[UNDER CONSTRUCTION]
If she marries him before she gives birth then she'll have to give up her health insurance. Hopefully this'll tie the GOP's nation of whiners into their hypocrisy on social issues.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Florida, Michigan delegates given full votes. What about the eighteen-year olds?
During and after 2004, many states decided to let people who will be of voting age in November vote in the corresponding primaries, but Florida and Michigan didn't think to do it when they moved up their primary in violation of DNC rules. With over nine months between Florida and Michigan's primaries and the November election, over three-quarters of these states' eighteen-year old general election voters were ineligible to vote in their primaries.
Though claiming disenfranchisement, the Clinton campaign, John McCain, and PUMA's ignored the fact that Florida and Michigan disenfranchised thousands of young people by moving up their primaries. Even if the two states hadn't let seventeen year-olds who would be eighteen by November 4 vote in the primaries, thousands of people who would have turned eighteen before the old primary nights but weren't yet eighteen on the new primary nights didn't get to vote in Michigan and Florida. California disenfranchised people even though we didn't break party rules; our primary used to be in May, but it was moved to February, effectively disenfranchising a quarter of the high school class of 2008.
Florida and Michigan could have let people who will be of voting age on by the day of the general election to vote in the primaries, which also would have enfranchised seventeen year-olds born after the old primary dates but before or on November 4. This is done in 19 states; a few, like Maryland, have done it for years but around half of these states only have since 2004.
But they didn't. Instead, they sacrificed young people, who were excited to vote for the first time, for increased influence, even though they could have easily gotten this influence without sacrificing young people by doing what Maryland, Maine, Iowa, and sixteen other states already do. They didn't even get their influence since their elections got zero media coverage, providing no boost for Clinton, and their delegates only got seated after Obama won the primaries.
HuffPost article on Florida and Michigan delegates getting full votes.
Though claiming disenfranchisement, the Clinton campaign, John McCain, and PUMA's ignored the fact that Florida and Michigan disenfranchised thousands of young people by moving up their primaries. Even if the two states hadn't let seventeen year-olds who would be eighteen by November 4 vote in the primaries, thousands of people who would have turned eighteen before the old primary nights but weren't yet eighteen on the new primary nights didn't get to vote in Michigan and Florida. California disenfranchised people even though we didn't break party rules; our primary used to be in May, but it was moved to February, effectively disenfranchising a quarter of the high school class of 2008.
Florida and Michigan could have let people who will be of voting age on by the day of the general election to vote in the primaries, which also would have enfranchised seventeen year-olds born after the old primary dates but before or on November 4. This is done in 19 states; a few, like Maryland, have done it for years but around half of these states only have since 2004.
But they didn't. Instead, they sacrificed young people, who were excited to vote for the first time, for increased influence, even though they could have easily gotten this influence without sacrificing young people by doing what Maryland, Maine, Iowa, and sixteen other states already do. They didn't even get their influence since their elections got zero media coverage, providing no boost for Clinton, and their delegates only got seated after Obama won the primaries.
HuffPost article on Florida and Michigan delegates getting full votes.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Country Club Republicans
Today, I read about and saw an Obama ad that refers to "country club economics" and shows McCain and HW Bush in a golf cart.
I first referred to "country club Republicans" in this blog yesterday, and I've been saying it in the physical world for a while now. So...
I thought of this before Obama! I thought of this before Obama! I thought of this before Obama! Yay yay yay!
The HuffPost even thought of the term "country club Republican" just like I did. Yay I'm so proud of myself! I thought of something so clever that both Obama and Huffington are using it, and I thought of it weeks before they did! Yay yay yay! :D
Here's the ad: YouTube link, Huffington Post link.
I first referred to "country club Republicans" in this blog yesterday, and I've been saying it in the physical world for a while now. So...
I thought of this before Obama! I thought of this before Obama! I thought of this before Obama! Yay yay yay!
The HuffPost even thought of the term "country club Republican" just like I did. Yay I'm so proud of myself! I thought of something so clever that both Obama and Huffington are using it, and I thought of it weeks before they did! Yay yay yay! :D
Here's the ad: YouTube link, Huffington Post link.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Obama attacks McCain for owning seven houses
It's about time we started attacking McCain's character; it may be dirty, but it's effective.
However, for a while I've thought that Obama should focus his attacks on the Republican Party itself and turn the election into one between the Democrats and the Republicans, not just between Obama and McCain. A HuffPost article from yesterday made a similar argument, claiming that McCain was the GOP's hood ornament and that Obama should attack the entire car since his personality is more important than McCain's.
People don't quite trust the GOP on the economy, so I think this ad is a good move since it reinforces this distrust by reminding people that the Republican candidate is out of touch. Perhaps a follow-up ad titled "Country Club Republicans" that shows Phil Gramm's "nation of whiners" soundbite would reinforce this message even more.
I still think we should attack the party itself more than tying McCain into Bush, but it chipping the veneer off of the hood ornament and make its exposed, chintzy plastic more visible doesn't hurt.
Link to the ad on YouTube
UPDATE: McCain's response to Obama's attack: He was a POW in Vietnam.
This reminds me of something else I've been thinking about: McCain's stuck in the 1960's. To me, a nineteen-year old, McCain seems more and more out of touch everytime he talks about Ayers, everytime he talks about being captured in a war fought forty years ago, and everytime he connects Obama's message to 1960's liberalism.
However, for a while I've thought that Obama should focus his attacks on the Republican Party itself and turn the election into one between the Democrats and the Republicans, not just between Obama and McCain. A HuffPost article from yesterday made a similar argument, claiming that McCain was the GOP's hood ornament and that Obama should attack the entire car since his personality is more important than McCain's.
People don't quite trust the GOP on the economy, so I think this ad is a good move since it reinforces this distrust by reminding people that the Republican candidate is out of touch. Perhaps a follow-up ad titled "Country Club Republicans" that shows Phil Gramm's "nation of whiners" soundbite would reinforce this message even more.
I still think we should attack the party itself more than tying McCain into Bush, but it chipping the veneer off of the hood ornament and make its exposed, chintzy plastic more visible doesn't hurt.
Link to the ad on YouTube
UPDATE: McCain's response to Obama's attack: He was a POW in Vietnam.
This reminds me of something else I've been thinking about: McCain's stuck in the 1960's. To me, a nineteen-year old, McCain seems more and more out of touch everytime he talks about Ayers, everytime he talks about being captured in a war fought forty years ago, and everytime he connects Obama's message to 1960's liberalism.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Door destroyed, house entered, no warrant shown, dogs shot, couple bound.
CNN article
There's a few circumstances where a residence can be searched and entered without a warrant; for example, if a crime was committed near a window or otherwise can be seen from outside, if criminal evidence is in plain sight and only that evidence is obtained and the residence isn't searched, or if a suspect flees into a residence after committing a crime.
I do not know Maryland animal and police brutality law, but the dogs probably did not post a lethal or serious threat, so it's likely that the police used excessive force, and they probably used excessive force by not knocking. Furthermore, if the dogs were threatening enough to legally merit shooting them in a lawful search, I wouldn't be surprised if shooting them is illegal anyway since this search was unlawful. It could be reasonable to not knock if the marijuana recipients (read the article now if you haven't already) knew that marijuana was being mailed to them and would thus hide the marijuana when the police announce their entry. However, the couple did not know that the package contained marijuana because the distributor planned to mail it to have it intercepted before the couple received it.
I doubt there's any legal precedent to suggest that it's reasonable for these cops to think that what they were doing was legal, so official immunity shouldn't protect them.
There's a few circumstances where a residence can be searched and entered without a warrant; for example, if a crime was committed near a window or otherwise can be seen from outside, if criminal evidence is in plain sight and only that evidence is obtained and the residence isn't searched, or if a suspect flees into a residence after committing a crime.
I do not know Maryland animal and police brutality law, but the dogs probably did not post a lethal or serious threat, so it's likely that the police used excessive force, and they probably used excessive force by not knocking. Furthermore, if the dogs were threatening enough to legally merit shooting them in a lawful search, I wouldn't be surprised if shooting them is illegal anyway since this search was unlawful. It could be reasonable to not knock if the marijuana recipients (read the article now if you haven't already) knew that marijuana was being mailed to them and would thus hide the marijuana when the police announce their entry. However, the couple did not know that the package contained marijuana because the distributor planned to mail it to have it intercepted before the couple received it.
I doubt there's any legal precedent to suggest that it's reasonable for these cops to think that what they were doing was legal, so official immunity shouldn't protect them.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
In defense of Pelosi and other alleged Bush enablers
EDIT: Earlier, I briefly attacked Pelosi for enabling Bush's policies, but I rethought it:
A few days ago, Nancy Pelosi called Bush "a total failure" after she criticized House Democrats for not passing a spending bill in twenty-six days.
Now, many of us liberals are thinking, "well, Pelosi enabled Bush's policies, so she has no right to attack him." "Why didn't she block FISA?" we asked a little while ago. "What about cutting off war funding? What about impeachment?"
Pelosi has very liberal personal convictions, but she's very pragmatic. She'd rather go along with something and gain a few concessions than oppose it, lose, gain no concessions, and irritate the conservative wing of her party.
"But what about principles? Why don't Democrats stand up for their principles?" many lamented after the FISA vote, and the 2007 Iraq funding bill. In short, Pelosi and other Democrats would stick to their principles less than they do now if they were stubborn and tried to block every single bad piece of legislation that Bush and McCain try to push through Congress since the resulting legislation would be worse since she, and other Democrats, extract concessions by going along with Bush and McCain.
After the 2006 midterm elections, the Democrats held 233 seats to the Republicans' 202, which means that the GOP needed to flip only 16 Democrats if every Republican toes the party line. They've lost a handful of special elections between 2006 and now so they'd need a couple more, but the forty-nine Blue Dogs, many of whom are flat-out Bush Dogs, are always eager to prove their conservative, anti-San Francisco liberal credentials to their constituents.
The bottom line is that conservative Democrats prevent Pelosi and other moderate and liberal Democrats from defeating the Bush-McCain agenda, so they go along with it and get whatever crumbs they can. But if we hold tight and win this election then we can establish a long-term liberal and communitarian consensus, and finally end the polarization that's plagued the nation since the Vietnam War.
A few days ago, Nancy Pelosi called Bush "a total failure" after she criticized House Democrats for not passing a spending bill in twenty-six days.
Now, many of us liberals are thinking, "well, Pelosi enabled Bush's policies, so she has no right to attack him." "Why didn't she block FISA?" we asked a little while ago. "What about cutting off war funding? What about impeachment?"
Pelosi has very liberal personal convictions, but she's very pragmatic. She'd rather go along with something and gain a few concessions than oppose it, lose, gain no concessions, and irritate the conservative wing of her party.
"But what about principles? Why don't Democrats stand up for their principles?" many lamented after the FISA vote, and the 2007 Iraq funding bill. In short, Pelosi and other Democrats would stick to their principles less than they do now if they were stubborn and tried to block every single bad piece of legislation that Bush and McCain try to push through Congress since the resulting legislation would be worse since she, and other Democrats, extract concessions by going along with Bush and McCain.
After the 2006 midterm elections, the Democrats held 233 seats to the Republicans' 202, which means that the GOP needed to flip only 16 Democrats if every Republican toes the party line. They've lost a handful of special elections between 2006 and now so they'd need a couple more, but the forty-nine Blue Dogs, many of whom are flat-out Bush Dogs, are always eager to prove their conservative, anti-San Francisco liberal credentials to their constituents.
The bottom line is that conservative Democrats prevent Pelosi and other moderate and liberal Democrats from defeating the Bush-McCain agenda, so they go along with it and get whatever crumbs they can. But if we hold tight and win this election then we can establish a long-term liberal and communitarian consensus, and finally end the polarization that's plagued the nation since the Vietnam War.
Friday, June 13, 2008
"He's got eight tires sitting on twenty-two rims."
http://www.johnmccain.com/STETour/
First McCain golf gear, and now this?
When I thought Republicans couldn't get any more lame, McBush decided to make this video called "McCain Cribs" about the Straight Talk Express, the mobile lobbyist firm that also serves as his campaign bus.
First McCain golf gear, and now this?
When I thought Republicans couldn't get any more lame, McBush decided to make this video called "McCain Cribs" about the Straight Talk Express, the mobile lobbyist firm that also serves as his campaign bus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)