Why People Hate the MSM: Neil Cavuto

Sorry, I don't mean to turn this blog into a 'Ron Paul on YouTube' site, honestly. I post the following video to illustrate why people hate the mainstream media and the way it presents the news, shapes discourse, and subtly slants the debate.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the insufferable Neil Cavuto, interviewing Ron Paul today:






OK, deep breaths.

Calm blue ocean...

OK, I'm good.

Seriously, Neil Cavuto: what is your motherfucking problem?

Let's catalog what's wrong with this "interview":

1. Cavuto takes up nearly 6 minutes of a presidential candidate's time to talk about the motherfucking Brown tax evasion case. Really, there aren't more pressing, bigger picture issues you'd like to inquire of a man running for president? Discussing the Brown situation is fine, I suppose, but how many times can Ron state his positions and then move on? Which leads us to...

2. Cavuto keeps trying to goad Ron into a "gotcha" moment by transparently and egregiously deploying a straw man: "So what you're saying is the Browns are like Gandhi, MLK, Jesus, and Buddha all rolled into one super-deity?" "So you're saying you're against taxes?" This is bullshit for two reasons: one, Cavuto's trying to get a soundbite he knows will play well with Ron's state-media opponents, and two, he frames the question in such a way as to marginalize and dismiss the very position he wants Ron to defend. My GOD, you're against...taxes? We can't have such a debate in this country! When the state plunders its citizens and calls it "taxation," we all agree that's legitimate, right?!? Civil disobedience? In this country? Madness! Sheer madness, I say!

3. If you invite a man to be a guest on your program, at least have enough respect, courtesy, and decency to allow the man to answer your motherfucking questions. Quit interrupting with your manufactured indignation and shallow understanding of the man's convictions. Shut the fuck up and let the man explain himself. You might learn something, asshole.

4. Either Cavuto has cultivated that smarmy, imperious, self-important persona for his program, or he really is that big a douchenozzle. Either way, he's the perfect exemplar of why many people are turning off the mainstream media: we're sick of being condescended to by pompous windbags in expensive suits. We're tired of the "debate" consisting of 6 minutes of badgering in a pitiful attempt to marginalize a good man. We've had it with a media that cares more about ratings than edifying; that focuses increasingly on the likes of Paris Hilton and TomKat instead of actually, you know, questioning things. It's pretty obvious the media dispenses information but not wisdom.

Anyway, back to Neil Cavuto: after watching him in this clip, I'm reminded of the scene from "Good Morning Vietnam" where Robin Williams tells JT Walsh:

"You know, you're in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history."

[h/t to LRC]

The Unfree Country Chronicles: "It's meant to be refreshing. It's not meant to be intoxicating."

The powers that be in this country say that "the terrists hate us for our freedom," so just to be safe, they've decided to do away with both:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (NEWS CENTER) -- You're not supposed to call them "Beer" popsicles, but government regulators say that's what they are. Now, their investigators are trying to stop an Alexandria restaurant and bar from introducing the adult treats to their patrons.

Chef Frank Morales makes the popsicles by cooking the beer with bits of fruit and a liquid that he calls his secret ingredient.

"It's meant to be refreshing," he says, "It's not meant to be intoxicating."

One restaurant-goer says, "I think it's a great idea! It's refreshing and tasty. You can't go wrong with it."

But Alexandria's Alcoholic Beverage Control regulators say there's plenty wrong. They say beer popsicles are illegal because beer must be served directly from its original container or right from the tap. [READ MORE]

Next in the regulators' crosshairs: beer-battered shrimp. The proprietor of this site may need to go into hiding.

[h/t to FARK]

This Is Awesome

In a mere 1:31, this brilliant little spoof manages to skewer politicians, pharmaceutical ads, and the drug war with equal precision.

Incarcerex:





h/t to Reason Magazine via reddit

Notes on the Republican Debate, Jackson Pollock-style

...and by that I mean rendered in haphazard splatters by a bald, and possibly drunk, proprietor. Let's get to it!

*The onstage arrangement of the candidates is pretty dang telling, don't you think? Could CNN be any more transparent about its rooting interests? Front and center: Rudy McRomney. Shunted off to the very edges -- as literal representations of the "fringe" candidates -- are Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul. You suck, CNN.

*Geez, I'm sure glad nobody thought to pose the healthcare questions to the only medical doctor on stage. That would be crazy!

*Duncan Hunter: please, just shut up. He delivers his answers like a junior varsity coach who takes himself and his job a little too seriously. And he had the audacity to suggest that he's more committed to cutting government than any other Republican candidate. Which left Ron Paul supporters feeling like this:

*Mike Huckabee is a fervent believer in creationism. This is weird, because it illustrates how oddball beliefs can become mainstream as long as they're steeped in religious convictions. Look at it this way: if a presidential candidate believed life on earth originated in some space alien's petri dish, and that magic mushrooms were put here deliberately to accelerate our evolution, he'd be labeled a crackpot and summarily dismissed. But are those ideas any more loopy than literal belief in the creation story? Just saying, one idea is acceptable to express in public, the other is not. Ours is a fucked up society.

*Although lacking in fireworks or even much intrigue, this debate was for me a watershed moment, because Rudy Giuliani demonstrated quite plainly why he is unfit to be president. He feels the need to answer EVERY QUESTION even when not given the floor; it's like he loves the sound of his own nasal lisp. I wish that smug, officious, narcissistic, attention-whoring megalomaniac would shut the fuck up already. It's crazy that the totalitarian Rudy has been polling as the frontrunner. The guy seeks to ratchet up the Iraq war, refuses to disavow the insane "nuclear option" against Iran, and intends to foist a national ID card on the people of this country. Utterly insane.

I feel the exact same way whenever you open your piehole, Rudy.

*I'm no supporter of Tom Tancredo's, but he did have the best line of the night: asked what role George W. Bush might play in a Tancredo administration, the latter relayed how his criticism of Dubya's immigration policy led an angry Karl Rove to warn him to "Never darken the door of the White House again." Tancredo said: "I would have to tell George Bush the exact same thing Karl Rove told me." Well played, sir.

*If you slapped a turtleneck and bad mustache on Mitt Romney, he'd look like a bad villain from a 70's cop drama, no? I don't trust that guy AT ALL.

*Winners: war, nuclear options, statism, Wolf Blitzer, 9/11, lightning, pandering, the media, banality.

*Losers: peace, freedom, liberty, Iran, immigration, honesty, puppies, sunshine, the American public.

Ron Paul vs. the Establishment

Please invest 10 minutes of your day to watch this compilation of Ron Paul's responses from the other night's Republican presidential debate:





Tell me: what was so unreasonable or objectionable in anything he said?

I want you to watch Giuliani's reaction around the 6:09 mark: he's angry, yes, but I see something else in his eyes: fear. Benito Giuliani and the rest of the establishment is afraid of Ron Paul and the truth he speaks. If you don't believe me, check out the desperation spewing from the neocon spin machine:

• Hannity
  
• Hewitt
• Goldberg

Condemnation from these authoritarian creeps is the greatest possible endorsement of Dr. Paul's candidacy.

Randomly:

1. Reading the various smears and straw men being perpetrated against Dr. Paul reminds me of Mahatma Ghandi's famous quote:

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

2. Don't miss two brilliant columns from LRC today:

• Ron Paul Said It by Lew Rockwell
• Ron Paul Violated the Rules by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

3. Oh, and Rush Limbaugh, John Gibson/Michelle Malkin, FOX News in general and Carl Cameron in particular, and Elisabeth Hasselbeck can all kindly go fuck themselves.

why he's NOT the man

The other day my friend Adam sent an e-mail with the tantalizing subject header, "why he's the man." Who? WHO is the man? I had to know. But upon opening the e-mail I found only a link to an article about Dennis Kucinich filing impeachment articles against VP/asshole supreme Dick Cheney:

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich filed articles of impeachment Tuesday against Vice President Dick Cheney, saying his action is driven by a desire to defend Americans' right "to have a government that is honest and peaceful." [BWAHAHAHAHA! --Ed.] [Read more]

Given the options, Kucinich may be the best of a dismal Democratic lot. He has been solid on Iraq and for mostly the right reasons. But he is "a commie" as Lew Rockwell points out and absolutely awful on economic matters. Kucinich's answer for every state-created mess is another government program. The man's faith in the state is unshakeable. Like most politicians, he has zero confidence in the market or in society's ability to manage itself. He's preferable to the soulless harpy Hillary but that's damning with faint praise.

There is only ONE presidential candidate who truly favors freedom and peace. You want to know who the man really is? Look no further than Ron Paul...

Finally, Some Campaign Posters That Tell the Truth

FARK ran a recent Photoshop contest whose theme was "Convert an old Soviet propaganda poster or mural into a campaign ad for the 2008 U.S. elections." The entries here are incredibly creative and feature a decidedly libertarian bent.

This one's my favorite:




Links:
Inspiration & source material here

FARK Photoshop contest here

passed over

This year my employer -- a fairly huge, well-known corporation that I decline to name here -- gave out oversized calendars for us carbon blobs to hang in our cubes. Each month highlights a different event or occasion that takes place within that month. It's a nice gesture and the calendar itself features cheerful artwork colored in bright, festive hues. Nice, huh?

So I'm checking out the calendar today in order to brush up on April's featured event: turns out that in Hong Kong they honor the sea goddess Tin Hau every April. According to the calendar:

"Every April, Hong Kong pays tribute to Tin Hau, goddess of the sea. Her birthday is celebrated to bring safety, security, fine weather and full nets during the coming year. There are celebrations at Tin Hau temples in different districts in Hong Kong. Boats are decorated with colorful ribbons praising the goddess for past protection and praying for future luck."

Hey, that's pretty cool. So what else is worthy of commemorating in April, according to my employer's calendar?

Sunday, 4/1: April Fool’s Day, Palm Sunday
Friday, 4/6: Good Friday
Sunday, 4/8: Easter
Sunday, 4/22: Earth Day
Wednesday, 4/25: Administrative Professionals Day

So let's see...we have Tin Hau tributes in Hong Kong, OK. Earth Day -- a little socialist for my tastes, but all right, keep the hippies happy. Administrative Professionals Day...well, that's important, gotta show support for the people who support you, right?

But I can't help but feel that something's missing from the list. Hmmm...what could it be?

Hey, I know: PASSOVER! Only one of the holiest days celebrated by Jews the world over! Think Seder, plagues, matzoh, Charlton Heston -- ring a bell??? It starts TONIGHT, in case anyone was wondering.

Now, I'm the farthest thing from one of those perpetually aggrieved victim types. Many of my people are just looking for perceived slights, insults, and reasons to kvetch -- which dilutes the thankfully few instances of genuine anti-Semitism we may encounter. I point out this omission, which I'm sure was an honest oversight, not to cry anti-Semitism or embarrass my employer but to illustrate how sensitivities seem to have changed.

Seriously, maybe this is a good thing: when corporate America is more paranoid about political and class pressures (freaking Earth Day and Administrative Professionals Day?) than acknowledging holidays of historically persecuted religious minorities, well...I don't know if that's progress but at least they're focusing on something else.

Still, even my Simpsons desk calendar remembered Passover...

it's kind of like an arctic mindbath

So I finally upgraded to Blogger 2 Electric Boogaloo, and after a little tinkering, toying, and surfing for new templates...I decided to overhaul the whole damn thing.

Questions, comments, and a snarky "you still blog?" or two are welcome...

I hate this tradition

Bush meets the Hurricanes. Insert your Katrina jokes here.

The Decider took time out of his busy schedule Friday to fete the defending Stanley Cup champion Carolina Hurricanes. Not surprisingly, I loathe this obnoxious tradition:

1. The "honor" of being invited to the White House is just another demand to pay tribute to the Maximum Leader. EVERY TEAM awards the president with a personalized team jersey. It's a nice token but isn't the point of these things to have the president be the one doing the honoring? That teams feel obligated to lavish gifts upon the president makes him seem less presidential and more, I dunno...monarchical? Dictatorial?

2. It's sickening to watch opportunistic politicians bask in the reflected glow of people who have actually achieved something. Especially since sports and politics operate on ethics that are diametric opposites. Athletic competition is the purest realization of American ideals, the ultimate meritocracy -- talent, hard work, and teamwork in pursuit of a common goal are the hallmarks of success. But politics require none of these virtues. Instead, a politician need only convince a majority of the gullible masses that he's the less knavish of two dreadful choices. After that, it's mostly logrolling, Influence peddling, and demagoguery -- not very heroic or inspiring. Small wonder politicians leech onto successful athletes as though the association implies the same qualities for each.

3. The whole display is phony and so much appalling theatre. It is 99.9% probable that Bush watched zero Stanley Cup playoff games and couldn't identify a single Hurricanes player without help from his handlers. So the ceremony is about Bush waxing philosophic, lecturing on virtues he does not himself possess, and making a few disingenuously self-deprecating jokes. While commenting on Carolina's underdog status, he actually said, "I like to be around people who keep expectations low." Right. That's why his reputation behind the scenes as arrogant, bullying, megalomaniacal, and narcissistic is just a misunderstanding, right? Meanwhile, visiting players must be on their best behavior -- listen politely, smile and laugh at the appropriate times, and maintain a comfortably neutral facade. How awful and undignified this encounter must be for any athlete with a conscience!

Enough already. We need separation of sport and state, now!

p.s. This take on the meeting is pretty funny.

Rethinking Public Education

A clearinghouse post. Some recent critiques of public education from disparate sources:

• The "Real" School Is Not Free - A brief history of the (somewhat sinister) roots of public education in the U.S.
  
  
• 'I'm a Saboteur' - 'Fast Company' interview with John Taylor Gatto from 2000. Brilliant.
  
  
• How the Public School System Crushes Souls - Personal and poignant tale from Steve Olson. No doubt his experiences resonate with untold millions of others.
  
  
• To fix US schools, panel says, start over - Recent headline from the CS Monitor.
  

Of course we need separation of school and state. But might we benefit from a complete overhaul of how we think about education? What if the old model of inculcation, testing, and grading faded away?

What do we have to lose?

"It's not totally free enterprise in the United States."

No shit, huh? You're going to love this story:

In the summer of 2003, shoppers in Southern California began getting a break on the price of milk.

A maverick dairyman named Hein Hettinga started bottling his own milk and selling it for as much as 20 cents a gallon less than the competition, exercising his right to work outside the rigid system that has controlled U.S. milk production for almost 70 years. Soon the effects were rippling through the state, helping to hold down retail prices at supermarkets and warehouse stores.

That was when a coalition of giant milk companies and dairies, along with their congressional allies, decided to crush Hettinga's initiative. For three years, the milk lobby spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions and made deals with lawmakers, including incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Last March, Congress passed a law reshaping the Western milk market and essentially ending Hettinga's experiment -- all without a single congressional hearing.

This story epitomizes all that is wrong with the "democracy" racket:

• Byzantine laws (from the Depression era!) regulating trade in the 21st century global economy? Check!
• Lobbyists exercising power and influence to protect inefficient cartels from competition? Check!
• Consumers forced to pay higher prices thanks to unethical machinations in DC? Check!
• Free market innovations crushed by politics? Check!

I know, big deal, right? It's just one guy and it's only milk. But this is the inevitable result of corporatism - the partnership between the state and big business. These powers profit artificially at everyone else's expense.

Real harm has been inflicted on Hein Hettinga, whose hard work and service to consumers has been punished by the state. Real harm has been done to everyone forced by this parasitic partnership to pay more for milk than what a truly free market would produce.

These state interventions in the marketplace punish resourcefulness, reward greed and corruption, and impoverish society. That's pretty fucking evil, don't you think?

[Link courtesy of reddit]

More:
• 15-farm empire bucks industry [Arizona Daily Star]
• Hein Hettinga/Sarah Farms Official Site [keepmilkpriceslow.org]

Attention Prohibitionists

I touched on this in my previous post but, over the last few days, I've been thinking a lot about the defeat of the marijuana legalization initiatives in Tuesday's elections. I asked prohibitionists what horrors they would expect to ensue should marijuana become legal. But I can't let it go at that. The more I think about these votes, the angrier I get.

There are many issues that pass the "both sides" test with me -- meaning, I can genuinely see and appreciate both sides of the issue. Though I may not agree with the other side's opinion, I can at least respect it. Issues such as abortion and the death penalty are colored in enough shades of gray to at least make the debate worthwhile. But the issue of drug prohibition and all the misery wrought by the War on Drugs? Sorry, don't get it.

Prohibition is a failure in every way imaginable: nonviolent, harmless people imprisoned, individual rights trampled, militarization of law enforcement, resources wasted, and no discernible benefits: hundreds of billions shoveled at the "problem," and yet interdiction efforts have failed to curtail the drug supply. Nor has demand for drugs been curbed despite the rather clever device of portraying Rachel Leigh Cook bashing the holy shit out of a kitchen.

And so I'd really like to know what went through the minds of the 1,313,617 people in Colorado, Nevada, and South Dakota who voted to keep marijuana prohibition alive. I have some serious questions for the prohibitionists:

1. Why do you expect drug prohibition to work out any differently from this nation's failed experiment in alcohol prohibition? What do you see as the material differences?

2. What benefits are realized by continuing to imprison nonviolent drug offenders?

3. What sea change in enforcement strategy do you anticipate that will lead to "success" where previous efforts have failed?

4. What evidence of prohibition's "effectiveness" leads you to believe the policy ought to be continued?

5. If legalization of marijuana ought not be pursued now, then when? How much longer must the War on Drugs go on before victory or defeat can be acknowledged?

6. How many more people must be imprisoned to make prohibition a "success"? How many more billions of dollars poured into enforcement of drug laws?

7. Given that nearly 80 million Americans admit to having tried marijuana, and that society continues to function despite this, why continue the policy? What's the point?

I could probably think of a million more questions since I'll be angry about this for a long time. What a golden opportunity wasted! Voters had the power to change the course of this nation's despicable drug policy, but no. What a disgrace.

Anyway, I'm interested to hear some answers to my questions. I promise to be civil to anyone willing to discuss his/her vote (or contrary position on the issue).

Yeah, But Democracy Still Sucks

On the one hand, I share some of Lew Rockwell's glee over the voters' stern rebuke of the dictator Bush and his wars. But let's not pretend the election results represent the dawning of a new age of enlightened anti-statism. Have you seen the results of the ballot measures? Economic idiocy prevailed with the overwhelming approval of all six state referendums on raising the minimum wage. Each of the three measures designed to liberalize marijuana prohibition was soundly defeated. Five of the six measures to ban same-sex marriage were passed, as if this issue is a political matter to be decided by a majority of voters, rather than something to be worked out and compromised upon by free people away from state interference. And so on.

So here we have the natural consequences of democracy: when issues are put to a vote of the people, nothing matters but the will of the mob majority -- not economic law, not individual rights, not even common sense. And so marijuana prohibition will continue unabated, despite the horrific results and abject failure of the government's War on Drugs.

[A serious question for the prohibitionists: if drugs were legalized tomorrow, what horrors do you think would ensue that would make prohibition (despite the obvious failure and blowback) seem preferable by comparison? I'm asking in all seriousness.]

So yeah, if the 2006 mid-term elections can be viewed as a referendum on the merits of Republican dominion, I'm pleased that the people seem to have humbled the imperious Bush. But let's not get all mushy about the wonders of democracy or the "wisdom of the people" or some other civics class bullshit. The mob may have tossed out the last group of bums, but rest assured that the assholes who take their place will be no kinder to the prospects for liberty. With elections, the only certainty is that no matter which party prevails, it is the state that wins.

"Creating the system is the abuse"

Election season always makes me uneasy. It's when the state really gets all up in your business; it's damn near impossible to avoid all the yard signs, obnoxious campaign commercials, and activists/yentas of all stripes reminding us of the importance of voting! It's all a bit of insanity. Think of Election Day as the Super Bowl for statists, only it's Brit Hume on TV yelling at you instead of Chris Berman.

Anyway, the toughest part for me is having to explain that I don't vote for reasons of principle. Most people just don't get it. "If you don't vote you can't complain!" they say. Please. Those of us who abstain from voting are among the few who have every right to protest. For reasons why, see this eloquent and impassioned defense of non-voting in today's must read column from LRC's Butler Shaffer:

We need to remind ourselves of Albert Einstein’s admonition: “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Trying to reform the political process makes no more sense than trying to reform the carnivorous appetites of jungle beasts. If it is your desire to put an end to the violent, destructive, corrupt, and dysfunctional nature of government, stop wasting your time by focusing on the current management of the system. Rather than dutifully going to the polls to select from a narrow list of options provided you by political interests that you neither know nor control, you might want to inquire into who is providing the cast of characters – and writing the script – for a performance you are expected not only to attend, but to cheer.

To create a system which, by definition, enjoys a legal monopoly on the use of force, and then allow that system to become the judge of its own authority, is an error of such enormity that one can only wonder why grown men and women would be surprised to discover such powers being “abused.” Creating the system is the abuse. Directing our criticism to members of the present cast while overlooking the backers of the play – who have substitute performers waiting in the wings – exceeds the bounds of innocence. It is like placing a bowlful of candy in front of a number of small children, and expecting the candy not to be touched in your absence.

For further reference, visit the Non-Voting Archive at LRC. And don't forget to not vote on November 7th!

"What the FUNGUS?!?"

Um, wow. I just...I can't...words don't really do this justice, but this clip is:

a) The most unintentionally hilarious sports-related YouTube clip since the "boom goes the dynamite" guy.

b) Approximately 89% funnier because of the inexplicable "Watch the NFL Network, BITCH!" outburst toward the end, and

c) Funniest when I imagine that this is what Michael Medved does with his weekends.

G-d bless the em-effing internet.

[h/t to Deadspin]

"Naked hair brushing, good; naked crouching, bad"

You might recognize that line from the famous Seinfeld episode "The Apology," which introduced the world to the concept of "good" naked and "bad" naked. Unfortunately, there are some wacky people in Texas who still can't grasp the distinction:

Teacher: reprisals began after field trip

FRISCO – A veteran Frisco art teacher says school administrators have retaliated against her because a student reportedly saw a nude sculpture during a field trip to the Dallas Museum of Art.

District officials say they are supporting a principal who reprimanded Sydney McGee over the field trip and other performance issues.

Oh boy. The anti-porn types and morality crusaders have largely succeeded in smearing over the line that existed between "nudity" and "pornography;" in the public's mind, there is little or no difference. The naked human body, far from representing our simplest biological form, has been co-opted and converted exclusively into a sex object. Viewed from this perspective, it makes sense that some idiots get hysterical over something as natural and innocuous as a nude sculpture.

This weird phenomenon is not new. In 2002, John Ashcroft famously covered up the bare breasted sculpture "Spirit of Justice" in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice -- no small irony there. And before that, there was Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn making an ass of himself by protesting NBC's uncensored broadcast of "Schindler's List," in part because of the full frontal nudity -- a move so asinine that it elicited a rare moment of clarity and reason from Alfonse D'Amato, of all people.

Forget for a moment that we're not even talking about an actual nude human. The kid saw a nude sculpture -- a representation of a nude human. It is disturbing that this would bother anyone, yes, but the greater issue here is the primitive and unhealthy ways in which elements of this culture view nudity.

Roger Ebert famously says that a film should not be judged by its subject matter, but by how it deals with it. Applied here, this sensible view means that the nude human form (as sculpture or otherwise) is not intrinsically sexual -- unless that's the projection and association imposed upon it by the viewer.

Sexuality may imply nudity but the converse is not necessarily true. Context is everything. A naked woman posing suggestively on a bed has sexual connotations; a naked woman straining to open a jar of pickles...not so much. Showing fifth graders the Kama Sutra is inappropriate; showing them Michelangelo's David is not. See the differences?

It should be obvious and yet the distinction is lost on many people. It wouldn't matter so much except that a woman has apparently lost her job because of this shortsightedness. The Philistines are still among us and they are still making headlines.

[thanks to reddit for the link]

Democrats: Yup, Still Pretty Much Rife With Milquetoast-ery

The Democrats don't respect your intelligence and their party "leaders" have no idea how to attract the so-called middle. Don't believe me? Witness this missive from Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) on The Huffington Blog. Same old Democratic bromides and bogeymen. Same dull rhetoric that blunts the senses and smothers the ardor of even the most strident Bush opponents. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

[Forgive me for once again ripping off the FIRE JOE MORGAN motif, but those guys do an amazing job dismantling neanderthal sportswriting, and I don't see anyone doing the same thing in politics. So, into the vacuum come my own mediocre efforts. Sorry. Sometimes that's just what you get.]

The Congress of the United States has reconvened in Washington, D.C., but don't expect Congress to legislate on behalf of the American people.

Since society can pretty much manage itself without you people, that's OK. As an American myself, I believe I speak for all Americans when I say: thanks, but no need to legislate on our behalf. No, seriously, we're good.

The Republican Party will spend the next 30 days trying to make you afraid. It is the Republican midterm election strategy.

Yes, and one that your party did a rather poor job of countervailing in both 2002 and 2004, if you don't mind my saying so.

For the rest of September, until the moment Republican leaders gavel the Congress into adjournment, Republican speakers will rise and implore the American people to be afraid.

Republicans will call it security, and every time they do, just remember they are speaking in code. Republicans really mean insecurity.

During September, Republicans will wield the gavel, but they will not make America safer.

We will not consider, much less pass, legislation to better protect our ports.

Jimmy. Bubelah. Legislation does not make us safer. Since freedom is the natural state of things, legislation is nearly always designed to empower the state. Legislation prescribes the boundaries of licit behavior and the punishments for when those boundaries are transgressed, but it cannot make us safer. Really, most of the time legislation just turns peaceful, consensual activities into crimes. Given the staggering number of people the U.S. incarcerates, it can scarcely be argued that legislation functions as any kind of deterrent.

We know what needs to be done, but Republicans are hard on rhetoric and soft on action.

Republicans are going to use their insecure code word so often that I hope Lou Dobbs, Jon Stewart, and others keep track, and remind people daily of how often Republicans are willing to talk, and how little they are willing to act.

Considering that when Republicans act, people tend to get bombed, spied upon, or tortured, this is all to the good. Seriously, I prefer politicians who are unwilling to act, unless they're repealing something.

After America was attacked on 9/11, the finest military on earth--- the United States Armed Forces---

"We support the troops! We support the troops!"

was sent to Afghanistan to hunt down bin Laden and stop the Taliban. They did a magnificent job until U.S. soldiers were ordered to leave before the job was done. We don't have bin Laden and Afghanistan is looking more like Iraq every hour.

A Republican Administration is responsible for diverting our military, draining our treasury, destroying our credibility, and making America less safe.

This is undoubtedly true, but these words ring hollow since the Democratic playbook offers little in response besides tax increases and "social" spending instead of warfare. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

The American people know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the Administration denies the intelligence. Instead, the President mechanically recites his stay the course PR line.

That's because the president is a douchenozzle. We all know this. Look, if you Democrats want to be a viable opposition party, then oppose, G-d dammit. How many prominent Democrats (at least, those that have something to lose) have been steadfast about calling for an immediate end to this pointless war?

The American people know we are off course and adrift in a sea of violence.

Must be the sharks with the frickin' laser beams.

U.S. soldiers are not fighting a war on terror in Iraq. They are targets in a civil war among Iraqis.

When Republicans parade to the rostrum to outdo each other in using their insecurity code word, think of how insecure our soldiers are.

"Does this body armor make me look fat?"

Republicans keep saying things are getting better. That is disproved by their own Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who ordered another 13,000 U.S. soldiers into Iraq recently. There are now 140,000 U.S. soldiers surrounded by civil war.

After 2,653 American lives lost, and 19,600 wounded Americans, the country deserves Democratic leadership that knows the Republican plan to stay the course is the most insecure plan for our soldiers, this nation, and the Iraqi people.

Yeah, good luck with that. Odds are you'll find bin Laden before this "Democratic leadership" you speak of.

Republicans will spend the next 30 days trying to stay in power, nothing more.

"Our cause is noble! We Democrats won't rest until we've seized power!"

They will say their insecurity code word over and over, but they won't pass the recommendations of the bi-partisan 9/11 commission.

"Bi-partisan," great. Things are seldom worse than when the Stupid Party and the Evil Party agree on something.

Republicans won't bring up immigration legislation intended to make our borders safer.

Legislation does not make us safer. See explanation, supra.

Republicans won't address reforms to make Social Security safer.

How exactly does one make a Ponzi scheme safer, Jim?

Republicans won't bring up legislation to end taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil, or launch a national campaign to end our addiction to oil.

Instead, Republicans will tell you to be afraid unless you pay through the nose at the pump, and Big Oil drills in every pristine environment left on the planet.

Republicans will tell you to be afraid for Social Security unless they give your benefits to Wall Street, so you might have holdings like Enron.

Clever, invoking the Enron bogeyman. No doubt those guys were awful, but care to take some responsibility for the government's role in creating the Enron monster? No?

Republicans will tell you to be afraid unless they can mortgage America's 22nd century, so that today's super rich can just have more.

Delightful. The "super rich" -- another boring, predictable Democratic whipping boy. This sentence tells you all you need to know about modern Democrats and their unwillingness to be dragged into the 21st century. OK, listen: there are a lot of people who made boatloads of money yet still maintained their liberal bona fides. Look at all of fucking Hollywood. Enough bashing of the "super rich." Fomenting class warfare is so very Marxist chic, and so very fucking passe. It does not resonate with anyone; it only reinforces the perception that you people are disconnected from reality. Get over it already.

Republicans had their chance and squandered it, leaving the American people with monstrous debt.

I love this: "WE collected your taxes, WE squandered it on warfare and pork, WE can't be trusted with power...but shit, the debt? That's YOURS." You know how you know this is bullshit? Expect Republicans to use the exact same rhetoric after the Democrats control the purse strings for two years. The parties just recycle and trade the same epithets every election year but nothing changes.

Republicans had their chance and used it to divert America away from the real war on terror.

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't wage war against an abstraction or strategy like "terror." There is no real war on terror, and even if there was, it couldn't be won. Please stop trying to talk tough by appropriating Republican language. Geez, if McDermott is representative of some new Democratic vanguard, these guys are in heaps of trouble.

Republicans are calling this Security September.

Not quite as much fun as "March Madness" or "Black History Month," but maybe it'll grow on us.

Just remember to be afraid....afraid of what else Republicans will do if they remain in power after the November election.

I am. Unfortunately, the Democrats terrify me just as much. There is really only one cause for hope and it has nothing to do with politicians.

[h/t to reddit]

Another Example of How the State Ruins Everything

Are Some Video Games Gambling?

Although thousands of gamers enjoy an online simulation called Entropia Universe, questions are being raised as to whether the game constitutes "illegal" gambling (especially by "minors"), and if real in-game earnings constitute income for the taxman to steal.

Is there any sphere of human activity left that the state won't tax, regulate, or otherwise throttle?

[h/t to Fark.com]

State Servant Lectures, Punishes Teens For Insufficient State Worship

Oh, the judges these days:

Flag burners sentenced - Teens have to apologize, serve two days at VA hospital

It must be pointed out here that these teens are being singled out and punished for choosing American flags to burn, and not for the actual crime of taking and vandalizing property they didn't own. One wonders how these teens would have been treated for burning less political symbols such as mailboxes or trash bins.

In essence, these kids are being punished for their thoughts as much as their deeds, which is pretty fucking ironic given that the judge sought to impart some life-changing civics lesson about American freedom.

Just listen to this idiot:

“It was so disrespectful to all of the men and women who have served our country,” she said. “You should have known. I have no doubt your parents taught you better than this. It shouldn’t have taken this to make you appreciative.”

No, what's disrespectful, if not downright perverse, is teaching teens that freedom is about flags and veterans -- symbols and servants of the state. True freedom means freedom from the state, not because of it.

Asshat.

[h/t to fark.com]