Bait a Hook

Nothin' like a little fishin' to rest and relax.


Every now and then I need to jump over to my Radio Station hobby and play a little music or put up a music video for you all to enjoy. I certianly hope every one of you listens to WIZARD RADIO. There's a widget over on the upper right side of this blog for easy access.


My only "political" thought for today is that I read virtually all the blogs written by folks who comment here.  And I follow over three hundred fine politically orientated folks on Twitter, both Left and Right.  All too often too many of us jump to quick and occasionally stupid conclusions about our (supposed) opposition.  On Twitter people can get especially mean spirited.  


This video might be a good lesson for us about jumping to conclusions about other people.  I love that old saying... When you ASSUME... you just make an ASS out of U and ME.


Have fun and have a great day!

Blackout

Tragically, SOPA and PIPA are not characters from Grimm's Fairly Tales, although their potential to harm rivals the most evil characters the Grimm Brothers ever imagined.  


In reality SOPA and PIPA are the acronyms for the two bills in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate designed in Machiavellian fashion by panicked Hollywood moguls to protect their stranglehold on the creative arts.  Their highly paid minions in Congress will claim that SOPA (short for the "Stop Online Piracy Act") and PIPA (short for "Protect Intellectual Property Act") are merely modest efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites.  However, it's not about protecting copyrights at all, it's actually about control, protecting profits and, ultimately, censorship.


SOPA and PIPA are designed in a way that infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Both acts criminalize the act of providing links, the very backbone of the Internet.  Hence, if I link, however innocently, to a site that host stolen copyrighted content (like YouTube, for example), my blog site might be closed down.


Detailed information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia. 


GovTrack lets you follow both bills through the legislative process: SOPA on this page, and PIPA on this one. 


The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for the public interest in the digital realm, has summarized why these bills are simply unacceptable in a world that values an open, secure, and free Internet.

Am I Kidding? ....errr, No

The Silly Super Committee Blame Game

Thank God Joe Scarborough gets it, because I swear not one other commentator, left or right, sees the truth of the Super Committee's failure.  For today's politicians, it's all the blame game.




Joe Scarborough said, in part:


“Blaming Grover Norquist for this collapse is the lamest Democratic fiction since the Tonkin Gulf incident [used to justify American intervention in Vietnam]. Like LBJ said a couple of years later, they were shooting at ghosts or whales, and yet that was his excuse to go into Vietnam.


"Grover Norquist, for anybody that works in Washington, D.C., understands that, like a lot of people in Washington, he’s got his own point of view. But Grover holds no magical power over anybody. … He’s not really a powerful guy. His idea may be powerful to conservatives, but he in of himself is not a powerful guy.”


“Democrats have the president of the United States, right? They’ve got the United States Senate — the world’s most deliberative body, the upper chamber. What else do they call them? America’s most exclusive club. They haven’t produced a budget in over 900 days."


"The president of the United States, a Democrat, appoints a commission to take care of the debt. And then he ignores everything that commission says."


"Anybody today trying to blame Grover Norquist or to suggest that Grover Norquist is somehow more powerful than the president of the United States and the United States Senate, which everybody in Washington knows runs Washington. It’s not the House. It is the upper chamber. And the Democrats own it. They are close to a monopoly of Washington, D.C., but to blame this on Grover Norquist is laughable.” 


"This is a straw man to end all straw men.  Grover Norquist has been a straw man. Republicans haven’t even been in charge of the House of Representatives for a year. It’s as if 2009 and 2010 and the massive deficits that were accumulated then didn’t even exist. But, again, I’m blaming both sides today. Both sides have their feet in ideological cement. But Grover Norquist is a straw man."


"These same Democrats that said that George W. Bush abused the powers of office and, ‘Oh, the executive branch had become too powerful,’ are now suggesting Barack Obama, who, by the way, has been completely AWOL on this issue, is powerless? A man who put a debt commission in — he put Simpson/Bowles together and then completely threw them under the bus."


"Mika, you and I, if I ever come back, then I’ll shut up, we have to get Senate Democrats on this program and start asking them exactly why, in the midst of America’s greatest budgetary crisis in 235 years, they have refused, stubbornly, to produce a budget for over 900 days.”


“The president of the United States is still president of the United States. Democrats still control the United States Senate. Grover Norquist’s idea may be a strong one. Grover Norquist has absolutely no power in Washington, D.C. other than the idea he carries. And I am so surprised that Democrats really believe that the presidency is as weak as they believe it is now. That this president couldn’t step forward and show at least a little bit of leadership. He has been AWOL since he and [House Speaker John] Boehner failed on the debt ceiling. He better engage quickly or else we’re going the way of Europe.”


The above is an abridged transcript of Scarborough's comments taken from Jeff Poor's excellent article in The Daily Caller. Read it all here: Scarborough scolds MSNBC colleagues: Stop blaming Grover Norquist

Why Mitt Can't Win

This is a really short post prompted by the new POLL showing the Newt Gringrich is about to pass Mitt Romney even n the "firewall" state of New Hampshire.  Here is the link: Poll: Gingrich, Romney in Dead Heat in N.H. 

Here's Mitt's problem in a nutshell. The Mitt Romney who was the excellent governor of Massachusetts could have won easily. I would certainly have chosen him over Barack Obama and so would many others. He was the perfect Republican, intelligent, thoughtful, compassionate and honest. He could have easily overcome the few issues where he didn't match the far right wing of the Republican Party. 


But that Mitt isn't running. Instead he reinvented himself into the far right wing Romney. His problem is that nobody believes him. Those who appreciated the bravery of the original Romney feel betrayed he has so easily abandoned his principles. And far right conservatives just think he's full of shit. 


His only support comes because the liberal media keeps telling Republicans, desperate for a victory, that Mitt's the only candidate who can beat Obama. But there is no passion there. Hell, there's no there, there. Mitt would go down to defeat in a pattern similar to John McCain. 


Republican's have no enthusiasm for Romney. There will be no grass roots effort. The election will be boring with everyone from both sides staying at home. 


Now, I'm on record saying nobody currently running can beat Obama, so it hardly matters. Newt, Mitt, Herman, Rick... they'll all go down to defeat. 


I've often said that a candidates ability to hold to his principles matter more to me that party or even political positions. With that standard it's not possible for me to vote for Mitt.

Political Correctness is Soooo Much Sweeter Than Actual Freedom

This blog started almost 20 years ago principally to defend freedom of speech and to be certain that the cherished freedoms we have in the real world extends into the internet.  Twenty years later those freedom are still under assault, both in the real world and on the Internet.


But my source of outrage today....  well, not outrage as much as disappointment is an article that appears in Time Magazine's Opinion Section on-line written by Bruce Crumley.  In my constant war to protect free speech I have always counted on virtually all journalists and major publishers as trustworthy allies.  Time Magazine and Mr. Crumley have defected to the other side.

The headline of Mr. Crumley's Op-Ed is Firebombed French Paper Is No Free Speech Martyr You can click on the headline to read the entire article, I'm only going to reprint a small portion below.


 .... The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists .... 


 .... the coarse and heavy-handed Islamist theme of the current edition of Charlie Hebdo. As part of its gag, the paper had re-named itself “Sharia Hebdo”. It also claimed to have invited Mohammed as its guest editor to “celebrate the victory” of the Islamist Ennahda party in Tunisia's first free elections last week. In addition to satirical articles on Islam-themed topics, the paper contains drawings of Mohammed in cartoons featuring Charlie Hebdo's trademark over-the-top (and frequently not “ha-ha funny”) humor. The cover, for example, features a crudely-drawn cartoon of the Prophet saying “100 Whip Lashes If You Don't Die Of Laughter.” Maybe you had to be there when it was first sketched. 


.... free societies have to exercise a minimum of intelligence, calculation, civility and decency in practicing their rights and liberties—and that isn't happening when a newspaper decides to mock an entire faith on the logic that it can claim to make a politically noble statement by gratuitously pissing people off. Defending freedom of expression in the face of oppression is one thing; insisting on the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile. Baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well. And within a climate where violent response—however illegitimate—is a real risk ....


Aside from the all too obvious "let's blame the girl for getting raped because she wore a short dress" theme of his diatribe, the conclusion of Mr. Crumley's essay is that we shouldn't needlessly offend a large portion of the population, especially if you're not very funny.


Mr. Crumley wants to place two limitations on free speech. First you must not needlessly offend a large segment of the population.  This begs the question of how we might determine the need to offend.  If I campaign here in Mississippi against the certain to pass "Right to Life" Amendment 26 I am certain to offend a majority of the population who believes abortion should be banned.  My efforts will be futile, but are they "needless?"


Secondly, Mr Crumley wants the standard to be that the offending speech be really funny, or perhaps of sufficiently high literary quality.  Certainly my writing is of inferior quality and not funny at all. So my campaign for a woman's right to choose fails on both points.


Obviously, in the gospel according to Crumley, I must just shut up.


Fortunately for Bruce Crumley, I strongly disagree with everything he wrote.  Therefore I am able to staunchly defend his right to write an insanely stupid, poorly written, terribly unfunny, horribly offensive article in Time Magazine.  And I will condemn anyone who chooses to firebomb his office or otherwise attack his free speech rights.

Inexcusible

I've often discussed the primary difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans distrust the Government and Democrats distrust Corporations.  Obviously this has little to do with Liberal versus Conservative philosophies, although there is a small overlap.  Liberals often need the Government to achieve their goals.


So here I am stuck with strong Liberals values, but with a deep understanding of that Government bureaucracy almost always fails and fails miserably at absolutely everything it does.  There are some tasks only government can fulfill like the military, but even then expect waste, corruption and incompetence.


I HATE Democrats (even though I am one) because they often apologize or even deny these failures in an effort to defend their selfish use of government for almost everything.  It's all about power, power for the party in power, instead about doing what's best for the people.


We have a situation on California that clearly illustrates government's continuous and absolute failure to do any job right.  And when government fouls up people are hurt or die.  In this case we simply threw thousands of children to the wolves.

In spites of warnings, instructions, cries for help and pleading, the Child Welfare Services never took the time to check if registered sex offenders were caring for Foster Children!   They gave vulnerable children to over 1,000 Sex Offenders!! That's right, Child Services, charged with the responsibility of  removing children from potentially dangerous home situations, were turning around and placing them in even more danger!!


No government employee checked. Not once, not ever! And it would have been simple because California has a computerized list of sex offenders.


Of course excuses will now flow like water. Not enough money will be the leading excuse.  The legislature never passed a law making it illegal for sex offenders to care for foster children will be another.  But, in reality, it's not enough accountability.  If a few hundred people instantly lost their jobs (and that should, but will not, happen) this situation could and would change.  But mostly we'll get hand wringing and excuses.

We Seriously Need A Better Quality of Protester

File under Tea Party Protester Envy.


Ann Coulter wrote a devastating column in which she was 100% correct. Colter wrote (in part):

"I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point."

"Tea partiers didn't block traffic, sleep on sidewalks, wear ski masks, fight with the police or urinate in public. They read the Constitution, made serious policy arguments, and petitioned the government against Obama's unconstitutional big government policies, especially the stimulus bill and Obamacare." 

"Then they picked up their own trash and quietly went home. Apparently, a lot of them had to be at work in the morning."

Damn but Coulter is right. The Tea Party folks had literally hundreds of individual protests and involved hundreds of thousands of protesters with virtually no arrests, no destruction of property and organization and cleanliness that was stunning.  Most parks, streets and protest venues were left cleaner than before the protests began.


The Occupy Wall Street protests are now limping across America, but have no logic, no intelligent commentary and virtually no point. But there are plenty of arrests and tons of garbage and filth.

Videos abound showing the tragically uninformed protesting the banks and bankers, the wealthy and super rich and the high price of broccoli. Demands include, but are not limited to forgiveness of all debt, especially student loans and all mortgages, guaranteed jobs for everyone at high wages, and that all retirees can vacation in Cancun (no joke).




Some rally around President Obama, others call him a traitor. Many call for the overthrow of the government and the abolition of capitalism.


What's even more frightening is how many Democrat politicians and pundits have endorsed their cause, what ever-the-hell that might or might not be. Even President Obama and Vice President Biden have added their voice of support. Nancy Pelosi, who we must remember was terrified of the law abiding Tea Partiers, Has heartily endorsed the Occupy Wall Street Crowd and many other Dems have given them moral support.

Keith Olbermann is their biggest and most visible supporter. I guess he's praying he can become to the Occupy Wall Street crowd what Glenn Beck was to the Tea Partiers and ride the movement to giant protests and a television special on the capital mall. The problem is Olbermann has to carefully chose his interviews and generally supply meaning and message when none is actually there. If only the entire rest of the national media had stayed away and hadn't reported the truth about the protests. Alas, Olbermann look more like an idiot with each passing day.


The final insult is that, in order to move the protests nationwide, politicians and union members have had to print up signs and then pay illegal immigrants and out of work union members to carry the signs.  Many of the pseudo-protesters do not speak English and have no idea what the signs even say.

The Struggle Between Consumption and Conservation

One of the most riviting, most compelling, best written filmed and produced commercials I've ever seen. Showing in Great Britain only. The voice over is done by Jeremy Clarkson, who I genuinely believe means every single word he says.....

Want to Know What Republicans REALLY THINK? Ask one.

Here is a novel idea, one I'm certain my fellow Liberals will ignore.  If you really want to know what motivates Republicans, or conservatives or (gasp!) tea party followers, just ask one.  And then seriously listen to their answers.


Don't interrupt them.  Don't insult them.  Don't demonize them.  Ask intelligent follow up questions.  Make a genuine effort to understand positions and solutions that are different from your own.


I'm certainly not suggesting you agree with them.  Just that you actually listen and attempt to understand.


You have to do this yourself, because the television networks we know and love seem incapable of doing it for us.


I am appalled and distressed at the nonsense, hyperbole, falsehoods, half truths and outright lies being foisted upon us Liberals every night by the hosts and guests on MSNBC and Current TV's Keith Olbermann show.  Rachel Maddow will tell you what conservatives think.  Al Sharpton will tell you how evil and duplicitous conservatives are.  Then Ed Schultz will tell you that the Tea Party is plotting the overthrow of mankind.


They will occasionally parade supposed conservative guests before us, people who are either not conservatives at all or who are foolish caricatures of what we Liberals WANT to believe conservatives really are.  I have genuinely NEVER seen a real, credible or articulate conservative on MSNBC.  To see those folks (and there are plenty of them) you need to turn to Fox News. 

No, what we get on MSNBC are guests who are the Washington Generals to the Maddow, O'Donnell and Schultz version of The Harlem Globetrotters.  This way Maddow et al can tell us that  "Tea Party Leaders" are idiots and them produce a living example to prove her point.


There was a time when Rachel Maddow was an excellent and articulate spokesperson for the left back when she was a guest of the ill fated Tucker Carlson Show.  Carlson was no match for Maddow, she is brighter, more articulate and more likeable that Tucker Carlson.  But he kept her honest!  Now, she is guilty nightly of spewing propoganda, generally telling only half of any story.

Health Insurance Now Cost MORE Than a New Car - Every Year!!

"Health Insurance Costs More Than a New Car" is certainly a Drudge worthy headline.  He has a eye for the grabber headline that yields massive click-thrus.  And this one sure caught my eye.


But in this case the click through from Drudge leads you to an honest to goodness news story in POLITCO (not even an op-ed piece).  But it's still a scary story.  Family Health Insurance for the average family in America now exceeds $15,000.00 a year.  That's more than the cost of a new Ford Fiesta. Every single year!


You could have a Jay Leno sized garage full of cars in just a few short years if you simply stopped buying Health Insurance!!


How can this possibly happen?  The key is that the average American doesn't realize how much he is being charged.  His or her costs are partially paid by the employer and the balance is split up by paycheck, between 24 and 52 payments a year, so they seem smaller than they actually are.


The POLITICO article goes out of its way to make certain readers know that OBAMACARE (or the Affordable Care Act) is NOT the reason for these huge premiums, it's mostly actual increases in healthcare costs.  In fact the POLITICO article points out that Obamacare may hold back future cost increases.


But this is reality and the article makes clear that these costs are increasing much faster than the rate of inflation.  I believe the so-called Affordable Care Act is not part of any solution.  I'm sorry the bill became so politically charged that real compromise was never even considered.  Republicans and Democrats share the blame equally.  Although I feel Nancy Pelosi was primary the architect of this fiasco.


Market forces could reduce these costs, but only once the actual payer, the patient or the employee, understands how much he is really paying.  Our system of employer paid health insurance hides the real costs from the insured, while forcing the uninsured into certain bankruptcy.

George Washington Wrote the Tea Party Agenda

Thanks to the wonderful Garrison Keillor and The Writer's Almanac on National Public Radio I learned that President George Washington published his famous Farewell Address 215 years ago today, on September 19, 1796. This address was never spoken or delivered to an audience, it was published in newspapers around the country.


After listening to Keillor, I decided to read the original address myself. Here is a link ot a PDF of the address in it's entirety: Washington's Farewell Address to the People of the United States.  It's a difficult read as English isn't the same language it was 215 years ago.  And Washington was verbose.  No 140 character tweets here.


According to historical accounts, Washington took over four years to write this address.  He had significant help from James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.  He had things he wanted to say, things he felt were important.


As many of you already know I have frequent breakfasts and lunches with a group of conservative Tea Party types who hold the majority here in rural central Mississippi.  These folks are most assuredly clinging to their guns and bibles.  We engage in lively, but good spirited debates.  


As I read Washington's Farewell Address (for the first time ever, I'm embarrassed to admit), I was struck that I read virtually EXACTLY what my breakfast Tea Party companions have been saying.  Not just sort of saying, but damned near word for word.  I don't know if ANY of these folks ever read Washington's Farewell Address.  They certainly don't ever claim to be quoting Washington, but they sure share his beliefs.


Washington had five major points of advice to his countrymen in his address.  To say Washington was passionate would be an understatement.

1. Washington believed strongly in the importance of a balanced budget.  He felt our good credit was critical to the very survival of the nation.
2. Washington believed in the importance of Religion and national morality.  Folks I'm not making this up, read it for yourself.  Let me quote Washington: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
3. Washington believed in the importance of avoiding permanent foreign alliances.  To paraphrase he certainly wouldn't believe in Nation Building, nor would he ever want the United States become subservient to any foreign body.
4. Washington feared Constitutional Amendments might weaken the Federal Government.  OK. he certainly called that one wrong, but he believed in a strong federal government.
5. Washington Feared and Warned Against Political Parties.  My Tea Party breakfast companions and I don't often agree, but we're certainly together on this one.  Nothing hurts our society today more than the political parties that work only for power and rarely for the good of the people.

Although it's common to believe the Tea Party is an offshoot of the Republican Party, nothing could be further from the truth.  Tea Parties turn on Republicans quickly and field primary opponents to oust those who don't agree with their principles.

This is all food for thought.  Washington's words have wisdom, but they are 215 years old.  We occasionally accuse Tea Party conservatives of living in the past.   Some things have changed.  Some things haven't.