Arlen Specter has been one of my favorite Republicans for a long time. It's not just because of the issues that I agree with him upon such as abortion and increasing the federal minimum wage. There has also been a laundry list of things that I have disagreed with him upon - from gun control to the death penalty to his vote for the PATRIOT Act (yes, I know EVERYBODY but Russ Feingold voted for it, but, that doesn't make it right.).
The reason why I like Arlen Specter has to do with the fact that he has a history of when everybody in the room has reached a consensus of being the guy to go "hey, wait a second." It takes a lot of balls to be a moderate in the incredibly polarized political climate in which we live. There is honestly no political capital to be gained by it because you're always getting your ass kicked from both sides of the aisle. Don't get me wrong. Specter is far from perfect. He is, after all, a human being, and, more over, a politician. Just think about the way that he treated Jim Jeffords when Jeffords decided to leave the Republican Party.
Well, the universe has an odd way of balancing things out. If your girlfriend is always worried about you cheating, she is going to cheat on you. If your boss is always worried about you stealing money from the register, he is going to steal money from the company. And if a senator makes a huge ass out of himself when someone switches parties, he is going to eventually switch parties.
I'm currently a registered independent residing in New Jersey but I've always planned to move in to Philly when my lease is up on my apartment in the summer. When I settled down across the river, I wasn't sure if I was going to register as a Democrat, but, I was pretty sure that I was going to vote for Specter in the general election. The stimulus vote is what did it for me. It showed me that here was a guy that was interested in what was best for the country, regardless of how unpopular it would make him. I also felt that with a Republican party going increasingly rightward, that having a moderate in the mix was good for the country overall. (Because, let's face it - we're a two party system. And if there are going to be two parties - it's best if they're both sane.)
I'm still not sure if I will change my affiliation to Democrat, but, I'm sure now that I'm voting for Specter. Of course, being a Democrat does make him loose his appeal as being a calming influence to the conservative Republicans. But, being a Democrat in what is looking to be a 60 Democratic congress does mean that he will be a calming influence to an increasingly cocky Democratic government. Either way you look at it, Specter is useful in making sure that nobody gets too power crazy.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Congess
I would like to make a request that some of the money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act be used to measure the exact size of the House of Representatives collective testicular fortitude. I want this done, because the amount of balls it takes to regulate and demonize an industry while simultaneously shaking them down for more money than ever before is completely beyond my personal understanding.
I am, of course, referring to the House's passing of a bill that will that would grant unprecedented government regulation to the tobacco industry in the form of making tobacco directly controlled by the FDA a day after raising the cigarette tax by 2.5 times.
Listen, I know that smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States today. Here's the thing: so do all the smokers, and they don't care.
To the Congress and all other people who support this legislation, please understand that we are not living in the 1940's any longer - smoking is not allowed in most public places (which I support), cigarette ads are not allowed on TV or the radio (which I also support), vendors who are caught selling tobacco to minors are heavily fined ( which I ALSO support), and Joe Camel has gone the way of Crystal Pepsi (wondering what my opinion of that is? if you guessed 'I support it', you guessed correctly). It's time for anti-tobacco folks to realize that they've won, and that there is only so much you can do to protect people from themselves.
The thing is, I believe that those that voted for this bill know all that and are only passing this bill to score some brownie points with 'health conscience' voters.
If the industry is such a blight on society, why did the same congress that is hell bent on punishing it today, pass a bill yesterday to raise the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1.01? In other words, if tobacco is such a problem, why do they want more money from its sale? And why is it the tobacco consumer - the person that congress is claiming to try to protect - the one footing the bill? Why not come up ways to have the tobacco producer pay more taxes? Now, I'm sure if that happened, the tobacco industry would of course find a way to work the cost of the tax hike into the product, but, one doesn't need a pair of x-ray goggles to see the blatant desire of the government to want a direct piece of the cigarette money action.
And isn't it odd that the same congress that wants to help poor people is introducing a tax that effects lower income Americans three times as much as upper income Americans? Whether the cigarette tax represents a truly regressive tax is up for debate, but, what is not up for debate is the fact that poor people smoke more than rich people and therefor will pay more than rich people for the cigarette tax.
If the government wants to get some more money by getting some of the action from a wealth producing industry, so be it. But, it is disingenuous to believe that this new bill to more heavily regulate the tobacco industry is anything more than a cynical way to pretend like they give a damn while at the same time creating a few more highly paid government jobs.
By the way, the new regulations will also help to cement the place of Phillip Morris as the head of the tobacco industry, which might explain why the company supports the bill.
I am, of course, referring to the House's passing of a bill that will that would grant unprecedented government regulation to the tobacco industry in the form of making tobacco directly controlled by the FDA a day after raising the cigarette tax by 2.5 times.
Listen, I know that smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States today. Here's the thing: so do all the smokers, and they don't care.
To the Congress and all other people who support this legislation, please understand that we are not living in the 1940's any longer - smoking is not allowed in most public places (which I support), cigarette ads are not allowed on TV or the radio (which I also support), vendors who are caught selling tobacco to minors are heavily fined ( which I ALSO support), and Joe Camel has gone the way of Crystal Pepsi (wondering what my opinion of that is? if you guessed 'I support it', you guessed correctly). It's time for anti-tobacco folks to realize that they've won, and that there is only so much you can do to protect people from themselves.
The thing is, I believe that those that voted for this bill know all that and are only passing this bill to score some brownie points with 'health conscience' voters.
If the industry is such a blight on society, why did the same congress that is hell bent on punishing it today, pass a bill yesterday to raise the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to $1.01? In other words, if tobacco is such a problem, why do they want more money from its sale? And why is it the tobacco consumer - the person that congress is claiming to try to protect - the one footing the bill? Why not come up ways to have the tobacco producer pay more taxes? Now, I'm sure if that happened, the tobacco industry would of course find a way to work the cost of the tax hike into the product, but, one doesn't need a pair of x-ray goggles to see the blatant desire of the government to want a direct piece of the cigarette money action.
And isn't it odd that the same congress that wants to help poor people is introducing a tax that effects lower income Americans three times as much as upper income Americans? Whether the cigarette tax represents a truly regressive tax is up for debate, but, what is not up for debate is the fact that poor people smoke more than rich people and therefor will pay more than rich people for the cigarette tax.
If the government wants to get some more money by getting some of the action from a wealth producing industry, so be it. But, it is disingenuous to believe that this new bill to more heavily regulate the tobacco industry is anything more than a cynical way to pretend like they give a damn while at the same time creating a few more highly paid government jobs.
By the way, the new regulations will also help to cement the place of Phillip Morris as the head of the tobacco industry, which might explain why the company supports the bill.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Obama's Decision To Speak At Notre Dame Commencement Draws Controversery
Whoever would have thunk it? A politician, someone who makes a living having opinions on big issues, would generate controversy when he decides to speak at a university whose religion typically holds the opposite opinion from him on a big issue?
Tired of me speaking in generalities? Fair enough. Obama has decided to speak at Notre Dame's commencement and the pro-life groups don't like it. Allow me to hold back my surprise.
Abortion opponents are planning on making there way from all across the country to display all kinds of graphic photographs in protest. Honestly, I can't believe that anybody would be shocked by the prospect. Protest groups go where they think they will generate the most media attention. When a popular president is involved, you can't get much better in terms of having the spot light.
For the record, I'm pro-choice. My reasons for this is my belief that because the fetus is not a viable, independent being, and that it lives only off of the woman, it is a part of the woman's body and therefor, the woman has the right to make choices about her own body. My own pro-choice beliefs do not impair me from seeing the other sides point of view, and they have a first amendment right to say their peace, even it is in a graphic and socially inappropriate manner.
Others, like, senior Billy Lyman, feel differently:
"Both my grandmothers are coming. They don't want to see that on their way into the ceremony. Nobody should be subjected to that on such a happy day. I'm really concerned the day is going to be marred."
Billy, I suggest you call a doctor and get a prescription for two testicles. Apply immediately and check on their progress often. Welcome to America, Billy, where people are going to say and do things that you don't like on a daily basis. And that includes the day that you go get that diploma. By the way, feeling as though any particular day has a set emotion attached to it (i.e. 'happy day') is rather sophomoric and intellectually devoid of the complex nature of this crazy planet of ours.
If the thought of a couple of disgusting photographs is going to ruin your day, then how is the fact that there are millions of people dying, starving, being raped, and tortured while you go out drinking with your buddies and tell them that you guys are always going to stay in touch sit with you, Billy? The assholes are going to do what they are going to do, and it is your job as a person, to do what you do regardless of how anybody else feels about it. This a major part of being an adult, and I'm rather surprised that nobody told you this in that fancy school of yours. I guess that's Catholic education for you.
And don't worry about your grandmothers, Billy. Both of them have been through a lot already. Hell, they fucked your grandfathers. They may have even had abortions themselves that they never told you about. If they were ever in the health field, they could have performed abortions. Even if that never happened, fact is, they have been through a lot, and they will be just as happy for you getting your diploma with or without a bunch of assholes waving around signs with pictures of dead babies.
Tired of me speaking in generalities? Fair enough. Obama has decided to speak at Notre Dame's commencement and the pro-life groups don't like it. Allow me to hold back my surprise.
Abortion opponents are planning on making there way from all across the country to display all kinds of graphic photographs in protest. Honestly, I can't believe that anybody would be shocked by the prospect. Protest groups go where they think they will generate the most media attention. When a popular president is involved, you can't get much better in terms of having the spot light.
For the record, I'm pro-choice. My reasons for this is my belief that because the fetus is not a viable, independent being, and that it lives only off of the woman, it is a part of the woman's body and therefor, the woman has the right to make choices about her own body. My own pro-choice beliefs do not impair me from seeing the other sides point of view, and they have a first amendment right to say their peace, even it is in a graphic and socially inappropriate manner.
Others, like, senior Billy Lyman, feel differently:
"Both my grandmothers are coming. They don't want to see that on their way into the ceremony. Nobody should be subjected to that on such a happy day. I'm really concerned the day is going to be marred."
Billy, I suggest you call a doctor and get a prescription for two testicles. Apply immediately and check on their progress often. Welcome to America, Billy, where people are going to say and do things that you don't like on a daily basis. And that includes the day that you go get that diploma. By the way, feeling as though any particular day has a set emotion attached to it (i.e. 'happy day') is rather sophomoric and intellectually devoid of the complex nature of this crazy planet of ours.
If the thought of a couple of disgusting photographs is going to ruin your day, then how is the fact that there are millions of people dying, starving, being raped, and tortured while you go out drinking with your buddies and tell them that you guys are always going to stay in touch sit with you, Billy? The assholes are going to do what they are going to do, and it is your job as a person, to do what you do regardless of how anybody else feels about it. This a major part of being an adult, and I'm rather surprised that nobody told you this in that fancy school of yours. I guess that's Catholic education for you.
And don't worry about your grandmothers, Billy. Both of them have been through a lot already. Hell, they fucked your grandfathers. They may have even had abortions themselves that they never told you about. If they were ever in the health field, they could have performed abortions. Even if that never happened, fact is, they have been through a lot, and they will be just as happy for you getting your diploma with or without a bunch of assholes waving around signs with pictures of dead babies.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
WHAT?!
Yes, somebody actually painted this. Yes, they showed it to somebody else, and, for whatever reason allowed the person that they showed it to to scan it.
Now, aside from the obvious and offensvie overtones that Obama somehow wants to turn the US into Mexico, what the fuck is actually doing on in this picture?
What's with all the underwear floating in the middle of nowhere? And underwear clad multi-racial models that a;; have white bodies?
If you were disgusted by this painting and are a glunty for punishment, go to badpaintingsofbarackobama.com.
(props to Andrew Sullivan for being the one to point me in to the webside)
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Understanding The Newspaper Issue
David Horsey has illustrated the real problem we face when it comes to how we get our news.It is no secret that newspapers are going under.
I have heard people express no sympathy for that fact and say that it is simply a changing of the guard in the technology that we use because more people are getting their news from the Internet. Just as the printed word replaced the stone tablet, so will the electronic word replace the printed word, they say.
They're right of course. Such a changing of the guard is inevitable.
Just as the way we get music has been increasingly digitized and the CD falls more and more into obscurity, the same will become true with the printed newspaper as more people get their news from the Internet.
Here's the problem: the people that get us our information are loosing money, and therefor, their ability to obtain information for us.
Just as the music industry came up with iTunes in order to keep up its revenue in a world of changing technology, the news industry must come up with a solution to keep revenue flowing into their industry as well.
Perhaps paying a subscription fee for full online membership, coupled with a nominal fee per article for those that do not have such a membership .
Or maybe developing the "radio model" Jon Stewart proposed on The Daily Show by having the big linkers like The Huffington Post pay for the use of linking to articles by newspapers in the same way that radio stations have to pay for playing a particular song.
Or maybe still, a move to literal electronic newspapers made from increasingly cheaper material that could serve as our "iPods" in this model with websites like the New York Times Online serving as iTunes.
Whatever the solution, the news industry needs to start looking alive, get on its feet, and realize that it needs to adapt, just like other industries have before it, to the ever-changing world of technology.
To avoid the future portrayed in the cartoon, the industry needs to proactively stand to attention and not passively sit on its butt and whine.
I Still Hate Mitt Romney. And Now, Apparently, I Hate CPAC By Proxy
Okay. So conservatives had their traditional CPAC conference today. The conference basically serves as a conservative pep talk, which many leaders would say is much needed for the ideology at this point as they currently wield no major power in Washington. More power to them, they have free speech too.
They, of course had a straw poll to see who the people at the conference would like to see as president in 2012. The leader?
Mitt. Romney.
It's important that I point out that the poll was by no means scientific, it was just of the people who attended CPAC, many candidates are quite clearly in the running as well, and Romney only got 20% of the vote. However, that 20% is still more than anybody else got, which makes him the winner of that poll, which means that he is starting to gain some ground in the Republicans party.
For those who don't know, I hate Mitt Romney, and have previously laid my argument as to why in the best and most even handed detail that I can muster for this pitiful excuse for a man that conservatives, for some mind-numbingly opaque reason, are beginning to embrace more.
Just today I stumbled across this clip from some time back. Mitt Romney is being asked by a man in a wheel chair who suffers from muscular dystrophy whether or not Romney would have him and his doctors arrested for medical marijuana. Romney coldly replies that he is against medical marijuana. That's it. No explanation of policy. No real sympathy for the man's condition. No thought as to what the question means. Just a cold, unsympathetic reply and then the cold shoulder as he walks away.
It is no secret that I am favor of legalizing marijuana. But, the medical marijuana debate is a completely different one than that of the recreational marijuana debate. It is completely possible for one to be against the recreational use of a drug while at the same time have an understanding and appreciation for its controlled and regulated medical benefits. Morphine comes to mind. Anti-depressants as well. Let's not leave out Vicodin. And a host of other very strong drugs that we keep legal under controlled circumstances so that they may be used for specific prescribed medical reasons.
Now, Romney may indeed see the benefits of the medical legalization of marijuana as being outweighed by what he would perceive as negative consequences in the form of setting a precedent for complete legalization. While I find that position to be completely missing the point of the specific medical marijuana issue, that doesn't mean that it is not possible to hold that view while still understanding that very sick people are made better by its use and they have a legitimate concern for being locked up for trying to remedy their sickness. Some empathy. Talking to guy about it in depth. Acting like a goddamned human being.
But, no. Not Mitt Romney.
I try my best to keep things pseudo rational here in this blog, as well as making sure that even while I am using profanity and humorous exaggerations that I still try to maintain an underlying logical argument based in fact and reason. Indulge me as I briefly abandon those principals:
Fuck Mitt Romney. Fuck him in his smug, arrogant, flip-flopping, cocky, 'I was apart of a racist organization as an adult but you can't have freedom without religion', politically opportunistic face. Fuck every hair on his egotistical, phony and abnormally large head.
If the only two viable candidates in an election were Mitt Romney or Paulie Shore, and Paulie Shore was running on a "putting puppies in a meat grinder" platform, I would still vote for Paulie Shore.
Getting back to reality:
I really hope that this CPAC straw poll does not turn out to be a good indication as to who will be the Republican nominee in 2012. Because honestly, if this guy ever becomes president, I think I will be forced to find myself a gigantic hole in the ground filled with adequate food and shelter for four years because I do not know if my fragile mind could handle one second of being a participant in a world where this asshole is the leader of the free world.
They, of course had a straw poll to see who the people at the conference would like to see as president in 2012. The leader?
Mitt. Romney.
It's important that I point out that the poll was by no means scientific, it was just of the people who attended CPAC, many candidates are quite clearly in the running as well, and Romney only got 20% of the vote. However, that 20% is still more than anybody else got, which makes him the winner of that poll, which means that he is starting to gain some ground in the Republicans party.
For those who don't know, I hate Mitt Romney, and have previously laid my argument as to why in the best and most even handed detail that I can muster for this pitiful excuse for a man that conservatives, for some mind-numbingly opaque reason, are beginning to embrace more.
Just today I stumbled across this clip from some time back. Mitt Romney is being asked by a man in a wheel chair who suffers from muscular dystrophy whether or not Romney would have him and his doctors arrested for medical marijuana. Romney coldly replies that he is against medical marijuana. That's it. No explanation of policy. No real sympathy for the man's condition. No thought as to what the question means. Just a cold, unsympathetic reply and then the cold shoulder as he walks away.
It is no secret that I am favor of legalizing marijuana. But, the medical marijuana debate is a completely different one than that of the recreational marijuana debate. It is completely possible for one to be against the recreational use of a drug while at the same time have an understanding and appreciation for its controlled and regulated medical benefits. Morphine comes to mind. Anti-depressants as well. Let's not leave out Vicodin. And a host of other very strong drugs that we keep legal under controlled circumstances so that they may be used for specific prescribed medical reasons.
Now, Romney may indeed see the benefits of the medical legalization of marijuana as being outweighed by what he would perceive as negative consequences in the form of setting a precedent for complete legalization. While I find that position to be completely missing the point of the specific medical marijuana issue, that doesn't mean that it is not possible to hold that view while still understanding that very sick people are made better by its use and they have a legitimate concern for being locked up for trying to remedy their sickness. Some empathy. Talking to guy about it in depth. Acting like a goddamned human being.
But, no. Not Mitt Romney.
I try my best to keep things pseudo rational here in this blog, as well as making sure that even while I am using profanity and humorous exaggerations that I still try to maintain an underlying logical argument based in fact and reason. Indulge me as I briefly abandon those principals:
Fuck Mitt Romney. Fuck him in his smug, arrogant, flip-flopping, cocky, 'I was apart of a racist organization as an adult but you can't have freedom without religion', politically opportunistic face. Fuck every hair on his egotistical, phony and abnormally large head.
If the only two viable candidates in an election were Mitt Romney or Paulie Shore, and Paulie Shore was running on a "putting puppies in a meat grinder" platform, I would still vote for Paulie Shore.
Getting back to reality:
I really hope that this CPAC straw poll does not turn out to be a good indication as to who will be the Republican nominee in 2012. Because honestly, if this guy ever becomes president, I think I will be forced to find myself a gigantic hole in the ground filled with adequate food and shelter for four years because I do not know if my fragile mind could handle one second of being a participant in a world where this asshole is the leader of the free world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
