Bay Company! We are not morally superior, never have been. But we have learned, and try not to institutionalize our more obvious errors. Our government is generally small, lean, underfunded and professional to an extent that most Canadians take for granted and which would stun most Americans.

This is not intended as a "Canada, fuck YEAH!," moment. This is a reminder to my much beloved Southern Cousins that Conservatism is about keeping that which is unique, valuable and worth keeping. There is no Conservative value in theory. Conservatism is all about the tried and the true, the things that work.  It's not conservative to bulldoze and redo things from scratch. Conservatives preserve and extend from what exists.

So there can be no absolute Conservative ideal. All Conservatism is local. It is up to liberals to make the case that change is first desirable, and then necessary. It is up to conservatives to make them prove their arguments, force them to make their case, permit them to demonstrate the value of their ideals under controlled conditions. And then, in the rare but transcendentally important cases (as illustrated above,) take the evidence, accept it as real, and PRESERVE it.

For there will always be a new fad to tickle the minds of those easily persuaded. It should never be easy to prove the affirmative case. But once it has been proven, it's not Conservative to hold grudges. A conservative conserves that which is tried, true and proven, regardless of it's origin; otherwise, most of us would be illiterate serfs. It is up to suitably persuaded conservatives to make the minimally required changes affordable and workable toward the greatest benefit of a civil society.

The word for people who cannot be convinced by facts, by numbers, by evidence is not "Conservative." The polite term is reactionary. The accurate term is insane. For insanity is, by definition, the obsessive repetition of ideas and policies that do not work and cannot work in the face of reality.

Really, it's that simple. Don't over-think it, and don't be persuaded by populist ideologues or single-issue fanatics who care not in the least about the consequences they dismiss as unimportant, like, say, Hard Money fanatics or pro-life absolutists. (or indeed, pro-choice absolutists!)

Anyone who would dismiss any shades of grey from the political sphere is not doing politics; they are commiting acts of religous fanaticism upon your person. And this is, my dear readers, an imposition upon your conscience and good nature regardless of your position on the issue supposedly at hand.

Remember the wisdom of the great Yoda.

"Only Siths deal in absolutes."

And yet - and the thrust of the whole story cycle supports this beyond question -Yoda was a social conservative. As was Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Yet the author of this entire story cycle - this whole morality tale - is derided as being a Hollywood Liberal.

Let us take another leaf from the lesson of the Star Wars saga. The parts we all hate, those that we all reflexively dismiss as being the least worthy chapters of the story were the ones where Lucas allowed the essence of the story to be replaced by a narrative conducive to product placement aimed at the 14-25 demographic.

That is to say, immediate results trumped over timeless verities, as re-presented and restaged for a new generation.

It was once said as a criticism that Star Wars was a John Ford Western in Space. It could well have been said that John Ford put Shakespere in the West, and Shakespere put Aesop in the Globe Thetre, in front of the Court of Elizibeth the First - who were in great need of such things.

Let us all take this as examples of what is kept, and why.

Stupid People

I thought of crafting a reason for posting this video.. but that would be stupid.

Frank Schaffer: "It would be better not to have a Republican party, than have a party that caters to the village idiot."

If I need to explain these videos, all hope is lost.



"It would be better not to have a Republican party, than have a party that caters to the village idiot."



Direct link to the money quote.

Be careful, it's stupid out there...

In leu of an actual post...

mitchr

Guy goes into a bar, there's a very advanced robot bartender.The robot says, "What will you have?"The guy says, "Martini."The robot brings back the best martini ever and says to the man, "What's your IQ?" The guy says," 168." The robot then proceeds to talk about physics, space exploration and medical technology.

The guy leaves, but he is curious...So he goes back into the bar later on..The robot bartender says, "What will you have?"The guy says, "Martini."Again, the robot makes a great martini gives it to the man and says, "What's your IQ?"The guy says, "100."The robot then starts to talk about Nascar, Budweiser and football.

The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will try it one more time.He goes back into the bar.The robot says, "What will you have?"The guy says, "Martini," And the robot brings him another great martini.The robot then says, "What's your IQ?" The guy says, "Uh, about 50." The robot leans in real close to the man.. And says, "So tell me, you people still happy you voted for Obama?"

If this is not terrorism, the word has lost it's meaning.

Let's just come out and say it:

The "War On Terror is not." Because if it actually were, social conservatives, talibancials and right-wing freakout artists who gin up this sort of violence would be IN Gitmo, worksopping the question as to whether or not waterboarding is, in fact, torture.

So, "Terrorism" is in fact anything that threatens the continued dominance of the talibancial, theocratic right wing and their desire to run everyinting for the benefit of the war and oil lobby.

By the way, I have nothing against waging war or drilling for oil. I just want responsible and competant people doing both. And of course, the War On Terror means that if you queation the competaince, intelligence or motives of either group.. welcome to the No Fly List, you International Terrorist Conspiritor, you.

A crappy metaphor, indeed.

In some ways, this is a belated New Year's resolution, and it's also a new decade's resolution.

I'm not going to be bothering to comment on blatant idiocies. I'm going to trust that you are smart enough to see blatant idiocy when you see it. But you should not assume that there's a "side" or an "ideology" that is somehow immune to such shrill, self-righteous public stupidity. The "Left" is just as capable of fucking up as is the "Right," and as often as not, for the very best of intentions.

As human beings, we tend to make assumptions about reality that are more abut what we want to believe than what actually is. Reality is complicated and messy; we'd prefer it to be simplified. People are complex and multifaceted, we'd prefer that the vast majority could be summed up and dismissed in one paragraph or less - and not for reasons that even speak terribly ill of us as humans.

We just don't have the time or the ability to give much of a damn about people outside of our immediate lives. As a matter of pure self defense and as a necessary step towards maintaining sanity, we latch upon the superficial as a way of limiting the things we must care about.

If you are sane and decent and ethical, that's probably about as much as anyone has a right to ask of you.

We rely on social mechanisms to tell us about things we really do feel the need to care about and if need be, do something about those things, if enough people agree on what is to be done. That is to say, we rely on journalism and government to inform us about matters that concern us and government to deal with things we collectively decide to be collective responsibilities - like, say, our various national defenses, our various approaches to heath care, food safety, fire protection and the education of the next generation.

I think that people capable of thinking for themselves have abandoned mainstream journalism in favor of social media and I'm coming to expect that watching what passes for government govern is making people wonder if there might possibly be an app for that as well.

The nasty truism that people get the government (and journalism) they deserve still has bite; those who used to write for an informed audience have gotten tired of putting up with the shrill plaints of those unwilling to deal with unpalatable realities, or have been fired by a management that prefers a consistent message to awkward facts.

So it's becoming difficult to find an informed opinion on an internet filled with opinion and little else.

I'm as unwilling to waste my time giving a "fair hearing" to a doctrinaire Marxist as I am to the equally irrelevant opinions of Conservative Christians who expect me to give their creationist contrivances and moralistic assertions the respect they think they believe they merit. Feeling the need to argue with stupid people is even more of a vice than being stupid; you have to realize it's pointless, so it's merely another way of being an asshole in public and feeling good about yourself in the morning.

Take the so called "new athiests." Many of the new athiests can be really offensive assholes. Which is not to say that they are wrong about their perceptions of Christian culture. Or Islamic culture. I do happen to think that both cultures would offend and appall Christ and Mohamed, and their snide critiques are often wickedly entertaining.

Nonetheless, I can observe the same things without being an offensive jerk, comparing God to an "invisible pink unicorn" or the tooth fairy, and I also know that stealing Linus's security does not ever improve Linus. If you dismiss religion as a "crutch" - well, possibly it is. But what does that say about you when you try to kick someone's crutches out from under them?

Ironcially; many of the complaints made by atheists against the behavior of offensive Christians are things that Christ Himself complained of. So perhaps this isn't about who is right, but rather about who is pissing into the harder wind. I believe I shall abstain.

Athiests - and by this, I mean "social athiests," because all I'm commenting on is herd behavior, are no different than anyone else. They want the people that annoy them to go away. Well, sadly, they won't. Now athiests may legitimately say they are asserting the right to stay and be themselves. To that extent, I applaud them, along with evangelicals, Wiccans, flat-taxers, small-government idiologues, creationists and anti-masturbation activists.  Please, live by your beliefs and put your ideas in the marketplace.

Just don't confuse that right with the right to demand that I believe what you have to say or respect your world view as being just as good as my own, nor complain to me when the results of living your beliefs aren't exactly as was advertised in the brochure.


That's a bridge too far, and that's always how those who crave simplicity manage to complicate matters.

I dislike, for instance, the cultures that exist in the so called "Red States," the very authoritarian, structured, culture-bound, moralistic and conventional cultures, which of course exist everywhere. But they exist for a reason. That reason is that a LOT of people feel much more comforatable there than they would here. Such people are part of the fabric of humanity, it seems, and they will always confuse their own needs with some greater social or moral imperative. But then, so do you, and from time to time... it may happen that I do as well.

I reluctantly admit that my own reaction is as much about my own tribalism and essential nature as theirs. So I live where I'm not bothered by them, I don't go to places they frequent and don't seek to disturb their lives - unless, of course, they ask me very nicely and compensate me for my trouble. 

But poltical culture has descended to arguing who has the right to impose what set of inconveniences and insults upon whom, rather than coming to some useful agreement on what needs to be done to get everyone through the winter, I'm done with political writing. Because that's the only point to the exercise.

Every morning I read the news, and yet I don't write about it. It's stupid and tiresome and frankly, even the very best commentary is mired in a partisan world view enslaved to such short-term news and economic cycles that it has no real value to a person wanting to live a thoughtful and useful life.

I'm committed to telling the truth, and understanding and communicating realty as best as I can, with the perceptions and the experiences I have. Every once in a while, I must therefore revisit my own working assumptions, test my own ideas against reality and see if what I'm doing is actually working. I'm in the midst of that process right now, and I'm still unsure as to whether I will continue blogging, and if so, about what.

But there are a few things I am sure of.

I'm not in the least "objective" in the mythical and unapproachable sense that classically "liberal" journalists strive for, nor am I willing to pretend that my bias is "common sense" or a "fair and balanced" view. And I'm afraid that is incompatible with finding a true home in any particular ideological, political or doctrinal camp. I'm not condemning here. Advocacy journalism, which is what MSNBC does badly, Fox does even worse and Mother Jones does fairly well is perfectly fine, as long as it is not confused with objective reporting.

Remember, in neither form is it permissible to actually lie. Not because lying is, like, wrong and stuff. No. It's because once I know a source is willing to lie to me - I stop listening. I certainly don't pay money to have my intelligence insulted. The purpose of the one is to persuade me using verifiable facts. The other is to provide facts in detail and context and let me make up my own mind about what it means and what I should do about it. I don't expect perfection - but increasingly, I'm finding I'm less informed about the world by partaking in the news than I was before I sought to relieve my ignorance.

Objective journalists aren't (they try nobly and fail regrettably) while advocacy journalists strive for a cause and a vision, in the hope and belief that they are correct... and the better grades of them will admit that is not nearly as often true as they would prefer. In BOTH cases, they have to be reliably more useful to me as a consumer of information than smacking myself in the face with a board. And I have no real social need to be "well informed" in the ways that would make me popular at cocktail parties.

At heart, I'm a lighthouse keeper. I value solitude and need a very small social circle indeed. It's nice to know that I've swayed a person this way or that - but I don't need to add them to my circle of followers, nor is it important to me that a person who is my friend agree with me in every respect.

That is more than just upbringing and experience - that's my nature, which in many ways predetermined the range of experiences I'd seek out and the effects any parenting could possibly have. It's neither a disability nor a blessing - it's merely what I am. It influences what I can do, and what things I should concentrate on.

This is true for you as well, no doubt in completely different ways. The only way I differ is that the way I am is a bit uncommon, so there are no conventional excuses for my reflexive behaviors. There is no church of St. Bob, The Autistic. I don't get to pretend there are really good reasons for choosing to behave and react as I do. I think, in a strange way, I'm rather lucky in that respect.

None of us acorns fall far from the tree of our essential being, regardless of how normal we may appear to others. How we choose to go about expressing our behavior, and whether we love or loathe ourselves for being what we cannot help but be in some way DOES matter. What matters even more is what harm to others do we do along the way and if the good we do outweighs the bad.

I take a ruthlessly practical view of harm. Actual harm to real people in concrete, measurable ways is more significant than theoretical harms, like, say, "maintaining our way of life", "protecting our family values", "defending the faith against those who would defame it" or "making the world safe for democracy."

Harming someone right now in the name of staving off a supposed future "harm" of that nature is simply wrong. That is about the most simple truth that I know, and really the only important one.

The priest that tells you that their god demands a life to permit the crops to grow should be the very LAST sacrifice to that god. Find another god, or do without. Any god worth following should be a better person than you are. That's a standard that applies to church and elected officials, I might add.


For there is no great movement, no unified religion, nor any great singular social vision that can work save by treating large numbers of people as no more than grit in their perfect gears. The "Left" and the "Right" have taken turns proving this, and if those lessons are cited selectively, it should be observed that the people who lead such movements tend to end up with much fatter bank accounts than they could otherwise aspire to, so they tend to rely on the insights that are favorable to them.

So let me council a gentle skepticism toward those offering simple answers to complicated questions, like Hard Money or One World Government.


You may note that nations and cultures rise and fall - but humanity chugs along. The Bible, The Koran, the Prose Eddas, the very oldest and most treasured writings - there is not one of them that you will not recognize yourself in. You will boo the villian, you will cheer for the hero; you will be moved as people who first heard the story were moved. People, in other words, are people and human nature wins, every single time, despite all efforts to stamp it out and make us into perfect angels or demons.

All civilization, all political and social organizations, every stupid committee, every tea party, every single government in every nation has but one essential task; to permit as many people as possible to live and work together in close enough proximity, as unbothered as possible so that they may act in various ways to the diffuse and collective benefit of all. That's it.

A capable government is very much like an invisible stage hand - it makes sure that the things that are needed appear as if by magic; it does not crave more power than it needs to do what the time and circumstances require and - most essentially - while it realizes that a little mythology and wishful thinking is important - believing it is extraordinarily dangerous.

Liberals pretend that everyone is, or would be, very altruistic - and if they are not, it's due to bad company while being brought up by toothless alcoholics in trailer parks.

That's as mindless a prejudice as those against liberals, wingers will say, are inherently immoral, hopelessly addicted to pot-smoking and fornication and of course, are all jobless lusers, of no possible consequence or importance.

Hm. Well, if the intelligentsia of both sides are presumably living in the basements of their parents, and the only significant distinction is a choice between Bud and Budweiser... why listen to either? You see, my friends; if that is who you see your most important opponent to be - well, that's exactly the significance of what YOU stand for.


Sadly, the political leadership of the US and, increasingly, the world, is convinced that it needs only appeal to THAT sort of person. It presumes that nobody is any better than that, nor smarter than that - and governments that act that way attract talent of that quality. Such talent isn't very talented, nor do they well serve the needs of the majority.


When people have the ability to ignore such buffoons, they do, and when they must interact with them, mostly they will get the better of them. If they must work around them, they will find it easy, if they must corrupt them to get things done, they will, and it won't be all that expensive. Of course, nobody will have a decent or useful government, but you don't miss what you have never known.



Anyway, I'm simply not the sort to take this to the next step - which should be fairly obvious, along the lines of taking matches away from small children and saying that lawn darts are no more toys than are javelins and blowpipes.But I'll tell you what it is.

Do you know the most significant legacy of every single notable government? Ever?

Waste management! A govenrment is about managing all the crap that accumalates when enough people gather together for a civilization to occur. The LITERAL crap comes first. It's no more romantic and no less essential than that.

Latrines. Roads. The regulation of the marketplace and the policing of highways so that people will come and trade. Thankless, largely routine, not much fun and certainly at all heroic on a good day, so we do tend to glitz it up a bit with thrones and parades and Hail to the Chief.

But at the end of the day, the stuff that matters is the stuff that doesn't happen, not the stuff that historians and the media feast upon.

Today, there were no pandemic plagues.

Today, we did not have an atomic war.

Today, the San-Fransisco Bay Bridge did not collapse.

Today, although many fires started, most of them were put out, and it's unlikely that a city anywhere burned to the ground.


Today, in most places in the world, Cholera is something you simply don't have to think about. Or measles or smallpox, or polio. To the extent that this is true, it is true due to the recognition that eliminating these diseases is an inherent good and a collective benefit. It was, in other words, an act of good government.

Today, in at least most of the western world, you can buy food and medicine that you you can be nearly sure contains what it should and is not immediately poisonous; moreover, if you are minded to be more careful than that, you can inform your decisions with libraries and the Internet.

All of these important collective needs are met by that indispensable thing - government. Some do it better than others. But if you have serious concerns about your local government's capability, it's wisdom and foresight - perhaps you should stop and realize that no enterprise, public or private can possibly be any better than the people who are doing the work.

See that pile of crap? It won't shovel itself.

A Practical Illustration of Poe's Law

My goodness. It's difficult to imagine condemning a phenomonon without first comprehending it. But this is Conservapedia, so rational arguments are hardly required.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

Poe's law is not aimed at Conservative Christianity - it's aimed at particularly stupid, humorless, irrational magical thinkers who, in the particular case of Poe's Law, happen to call themselves Conservative Christians.

Many Christians, Conservatives and conservative Christians facepalm in despair.

in reference to: Poe's law - Conservapedia (view on Google Sidewiki)

The Greatest Depression

I've been taking some time off from blogging because I was starting to feel like I was channeling H.L. Mencken. But I do not have a great-enough capacity for booze and cynicism, so I am but a pale imitation.

One of my problems as a writer - indeed, one of my great problems in life has always been that I have difficulty saying things I don't believe with a straight face, and the gambit of not saying much at all, while effective socially, isn't a winning formula for a deadline warrior.


I look around myself, and see great tensions and forces and people of all political stripes trying to make sense of it all in terms they are comfortable with. If there is a parallel to be had at all, they most remind me of the generals of WWI, who bravely sent their forces to die in a muddy stalemate because they could not or would not adapt to the new realities of warfare imposed by the airplane and the machine-gun.


In aid of coming to some sort of personal understanding of our times and my place in them, I've just read "Original Blessing" - the Matthew Fox classic of theology - which came recommended to me by an Anglican student of theology, and I give significant weight to the fact that it got Fox ousted from the ranks of Catholicism by Ratzi himself. It was written in the 80s and to me says nothing very controversial at all.

On the other hand, if there is a name for what I am, in terms of faith, it would be a Christian Mystic. As I'm anti-authoritarian in matters of faith and politics alike, well, I understand why I found myself rather bored by arguments that seemed obvious, buttressed by examples I thought spoke rather better for themselves in full context. I suppose it says rather a lot that one needs to be a theologian to say such things out loud and be taken seriously and rather more that one could be ejected from the church for fairly much saying "Me Too" to the essential insights of Julian of Norwich, Meister Eckhart and Jesus - but then, I've always figured the red letters were pretty clear. I've never really sought out any official endorsement of the obvious, any more than I would need a climatologist to tell me that the sky is blue and clouds are white.

I learned two things of importance from this book:  First, that the biblical word that is translated as "faith" would perhaps be as well translated as "trust" - and that for the sake of getting published, it's not what you know ... it's Who you know.

Seriously, it's the most awful book to read - but read it you should. Consider it a penance.

And then there was a small, obscure history, "Red Lights on the Prairies," a yellowing paperback I found in a church thrift-store basement written about the history of prostitution in the Canadian West.

Oddly, both books speak a great deal of the distinction between ethical behavior and the imposition of arbitrary moral order - and how difficult it is to make everyday practical distinctions between the two, much less foresee the social consequences of mistaking moralism for morality. There are certain things about human behavior that are givens, and whatever you make of them, for good or for ill, they will  happen regardless of how loudly you yell or how hard you hit.

If you ever want to understand why "harm reduction" is good public policy, read this book. When young, horny, physically active men outnumber women three to one - an outlet will be found. Best be sure it's not through your own sense of propriety.

People don't stop doing what they do just because you tell them it's wrong and will hurt them if they don't obey you. They just lie about it, while siezing upon the greater profit margins enjoyed by criminals and the lower standards accepted by those resigned to having to resort to criminal sources. Moralism, it illustrates, is a pretty poor excuse for not doing the right thing.

Those who yammer on about the need for a new moral order in politics while behaving in ways that demonstrate they couldn't tell the difference between right and wrong if it stepped on their face are... well, they are nothing new in the world. That's the Greatly Depressing thing.

For a bit more context about why war cheerleaders are so eager to demonize efforts to generalize lessons from Nuremberg, see this passage from Nuremberg Diary by G.M. Gilbert, the American prison psychologist at Nuremberg who wrote the following as part of his account of an interview he did (one of many) with Hermann Goering  on April 18, 1946, in Goering's cell (pp. 278-79):

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don’t want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It works the same in any country."

There is always some charismatic idiot who realizes that the fastest route to personal power is to gather a bunch of authoritarian followers and convince them that all their problems can be blamed on "those people" - people so morally deranged they will surely go to hell, and might even be so depraved as to vote for the other candidate. See above - or just turn on your television.

Now, if you delve into morality as stated by those for whom the morality of other people is a matter of great imporance, you will find that purity and impurity; the politics of disgust are rather more pressing to them than a working, just, functional society of the sort advocated by Jesus.

Mind you, Jesus said all kinds of awkward things, and it got him nailed to a cross during his lifetime.You don't have to be trained by Jesuits to realize that the Crucifix at the front of the church is intended as much as an object lesson as an inspiration.


The lesson of history is that rounding up those people really does little to address structural inequities or the root causes of ... well, anything. It does, however, nicely address the cash-flow issues and power needs of people who make the cattle cars and the tools to blow shit up, and employs many in the process of rebuilding after the blowing up is done and the bodies are buried. So, what are a few niggers, spics, paddies, kikes, gypsies, kulaks, pinkos, picts, scotti, imperialists, faggots or towel-heads whining about, in the face of such great social good and moral order? Someone has to be in control, or all will be chaos!

That's not just sacasm - it's an important thing to realize; that the need to control others comes as much from fear as from greed. Indeed, I think that the "lesser," or at least more socially acceptable sins of lust and greed are more agreeable excuses for the need to have power over others. Much of the time, for many people, it seems to be much more a visceral, incohate fear of what would happen if "those" people were allowed to "do their own thing."  


The great problem of times such as these (and if you look back, it always seems that to some degree, it always is a time like this) - the people who know enough to know they aren't fully competent for the task stand back - leaving a path to apparent greatness yawning for some fearful and witless incompetent who's quite sure they know how to fix a complicated and delicate situation with some combination of brute force and ignorance.

And in a sense, it does work. It generally results in a transformation - because the idiot succeeds in breaking things badly enough that there can be no serious argument over the need for a new system. Take Mao's Cultural Revolution. In a bass-ackwards sort of way, it actually did work. Or, more than likely, it worked out as it had to work out, quite aside from the marching and waving and credit-taking. Shit rolled downhill, as it tends to do, and Mao was clever enough to get behind it and cry out, "See, this is what I've done!"

But then, I'm a cynical man. And quite frankly, that's rather more than most people do, for good or for ill. An honest record of the man and his times will record that there was rather a lot of each, and when possible, he did bias toward the good he understood, and avoided the bad things that he could foresee. Like all great leaders, he benefited from the loyal efforts of those who were rather better than he honestly deserved for the pay he offered.

But that is not the role of one such as myself, and I think I sleep better for it.

I've long since decided that I am unlikely to be able to affect much change from within. Consider the object lesson of Obama. If he ever was sincere about effecting the sorts of change needed to avoid some form of transformative catastrophe by working from within - he's clearly found out why that almost never happens.

An era is ending, and it will end. It has nothing whatsoever to do with nations, or politics or faith. It has to do with change. Not change brought to washington, or change that can be forestalled by an election for a few years - we are dealing with changes in energy generation, changes in trade, changes in weather, changes in economic realities, changes in the importance of various core goods and services and almost none of this can be changed from Washington, Paris, Bejing or the United Nations.

We can, at best, adapt with some grace, perhaps a bit better than did the Neanderthals, hopefully with more grace than the Church did, faced with the Enlightenment.

But I wouldn't bet against stupidity.

Obama  is strapped into a socio-political space shuttle, along with everyone else. Now, it will cease to be airborne one way or another, and rather soon. The philosophy of piloting ain't going to make a hell of a lot of difference, but competence will. And that goes to some practical understanding of why things fall, and how you can affect where they land.

Ethics - and most of life, if you want to live through as much of it as possible - deals with an appreciation of cause and effect in human terms. In terms of the current situation in world affairs, instead of looking to Glenn Beck for advice - look to the people that Glenn Beck advises. Then if you live in an area where such people form a majority and control your government, sell them your basement as a food, weapons and gold cache location and hie thee hence, for when the levees break, they will be arguing as to who's fault it was, or whether the rescue effort should concentrate on "good" or "bad" people rather than getting on with the job at hand.

It's not that emergency preparedness is a bad idea. But when it comes at the expense of preventing the disaster in the first place, well now. Then I have a problem. You prepare for unforeseeable emergencies. The foreseeable ones, those you fix, or you avoid.

You can predict a great deal about how people will deal with a large crisis by seeing how they react to a small one.

Those who tend to assign blame, deny factual information that contradicts their world-views; those who indulge in obvious hypocracy, those who cannot manage to get through an entire paragraph without tripping over their own cognitive dissonance - well, it doesn't matter what "philosophy of governance" or religious faith they claim to share with you, because even if they understand it as well as it may appear, they couldn't apply it in any useful way when the bolts come loose.

You see, at the end of the day, the whole point of the exercise is ensuring that life goes on, and if your way of securing the future for you and yours depends on denying a future to them and theirs, sooner or later there will be a reconing and the outcome will come down to raw numbers.

If less than 20 percent of the people control more than 80 percent of the wealth - you don't need a spreadsheet to see where this could lead. 

Well, in point of fact, that wealth WILL be redistributed. Regardless of what I think of it or what you believe, regardless of any question of justice or fairness, that's simply going to happen, by one means or another.

There's too much water and not enough dam.

Whether or not social justice occurs will likely be a question of local circumstance, dependant on many factors. But for most people in most parts of the world, the obvious question is this - is there any reason why I should care if those people live or die, if I should pay one more penny to fuel their yaughts?

And in point of fact, in order for that amount of wealth to stay that concentrated; a great deal of people need to shrug and not begrudge the few grains it takes from their ricebowl.

Andrew Shirvell interview provokes many questions.

Many of the questions are really quite obvious, such as, how is this man not fired yet?  Here's the story link.

"Welcome to 'Chris Armstrong Watch,'" Shirvell wrote in his inaugural blog post. "This is a site for concerned University of Michigan alumni, students, and others who oppose the recent election of Chris Armstrong -- a RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST, RACIST, ELITIST, & LIAR -- as the new head of student government."

Among other things, Shirvell has published blog posts that accuse Armstrong of going back on a campaign promise he made to minority students; engaging in "flagrant sexual promiscuity" with another male member of the student government; sexually seducing and influencing "a previously conservative [male] student" so much so that the student, according to Shirvell, "morphed into a proponent of the radical homosexual agenda;" hosting a gay orgy in his dorm room in October 2009; and trying to recruit incoming first year students "to join the homosexual 'lifestyle.' "

Cooper was rather gentle with the poor, deluded fellow, when I'm sure that in the back of his mind he just wants to grab him by the tie and drag him out of the closet, kicking and screaming.


Because, Andrew, darling... the MOST obvious question is this - are you in conscious denial that you are gay for various pragmatic, political and social reasons, or is it more of a delusion?

There are many excuses for being this obsessed about a dimpled cutie like this.

Goodness, dear, the photos you took of him - you never once show an unflattering photo. He's got big ears, a bit of a tummy and doesn't spend enough time on his hair,  but your photography belongs in a shrine, the graffitti notwithstanding. 

But, well, that's really just "first amendment protected speculation" of the sort Shirviell indulged in on his blog, before he made it "invitation only." A bit late, that...

One wonders what close circle of jerks are welcomed there, and one does hope that at least one is aware of what the terms "actionable statements," "bringing the profession into disrepute," and a few others. One DOES hope that at least one person reviewing the blog and other public statements made by Shirviell are by an experienced lawyer actually qualified to practice before the Michigan bar. The first rule of patronage appointees, Sir; strive NEVER to embarrass your patron.

It's not that you are a prig and something of a prick, Mr. Shirviell. It's not that you are something of a judgmental tool. It's not your moralism or your homophobia. The issues are, sadly, more foundational than that.

 The important questions are the ones that Shirviell should have asked and answered for himself before well, certainly before trying to defend himself in the court of public opinion.

Like, say, how will this reflect on me and my elected boss?

There are some private opinions one may hold as a public official that, well, if they cease to be private, raise questions about your understanding of what your public duty is.

Cooper underlined this painfully by simply asking  the assistant Attorney General of Michigan, an officer of the Court and one generally expected to have a broad familiarity with the state of civil and criminal law in his jurisdiction, whether or not his blog met the criteria for cyberbullying as defined by the State of Michigan.

His answer - or rather, his non-answer - was not so much an attempt to dodge a concern he was aware of, it was a revelation that it had never occurred to him. Clearly in his mind there is a "queer-bashing" exception to that definition.

Now, that speaks to him as a rather small and not terribly intelligent person, and he's certainly an embarrassment to people of the faith he claims to share, but that's really not the problem. As an assistant attorney general, one might reasonably expect him to find himself dealing with civil rights cases, harassment and bullying cases and, well, employing "Prosecutorial Discretion."

When you get destroyed on cross by a journalist - well, there are many people that reflects on, whether or not you "choose to comment on matters related to my employment." Any lawyer should realize that a refusal to comment IS a comment. Cooper surely does.

And that comment reflects on those, sir, who thought you were qualified to have a law degree, it reflects on your Church, it reflects on other, less rabid homophobes family values advocates; it reflects upon your boss, the office of the Attorney general, it affects the chances of your boss being re-elected and any ambitions in that direction you might have had. It raises the question as to whether your particular brand of social conservatism respectable or appropriate in a public official.



Oh, and one final note:

After allegedly stalking and harassing Armstrong outside his home, Shirvell, a University of Michigan graduate who cited pride in his alma mater among the reasons for attacking the student body president, was banned from the Michigan campus on Sept. 14 by the University's Department of Public Safety.

There's a bullet point for the resume, Andy me lad.

Huckabee at the Values Voter Nadir

Mike Huckabee Sums it all up:

"It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no preexisting conditions."

I find it hard to summon up an intelligent counter-argument. It's so utterly morally bankrupt, particularly from a man of such conspiciously public "faith" that the most cogent thing I can say is "drink bleach and die in a fire."

Because, well, that's what he just said to you and yours!  So while it may be rude on the face of it, well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Denizens, Attention!

Denizens! Attention!

This is one of my favorite graphic novels at the moment. Noir enough for my taste but with an edge of hope - or at least anticipation.

I don't generally feature graphic novels and comics here - I don't know why not, but I don't. But today I'll make an exception that becomes a new rule. Because frankly, good art outlasts bad politics, and generally it doesn't make me want to punch my monitor. Lesya herself seems far more interesting than Gordon Campell.

Name: Lesya
DOB: October 1st, 1986 ..

well, i was born in Kiev, Ukraine. then we moved to America when i was 8. so i have lived and went to school in Sacramento, California. been through a few states but lived always in Sac. did not like Sac at all.
and then we moved back to Ukraine, which is where i am now.

so English is my 2nd language(or 3rd if you include Russian) i cant spell properly to save my life, but i'm fluent in English. more so then in Ukrainian or Russian. i mean i read like mad, i ought to be.

    if you want to find more art and such by me, check out my Deviant art page.

Speaking of monitors..

i really hate to do this, but right now i have no choice. my brothers monitor died. so we put his computer next to mine and we my monitor. its bigger and better and used to be his. he gave it to me. and for a gamer, thats big.

so we need to buy him a new one. because we cant keep sharing. but right now, we are in a very low money situation. so i'm looking for help. i wont ask you to donate. i dont feel comfortable with that, but would anyone like a commission? help speed up my updates? =) they are not at all expensive, and it would help out a lot!  i could draw you as your fav video game character, or villain. anything really. 

 The opportunity to become a patron of the arts is nigh-irresistible - particularly when it's inexpensive and makes a difference. If only I wasn't down a computer and a monitor myself at this very instant - for I'd absolutely love an original piece by Lisya.

Mr. Dawkens is wrong in the right way.

Do please watch this video in which Richard Dawkens (The God Delusion) affirms that his sect of Athiesm does indeed reject the idea of an "absolute morality" and is, indeed, rather alarmed by the whole thing. 


He then goes on to establish that most people of faith reject many "moral standards" and social norms that are stated in the Bible - slavery and stoning adulterers, for example. He's entirely correct, so far as he goes... Please watch the video, and I'll get into the "however" of it after the jump.