Results tagged “politics” from KPAO

This is a fantastic article on the recurring tactic for politicians and pundits to shirk responsibility for their past positions claiming "nobody could have known then that this would have happened". Actually, yes, anyone could have known, had they actually taken the time to study all of the information available without bias.

The predominant attribute of American elites is a refusal to take responsibility for any failures.  The favored tactic for accomplishing this evasion is the "nobody-could-have-known" excuse.  Each time something awful occurs -- the 9/11 attack, the Iraq War, the financial crisis, the breaking of levees in New Orleans, the general ineptitude and lawlessness of the Bush administration -- one is subjected to an endless stream of excuse-making from those responsible, insisting that there was no way they "could have known" what was to happen:  "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," Condoleezza Rice infamously said on May 16, 2002, despite multiple FBI and intelligence documents warning of exactly that.  One finds identical excuses for each contemporary American disaster.  Robert Gibbs just invoked the same false excuse:  that "nobody" knew the depth of the financial and unemployment crisis early last year.

And I love the Cheney video clip from 1994 explaining with specific details on why invading Iraq is a bad idea.

First, this is not a "Ground Zero mosque". People are using this phrase disingenuously to imply that the mosque is going to be in the lobby of the freedom tower. We're talking about 2 city blocks away. It would be more apt to call this the "City Hall mosque", as it's closer to city hall and the courthouse than it is to the WTC site.

There is already a mosque (aka masjid) within 2 blocks of the World Trade Center site in NYC. According to the Masjid Manhattan web site, it has been there since 1970. Source: Wonkette

The neighborhood surround the World Trade Center is hardly hallowed ground. It is home to a "Gentleman's Club" (sex), Off-Track Betting (gambling), as well as many fast food restaurants, (which have undoubtedly contributed many more American deaths than terrorists ever have, as one commenter wryly noted). Source: Daryl Lang

The bible has just as much incendiary language encouraging followers to wipe out heretics. For example:

If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities “Let us go and serve other gods,” which ye have not known... Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. Deuteronomy 13

More on The American Muslim.

Can we now move back to discussing issues that matter a hell of a lot more to this country, like the economy, taxes, and the deficit?

More inspiration from Eating Animals by Jonathan Saffran Foer. According to Wikipedia, about 100,000 people die every day from starvation, or about 36 million per year. That's over ½% of the world's population that dies every year from lack of food. It's not a very nice way to go either. Long, drawn out, painful.

So what if we were to make a deal with these folks? We provide food and water to them for 3 to 6 months, or as long as it would take to get them back up to full body weight (and maybe a bit more). But during that time, they are confined to a single room, and can have no contact with the outside world. (OK, we'll allow family and friends to visit, but residents can't leave.) Then we slaughter them (humanely, of course!) and use their meat to feed other starving people? We will have to tweak existing laws to make this work, but I'm sure there are places out there desperate enough to give it a try.

This is basically the "deal" we have going with factory-farmed animals. We give you a few months of life in exchange for the meat on your bones. If it's a fair deal for the animals, it should be for people too, right?

OK, some might be a little put off by the cannibalism component. That's easy enough to solve. We'll feed the human flesh to the livestock, and then feed the livestock back to the people. Meat laundering.

Health Care Reform passed the US House or Representatives last night. But there are 212 Americans who do not deserve its benefits: All of the Republicans, and these 34 Democrats who voted against it:

1. Rep. John Adler (N.J.)
2. Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
3. Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)
4. Rep. John Barrow (Ga.)
5. Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.)
6. Rep. Dan Boren (Ind.)
7. Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.)
8. Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
9. Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.)
10. Rep. Travis Childers (Miss.)
11. Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)
12. Rep. Lincoln Davis (Tenn.)
13. Rep. Chet Edwards (Texas)
14. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
15. Rep. Tim Holden (Pa.)
16. Rep. Larry Kissell (N.C.)
17. Rep. Frank Kratovil (Md.)
18. Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.)
19. Rep. Stephen Lynch (Mass.)
20. Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.)
21. Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)
22. Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
23. Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
24. Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.)
25. Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
26. Rep. Glenn Nye (Va.)
27. Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)
28. Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.)
29. Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.)
30. Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.)
31. Rep. Zack Space (Ohio)
32. Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.)
33. Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
34. Rep. Harry Teague (N.M.)

There is so much irrationality and emotion around this issue, that it makes the few analytical and reasoned analyses appear even more impressive in contrast. Here are two of my favorites:

The Republican's Waterloo by David Frum

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo - just as health care was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Fear Strikes Out by Paul Krugman
For the most part, opponents of reform didn’t even pretend to engage with the reality either of the existing health care system or of the moderate, centrist plan — very close in outline to the reform Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts — that Democrats were proposing. Instead, the emotional core of opposition to reform was blatant fear-mongering, unconstrained either by the facts or by any sense of decency…

Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval… But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?

And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it… In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.

 I read this article in Wired about how Google responds to DMCA notices. This part in particular caught my attention:

The accused blogger must file a counter-claim or, after an unquantified number of complaints — valid or otherwise — the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of “repeat offenders,” even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot — sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.

I got to thinking, would this apply to any hosted content? What about the GOP web site, or whitehouse.gov? Could a copyright holder file claims against these sites, and even if they weren't valid, if you filed enough of them you could effectively force these web sites offline? That'd be pretty cool.

This is pretty cool. The White House has an official Flickr photo stream with some really great (candid, even) shots of Obama, his staff, and his family.

I wonder if there's an official redacting process. The original photos are pretty large, and one might be able to glean info from documents lying around in each shot.

I am hopeful. I am hopeful that the new administration will make policy decisions based not on the intent of the policy, but on the results that it causes. From President Obama's inauguration speech:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

It is my belief that the way to solve the problems plaguing our nation is through innovative policy and legislation. In fact, I think many of the problems in the country today are directly caused by poor policies that--while intentions may have been good--result in many unintended and undesired consequences.

Here are the sorts of ideas we should be investing in.

• Berkeley, CA allows residents to borrow money for solar panels against their property taxes. Read more...
• All vehicles should have real-time mileage feedback to help drivers maximize fuel economy. Read more...
• Build airports on a plateau so that gravity is used to aid airplanes during both takeoff and landing, which significantly reduces fuel consumed. Read more...

You've got to give Obama credit for truly embracing the power of the internet. The Citizen's Briefing Book on Change.gov lets anyone submit an idea for improving the government, and then a Digg-like voting system filters floats the most popular ideas to the top.

Of course it's open for abuse. I wonder how well this new site can withstand the attacks that a site like Digg has already seen and now defends against? I also note that you don't need a SSN or any sort of proof of citizenship to create an account. So people all over the world can (and will) create ideas and vote on them.

Still, it's a good first step in more direct contact with citizens on important issues. If you end up over there, I'd appreciate a vote up on my idea: Make the health care problem our politicians' problem.

Funny place, California. On the one hand, we pass Proposition 8 -- removing the right of same sex couples to marry. It alters the state constitution -- the highest, most sacred law of the state, with a simple majority vote. Meanwhile, the state legislature can't raise taxes one cent without a two-thirds super majority because of the (in-)famous "Prop 13."

I hear people on both sides of both issues complaining about the "rule of the majority" or the "rights of the minority." What I don't hear so much of, is how completely screwed up the entire state political system is because of one entrenched problem: the initiative system is fundamentally broken.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a democrat through and through. Churchill said that "...democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried.." and that sounds about right to me. But let's not forget that there are many forms of democracy, from systems where everyone participates in every decision, to those that essentially elect an autocrat every few years.

I'm not a historian or political scientist, but it seems to me that we in California are essentially expressing our dislike for a current political problem like immature kids. We lash out, throw a tantrum, and make a "They're never going to do that ever again!" kind of rule.

A representative legislature separate from the executive is expressly designed to give reasonable consideration to laws (and constitutional changes). In California, since the Brown Act and the rise of Open Government we have good transparency into the formerly "smoke-filled rooms." I'll go so far as to say there is nothing we have accomplished via a California initiative that we could not have done through the legislative process in a similar amount of time. (And yes, I know there's no way to prove or disprove that).

As an added bonus, if we didn't have to vote for 15 different initiatives, judges, dog-catcher, and so on, our ballots might be simpler, easier to count, and maybe more people might vote.

OK, I'm a bit late on this one since the election was 6 weeks ago. But I recently watched this video where Sol Sender describes the process of creating Barack Obama's brand and the now legendary "O" logo. And designer that I am, I couldn't help but think, "Why not combine the logo and the Gotham font into an Obama branded version of the font?" So I did.

It was pretty straightforward. I grabbed the 1-color logo from the Obama downloads page. I then used VectorMagic to convert it into a vector. Then I opened Gotham Bold (which was the weight closest to that of the logo) in TypeTool and replaced both the majuscule and miniscule O's with a proportionately-scaled logo.

A bit cheesy, perhaps, but then there have been far worse abuses of the Obama brand.

Update: And just for fun, I created the Obama sez "LOOK..." site.

Update: An official movement is underway to get this issue on the California ballot in 2010. Click here for more info on the2010 California Marriage Protection Act .

I'm overall happy with the results of the election. I, for one, was convinced Obama was presidential from the time I heard him speak at the Democratic convention a few years back.

But this whole proposition 8, banning gay marriage thing is just puzzling. Their tag line is Protect Marriage. But from what? Proponents claim "It protects children from being taught in public schools that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage...", but it doesn't shield anyone from the fact that gays are fellow citizens and live their lives in the same ways that straights do. Even if gays can't legally marry, they can still love, and live together, and yes even have & raise children.

So it appears there is a majority of people in California in favor of "protecting marriage". Great, then let's do it right. I propose we put another proposition on the next ballot that outlaws divorce. Divorce only serves to weaken the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is meaningless if you can enter and leave it on a whim as you would a boutique at the mall.

I haven't thought too much about the specific language of the bill yet, but here's a first draft. Please help me refine it in the comments.

1. People may only marry once. Once married you may not divorce. Once married, you may not marry again.
2. Divorces granted in other states will not be recognized.
3. The courts will not get involved with "custody" for married couples who choose to live apart for whatever reason. It is up to them to figure things out.
4. If you are married and have kids (minors), you are responsible for them until they reach adulthood, no matter where you live and what your financial situation. You will be held accountable, including being convicted of child neglect.
5. The same goes for your spouse. By entering into marriage, you are legally bound to them to support them for the rest of your life. And you will be held accountable to this.

Who's with me? Help me really restore the sanctity of marriage. Sign the petition.

Not sure how to vote this year on the California propositions? Do you just want a bit more data to make you feel more sure of your decisions? Then head on over to PeteRates.com and read Pete's simple, straightforward reasoning on each one.

Or you can use my technique: when in doubt, vote no. The exception this year is Prop 2. Please vote yes on 2. Because you know just by looking at this picture that the current treatment of factory farmed animals is cruel, inhumane, and quite simply wrong.

On Oct 28, John McCain and Sarah Palin to cancelled a rally in Quakertown, PA due to the weather: a cold, steady rain and driving winds. Barack Obama ignored such pedestrian issues and went on with his rally at Widener University in Chester, PA, addressing a crowd of about 9,000.

I think this picture says it all.

It's clips like these that make me think The Daily Show is the most important political commentary in America today. Who else is doing this sort of expose work and presenting it in a way that the is compelling and entertaining so that reaches so many people? They are a true paragon of the First Amendment. 

I stumbled across this site in my wanderings across the InterWebs yesterday, and it looks pretty amazing. It's has great data visualizations of the most recent political polls on the presidential election. Unfortunately, it looks like Obama was ahead, until McCain's announcement of Palin on his ticket, which pushed him into the lead.

Check it out. And do what you can to help Obama win the critical swing states: Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio, and Michigan.

My wife and I have worked out  a system where one apologizes to the other when they do something that hurts the other one's feelings. This can be a bit challenging, especially if you don't think the situation warrants an apology (I think this is one of those Mars/Venus differences  -- woman tend to be more interested in the feelings of others regardless of value judgments of right or wrong. Me -- I've got a pretty strong sense of justice that clouds my empathy).

So initially when I apologized, I would often say something like "I'm sorry you took that the wrong way" or "I'm sorry your feelings were hurt." Of course the "I'm sorry you..." part isn't taking personal responsibility for the action at all. It's an apology loophole; the words sound like an apology, but the meaning isn't there. We've agreed that "I'm sorry you..." apologies don't count as a true apology. And in fact we now use them as a joke way to apologize in our little amusing banters.

I bring this up because a couple years ago, the Pope tried to get away with an "I'm sorry you..." apology to Muslims for an offensive quote he cited in a recent speech.

I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address which were considered offensive.

And here I thought this guy was supposed to be infallable.

The NY Times published this really interesting chart (above) on where the gas price increases are having their biggest effect. Not surprisingly, it's in areas that are relatively poor and rural, where people undoubtedly need to drive long distances for work, school, shopping, and even socializing. I wonder how this might effect the election... 

Here is the letter I sent to her today. I encourage you all to not vote for her in any future elections in which she may run.

---

This American Life did a great overview on how the sub-prime mortgage crisis came to be, told in their typical style with rich characters who have interesting backgrounds and anecdotes. It's an hour long, but well worth the listen. Put it on your digital music player of choice and listen to it in the car.