Unite Progressives

Healthcare for All

2008-11-12T15:27:00.001-05:00

I hope to see in the coming year a universal healthcare system instituted in this country. Not mandated healthcare, but the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid to cover all Americans. Doing such would do more for the middle class than any stimulus or bailout possibly could. Forcing people to buy subsidized health coverage from the big insurance companies isn't enough, not unless the quality of coverage can be guanranteed and the prices kept low. Why outsource to the people already scamming us what we can do better? We need this more now than ever, please help us do something about it.

Why not universal healthcare?

2008-11-12T08:58:00.003-05:00

I ended up in a debate on universal healthcare with a coworker at work yesterday. I don't know how I keep getting myself involved in these things at work; I guess it's just hard for me to keep my mouth shut when topics like this come up. But I came across the dumbest philosophy ever related to universal healthcare. I'm not talking about half-educated claims of how horrible Canada and the U.K.'s systems supposedly are, or even that it would socialize the entire medical industry and lead us to communism. No, it's an even more dangerous philosophy: why should my taxes pay for those who use the service more than me? What. The. Fuck. That is wrong is so many ways, so let me count the ways in which it is.

One, with any form of insurance today, be it house, car, or medical, the safe people who pay in and don't withdraw pay for the people who use the services more than they do. Except the insurance companies cut a profit off of your medical coverage, and to further their profit margin, they're always looking for ways to not pay, or not pay full price, thus causing you to have to pocket even more expenses than the insurance costs you already pay. Also, there's a backdoor tax we already pay for the uninsured when they receive E.R. treatment and are unable to pay for it. Furthermore, we already pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs out of our tax dollars, and most of us taxpayers don't actually benefit directly from such programs, but we know plenty of people who do. Why can't we extend those benefits to everyone, and be able to use the services we pay for?

Two, we pay for plenty of services that we don't directly use, or use much less often, than other segments of the population. My house hasn't burnt down, why should I pay taxes for fire services? Some rich guy has a private security force, why should he pay taxes for police? Some 26-year-old BK employee doesn't read, why should his taxes fund libraries? Some 50-year-old man has no children and isn't in school, why should his taxes fund education? I'll tell you why: for the public good. The little bit in overall taxes it would cost to have universal healthcare would be offset by all of the money freed up so that individuals could go out and stimulate the economy. A healthier society would also benefit everyone, as we would be more productive (fewer sick days, healthier, happier).

Three, sure, you may not be using the doctor much now, what happens when you get cancer? Suddenly you become the guy you blasted earlier, so are you going to suck it up and not take treatment because there's someone else out there that feels as you did? Fuck no, you're going to go get your treatment and get better. As you should, because you would be paying for a service that would provide you with all essential medical services, with no potential to be dropped or rejected for pre-existing issues. You would have access to the best in modern medical technology: you know, the equipment that right now only the very rich can even afford to go near. No longer would we have a stratified healhcare system: the very best for the very rich, moderate for the middle class, and third world care for the poor. That alone makes it worth it to me.

I can see the reasons why some people might not want such a system, but I don't think many of them are valid, this one especially. Some may not want universal healthcare, but I don't want private healthcare. We tried their way, now lets try our way.

Looking Ahead

2008-11-07T14:07:00.005-05:00

The coming days have been hard for me to get a grip on, and I'm still obsessing over Missouri's EV's, and Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia's Senate races, but I have begun to look ahead to the future, to decide what I need to be doing. Firstly, I plan on remaining organized, allying with local Democrats to start shifting the ground game here in Michigan for future elections. Also, I plan on utilizing my new Democratic Congressman (Gary Peters, whoo!) and my two Democratic Senators to keep the pressure on Congress as we go forward into the Obama administration. But, I'm also looking ahead to 2010, attempting to decide what I can do best to secure our hold on the Senate and the House.

There are so many issues that we need to get off the ground, so many causes set back by our 8 years of national nightmare. My immediate priorities going into 2009 are to help pressure Congress into introducing and passing legislation on universal healthcare, expanding social welfare, and introducing infrastructure projects. The Employee Free Choice Act needs to be passed, which would allow employees to organize unions with a simple card check stating their intent to unionize, rather than the current up or down vote that's subject to such anti-union pressure. Finally, I plan on advocating the causes of civil rights for homosexuals, and legalizing marijuana (not that I smoke it, or would if it were legal, it's just that pot is basically harmless, the laws against it do all the harm).

On top of that, I hope to help keep the Obama and Peters' campaigns massively successful ground game from being dismantled between now and 2010, and between now and 2012. We're built a wonderful organization for Democratic GOTV this year, and I refuse to let it die. Locally it'll be a lot easier than nationally, since Peters is up for re-election in 2010 and his ground game here in the 8th was just beyond amazing. Not all of the 2010 candidates will have that infrastructure in place already, especially in weak Dem or Republican held areas. Much like Dean did with his Dean for America team (transitioning it into Democracy for America, an organization of which I am proudly a member), we need to transition this GOTV operation from 2008 into a movement that will last for years to come. The people at the top of the party can only do so much for the 50 State Strategy: the rest is up to us on the ground, and the local organizers who step up and volunteer.

Which brings us into 2010. It is a year I look forward to and yet fear. We could increase our gains in the Senate, the map looks very favorably to us in that year. We could hold steady, winning some and losing some. Or, the Republicans could stage a comeback in the next 2 years and sweep us back out of power, or into a majorly reduced minority. But the map is beautiful: 19 Republican seats for them to defend; 7 of them in states that went for Obama, or narrowly went for McCain. Meanwhile, there are only 15 Democratic seats for us to defend, mostly popular Senators in safe states. There is also the case of John McCain, the man who only won his home state of Arizona by 9 points (versus Bush who won AZ by 11 points), and who may be facing popular Governor Janet Napolitano for his seat come 2010.

In neighboring Ohio, George Voinovich faces re-election in a state that has trended Democratic following the 2006 rout of the Republicans there in the Senate, Governor, and other top state races. Then there's Pennsylvania, where RINO Senator Arlen Specter will face re-election after two bouts with cancer, in a state under similar circumstances as Ohio. These are the two out of state Senate races that I will personally be watching and (hopefully) working on. At home, I plan on devoting myself to the Gubernatorial elections and to re-electing Gary Peters in the 9th District. 2010, in my mind, is a watershed year for Democrats: if we can hold onto Congress, expand our control in state legislatures nationwide, then after the 2010 Census, we can redraw the political map. Preferably via nonpartisan methods, since I'd rather we not become what the Republican Party was for the last 8 years.

So, I guess I have my plate full for the next 2 years. For a junkie like me, there is no end to campaigning, just lulls. My fears that perhaps I was only in this to win the Presidency back have been swept aside. I'm in this for the movement, for change, for my children, for my future grandchildren. If anything, now I'm more motivated than I ever was. Obama winning hasn't stripped me of my purpose, it's reaffirmed it. I have a plan, I have a goal, I have the will, and I have what it takes, god dammit. I will do this. This is a war to retake our country: we've won the battle, now let's not lose the war.

Post-Election Thoughts

2008-11-06T13:48:00.003-05:00

I've had little time in the past few months to sit and collect my thoughts at one time and in one place, so bear with me, this is going to be long. The election is over, and it was historic. Possibly the highest, or second highest, youth turnout ever; potentially the highest voter turnout levels since 1908; first African-American President; first Democratic President since Carter to be elected with more than 50% of the popular vote. But what does this all mean going ahead? My guy won, and believe me, I'm ecstatic, but I'm not yet satisfied. Why not?

Well, it really boils down to this: people outside of the bubble think that Obama supporters think he'll make everything instantly better. Inside the bubble, the view is much different: this is not the end, but the beginning. This isn't a campaign to be disbanded upon initial victory, but a movement to build a lasting future. We've seen the Republican Party reduced to a regional Southern party this cycle. We'll see how long that holds up, we're not counting on a permanent majority just because we took two elections. The Republicans made that mistake, and look where it lead them.

No, this is a movement for the future, with me and my generation on the front lines. Everything has changed now, we're looking at quite possibly the most progressive generation in American history coming to the forefront. The job now is to secure that progressive alignment, spread it to other demographics, and create a political realignment not seen in America since the 1960's. The Baby Boomers, parents and grandparents of the generation that just broke 2-to-1 for Obama, forged that realignment. But they became burned out, they got burned by authority and by history. Everything since then has been defined by the culture wars, by whether you were for or against Vietnam. The 1960's defined the 40 years to follow, but with this historical election, maybe the trend will be broken.

I certainly hope so, because we are no longer, if we ever were, a center-right nation. Surveys and polls have a majority who think the government should be bigger and more influential; a larger majority believe we should have government funded healthcare, even if they are otherwise against big government. Our people are suffering, and they believe that we should be helping other people. Especially my generation, having been stripped of so many paths to success by the after effects of the 60's. Real jobs ever declining, service jobs all that springs up to replace them. Real wages decreasing steadily since the 70's, adjusted for inflation. The power of the labor unions in that same time period has declined sharply. Food prices, rent prices, a collapsed mortgage market, encouraging college students to endebt themselves up to their eyeballs to try and succeed in a contracting job market... where is the prosperity and opportunity we were promised growing up?

It's time to end it. The culture wars, the Cold War, the Vietnam War: they're all dead and gone, in the past. This generation cares little if gays marry, we just don't see it as a problem. Interracial marriages? Whatever. A black man for President? Where do we sign up? Socialist? So what? Get it? We're, like, so totally over that stuff, man. Get with the times or be left behind. We're moving forward, can you say the same? Everything I've ever wanted to tell my elders, I now have justification for. My dad, who voted Obama but is convinced that "black people don't have enough collective experience to run in politics. They need at least 50 years in power." Well ya know what, fuck you and your subtle racism.

The truth is, this country is going to be looking at our white majority shrinking into a white plurality in the coming decades, and both political parties are either going to be looking a lot more diverse, or they're going to be relegated to the dustbins of history as the minority party of OLD WHITE PEOPLE. 95% of blacks voted for Obama. 68% of Latinos. 61% of Asians. 60% other minorities. These are the expanding populations in America, white people are shrinking in relation to these demographic forces. Deal with it. Want to hide behind your Confederate flag? Eventually it will be torn away and your racism exposed. You don't have to be KKK to be racist, as my experiences with my family this year proved, there's plenty of subtle racists among otherwise tolerant populations.

But the future, it's ours. But what do we expect from it? Depends on who you ask. Myself, I hope that an Obama Presidency will bring us things like a national election policy, taking us out of the dark ages of 50 different, nearly incompatible election systems nationwide. Institutional early voting, instant runoff voting to make third-party runs more viable (pick, in order of preference, your preferred candidates). D.C. statehood, universal healthcare, increased federal grants for continued education, a sane economic policy (i.e. a move back towards Keynesian economics). I hope for all that and more. Because even more than change, this election was about HOPE.

Hope, because as things stand now, I see very little hope for me or my fellow Millennials. Republicans have saddled us with record national debt, sucked us in to fight their war for oil, left us with a collapsed economy, depressed wages, few job opportunities, and an uncertain future for our Social Security or our ability to retire at a semi-decent age. Our health is endangered because of skyrocketing healthcare costs, and insurance plans which charge more and more for less and less coverage. Burdened by the cost of our aging parents and grandparents retiring, needing care we can't afford. Having to watch them struggle and scrimp and save as their health wastes away while you struggle and scrimp and save alongside them. It's been tragic, so we need a little hope. Don't try and take this away from us, because we will fight you to the end, if need be. We won't be broken and tossed aside like the Boomers were in their heyday, and if you try, you'll be even worse than "the Man" that screwed you back in the day.

I guess, in the end, my lack of satisfaction is due to the rage I feel against my predecessors among the voting population. We made a great achievement, and we carried much of the burden of doing so. Sure, everyone else started climbing on later, and they contributed a great deal, but in my mind 2008 is OUR election, and forever will my memories of it be of stocking capped college students canvassing; the field organizers no older than I, running campaign offices; the rooms full of youth voters manning phone banks. This election isn't just historic because our man was black, or because we're so progressive. It's historic because it's OURS. So come on, try and take our hope and victory from us. I dare you.

IT LIVES!

2008-10-25T12:34:00.001-04:00

Wow, it's been ages since I posted here. Almost forgot that it even EXISTED. Well, perhaps I'll get back to posting. Expect an amusing election post within days. :P

Clinton

2007-10-10T07:28:00.001-04:00

If Hillary is the inevitable Democratic nominee, then I'm the queen of France. This media narrative is stupid, and I can't believe people are falling for it. Instead of choosing candidates based on personalities, positions, and records, we're picking a candidate because the rebirth of a Clinton-lead presidency is inevitable. It's stupid, beyond retarded, and dumb to boot.

Maybe Hillary offers the most to please the most voters, what with her skills with triangulation and fudging her positions. But then again, if a uber conservative like Reagan can bleed moderates away from the Democrats, who is to say that a very charismatic liberal couldn't do the same? Because that's all that Reagan had going for him: charisma. Hillary doesn't have charisma though, she's not like her husband. And she doesn't have strong positions on really anything, she just polls her way out of messes.

Le sigh. I guess I'll just have to see how this all plays out. Looks like another election process hijacked by the corporate media. Fuck you Chris Matthews and all the other talking heads.

Don't Just Vote Blue, Act Blue

2007-09-10T18:57:00.001-04:00

Never under estimate the power of the masses. I finally got a little money in my account again, so I donated to the candidates in my Act Blue page. The races I'm highlighting there are two seats in my home state of Michigan, U.S. House districts MI-07 and MI-09, featuring Democrats Mark Schauer and Gary Peters, respectively. Also, I have Al Franken, who is running in a Democratic primary to be the challenger for the MN-Sen seat, and Barack Obama, democratic presidential contender. If donating to Mark Schauer before the primary is decided makes you iffy, donate to the MI-07 Democratic Nominee Fund.

Contributions don't need to be large. I plan on periodically giving a few bucks plus spare change in my account. Who knows, maybe if I get excited enough for the candidates, I might sell some of my stuff on eBay, with the proceeds going to Mark Schauer or Barack Obama. Hmmm, sell a llama for Obama... good idea.

Catch you later.

July 2008?

2007-09-10T18:33:00.001-04:00

Petraeus: Troop withdrawals by year's end - CNN.com

The 30,000 additional troops dispatched to Iraq in January could come home by next July, but further American withdrawals would be "premature," the U.S. commander there told a fractious congressional hearing Monday.

Whoa, wait a second: July? Of '08? That is unacceptable. That means, in ten months time, a year and a half after the surge began, we'd be down to pre-Surge levels? Hell no, we need an end now, not another six month trial period before deciding the final fates of the extra 30,000, let alone the rest of our forces there. At this rate, we'll be out... around 2020.

Also, the placing seems highly political. July 2008 allows Republicans to say, within four months of the elections, to say that they've started withdrawing forces from Iraq. Absolute bullshit. We cannot stand for this.

Trolls

2007-09-10T17:42:00.001-04:00

Trolls on teh internets give me a headache. One of the driving factors in me shying away from participating in forum discussions online is that I tend to come across the kind of troll who likes to misrepresent people's statements because he has an agenda against that person or something a person said. Yet still, I would fight to protect their freedom to criticize and be belligerent, even if I dislike it.

Fuck T.V.

2007-09-10T10:56:00.001-04:00

Television bugs me. The quality of the programs are usually substandard, shallow, and often idiotic. There is very little I can tolerate on television in terms of shows, and very few news programs have my respect. CNN, for example, with their new "Most Stories Per Hour" slogan. I like MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olberman, but off the top of my head, that's really the only exception to the rule. All other news programs are mostly background noise while I read the news online.

But recently television has been bugging me more and more. Is it that the programming is getting worse? Maybe. Is it the lack of interactivity that I can find online? Possibly. What the hell is so different about how I perceive the boob tube nowadays? Is cable television dead to me? Or is it a dying breed?

The answer hit me this morning: television is nothing like "teh internets". It isn't very interactive, and even where it is, it's very shallow and limited: American Idol, for example. It isn't easily navigable: search functions are primitive and weak; channel surfing usually involves hitting channel up numerous times, navigating a "guide", or scrolling through your favorites listings. Online, I can just bookmark my favorite sites, open up the bookmarks folder, click a link, and BAM, I'm there. With cable, the closest I can come to that with my favorite shows is navigating the guide to find the channel, navigating the time slots to find the show, and then setting it to record on DVR.

That's another thing: DVR is really the only saving grace for cable or satellite television these days. Websites are there any time you want to access them; television shows are not. You have to hit the day and time of the broadcast, and if you miss that, chances are you're S.O.L. unless they rebroadcast it (whenever they feel like it), you DVR it (what if you forget?), or someone bootlegs it and puts in on BitTorrent (illegal). Television has arguably become the least user friendly of our daily-use technologies.

But it gets worse. The average television show is low quality entertainment to begin with: whether it be an idiotic concept, low production values, or shallow source material. But advertising makes it worse. Unlike online, you are forced to watch ads in several minute blocs before your program returns. And then, like on the internets, you get ads slipped into the actual content, whether it be the little bug in the corner of your screen, or characters drinking Coke, wearing Nike shoes, and the Geico billboard in the background. It's a double whammy of advertising, just to put a show on television on a national network to reach a small portion of the national audience.

What then, is the alternative? Once again, the internets come into play. Online broadcast of shows is already becoming a reality. We can also sometimes access clips or even live streams from networks, although internet radio does this more effectively. The internets also offers a cheaper distribution model than cable or satellite television does: it is a global series of networks with a global audience. An investment smaller than that made to air a program on television could reach a larger portion of the global audience, and advertisements would have a greater reach on a lesser budget. An expensive website with massive broadband bills wouldn't even be necessary: the foundations are already laid in the form of P2P networks such as BitTorrent. There are people out there willing to share the bandwidth costs to help distribute your material.

Who wins in direct broadcast online? Viewers, producers, and advertisers. Who loses? The middlemen: the networks. The networks, in their inflexibility, may well lose not only their audience, but their producers and advertisers should legal P2P distribution of shows ever become a reality. Imagine an internet where one could legally watch Heroes episodes by downloading them on BitTorrent, and all one would have to suffer for it is a sponsorship message, a small advertising bug, and some ingrained ads. Where shows don't get canceled because they can't attract a large enough portion of the national audience to justify their continued production: direct broadcast will always reach your target audience if your promotions work, made cheaper by word of mouth and ease of access on P2P networks, is effective.

So what holds us back? A laundry list of problems: cable companies favoring the television format, telecoms drive to kill network neutrality, the drive by the MPAA and RIAA to kill P2P technologies, slow broadband speeds in the United States, inflexibility of the current broadcast system, and sheer force of consumer habit. Some of these issues can be struck down with two simple measures: getting the FCC to restore open access and network neutrality would promote growth of broadband networks in the United States, for example. Some problems are harder to tackle: television, as much as I and many others hate it, has consumers locked into habit, despite how unfriendly it can be to the user. P2P technology is suffering at the hands of a witch hunt due to its association with piracy. And yet, piracy would become less of an issue if television (and music) weren't so god damned restrictive. People bristle at being made to pay $70 a month for the good cable, just to watch a small handful of shows in a small handful of time slots.

The tyranny and the bullshit can only go on so long, though. Television's days are numbered in the information age. Just look at my generation and the next: television digestion is down, internet use is up. The internets are this generation's television, and television is just a distraction from this new reality. It will fade from prominence, and the internets will absorb all of its functions, and it will perform them better than television ever could.

About Time

2007-09-07T17:12:00.001-04:00

Democrats in Congress restored money into the federal Pell Grant program and cut corporate welfare to the lending companies in a new student loan bill. Hopefully this isn't the last progress we see in this department, and let us pray that Bush doesn't veto it. My future education rides on this. It really does.

Emanuel on Iraq Report

2007-09-07T13:51:00.001-04:00

Oh my god, a Democrat in Congress pointing out the reality of Mr. 25%'s war? What next, an actual proposal for withdrawal in Congress? Maybe we're getting to them, wearing down their resistance.

Net Neutrality

2007-09-07T07:51:00.000-04:00

Now the antitrust division of the Justice Department is jumping into the Net Neutrality game (yeah, like anything they can contribute will be trustworthy, right Al?). What's more, they're attempting to use the same tired argument that Rep. Boehner attempted with me last year.

In comments submitted to the Federal Communications Commission, the department said some net neutrality proposals "could deter broadband Internet providers from upgrading and expanding their networks to reach more Americans."

"Regulators should be careful not to impose regulations that could limit consumer choice and investment in broadband facilities," the department's antitrust chief, Thomas Barnett, said in a statement.

Now compare this to the prewritten response letter sent to me by Rep. Boehner's office last year:

This year, Congress will reauthorize the 1996 Telecommunications Act. One of the key criticisms of that act... is that, despite supposedly benevolent intentions, Congress essentially picked winners and losers in the various sectors of the telecommunications industry instead of allowing a free marketplace in which competition would lead to new technology, better service, and lower prices for consumers. As a result, many industry experts have concluded that governmental regulation has impeded the emergence of new technology and better applications. Perhaps the biggest example of America's stifled telecommunications progress is that the United States, despite being the world's economic powerhouse, is currently ranked 16 th for Internet broadband deployment.

And then, of course, there is my point-by-point response. The argument now is the same as it was then: network neutrality won't kill off the profit margin of telecom companies with their hands in many pots. Net neutrality doesn't prevent companies from charging based on bandwidth use, it prevents them from prioritizing, refusing to carry, or penalizing certain sites in favor of the corporation's interests. The Internet is not there for Time Warner, Comcast, or AT&T to decide what content gets buried, and what content gets promoted. That is wholly against the concept of what the Internet is.

Addendum:
Save the Internet Coalition's blog has a good post about open access and how it transformed Japan's broadband landscape. Open access laws were developed here in the United States, but were dropped by the Bush Administration at the behest of the telecom lobby.

Letter to Sherrod Brown

2007-09-07T06:47:00.000-04:00

So this morning, laying sick on the couch, I got the overwhelming urge to bombard my Senators and representatives with appeals to create and back stronger proposals for withdrawal from Iraq. But considering that one of Ohio's Senators is Republican George Voinovich, and the Representative from my district is Mike Turner (yuck), that left me with one real option: Sherrod Brown. So below is my letter to Senator Brown.

Dear Senator Brown and his staff,

It concerns me that our Democratic Congress is capitulating on the subject of total troop withdrawal in Iraq so easily. With such an unpopular war, supported by such an unpopular party (Republicans), mismanaged by such an unpopular President, what possible backlash could you really imagine there being against us for ending this quagmire?

You, sir, were elevated by the people to the post of U.S. Senator for a myriad of reasons, among them the belief that you could be a great leader on Iraq policy. Much the same with the elevation of Democrats to power in both halves of the federal legislature. This war is deeply unpopular, and Democrats were empowered to end it.

I fear that failure to do so may cost us much, maybe not in 2008, but beyond that. The Democrats must show that they have the strength and moral conviction to lead us out of this mess. What I'm asking, sir, is that you lead the charge in the Senate. The time for compromise with Bush and his Republican cronies is over.

We need change, we need to be out of Iraq before it drags us under and destroys our military capability. Put a proposal on the table for an actual timetable for withdrawal, and oppose the weak piece of legislation which suggests that Bush should figure something out, and then Congress would just merrily do with whatever the Decider decides.

Also, deny the war the funding to continue until you get Bush and the Republicans to capitulate to you. Even if you can't get enough votes to block spending bills, filibuster them to death. If Strom Thurmond could manage a 24 hour filibuster, it should be no problem for you, sir.

In conclusion, you hold my deep set respect as my representative and I hope that you continue to represent the people of your state fairly and honestly. I know that you are destined for greatness in the Senate if you just apply yourself. Thank you for your time.

Act Blue (Edited for Errors)

2007-09-07T06:09:00.000-04:00

I created an Act Blue page, primarily to support Mark Schauer, candidate for MI-07; Gary Peters, candidate for MI-09; Al Franken, candidate for MN-SEN; and Barack Obama, the next POTUS.

A Thousand Words

2007-09-06T16:03:00.001-04:00

Image Taken from Slate Magazine

Battle Hymns

2007-09-06T10:02:00.001-04:00

Music is a large part of my life. Cliche, yes, but true: somewhere out there, there is a genre, a band, and a song which reflect every aspect of my personality. From love to work to politics, the sounctrack to my life would be eccletic, eccentric, and electrifying.

I especially have a special place in my heart for folk music of a socially and politically charged nature. Organizing songs, protest songs, jaded commentary, revolutionary themes, and ballads of wrongs commited against humanity; all of these stimulate the fighting spirit that drives my heart. They keep me going, campaigning, pushing for a better future for Darrion and the children I one day hope to have.

Good folk music, just like any music, can be a double-edged sword. It can motivate people to great works of justice and peace, but can also incite people to violence and bigotry. You have to be careful in digesting the message of an inflammatory work of art so as not to lose control and do something irrational. Like with anything, you need to have a mental filter when listening. Allow the music to foster contemplation, not rash actions.

I guess the whole point of this post is that the fading of good folk music from public perception saddens me. In a time when folk would serve us best, instead we get rap songs about money and hoes, emocore music about how dad sucks, and crappy pop bands who talk about shallow lust and beauty. Not that those things can't also be good, but I find the general apathy in the average American to so many things to be disturbing. Doesn't it bother people that, in a supposed free market economy, the worker/consumer has no real power to negociate prices or wages, because there's always someone else willing to demean themselves by working for less? Or that our rights to speech, to self-government, and to free association are being threatened by corporate lobbyists, political dynasties, and a sense of superiority our business-class has over the average American?

I guess, deep down, I'm still just the jaded little revolutionary that my mother swore I would grow out of when I got older. But then again, what has my mother ever really understood about me? As much as I love her, and as much as it sometimes worries me, I am my father's son, and we understand one another as far as we care to reveal ourselves to each other. Two of the key things that have always united my father and I, though, is our ecclectic love for music and our abhorrence of injustice and inequity.

My father is my inspiration, even though we may differ in method and even opinions. It was because of him that I first started looking into the music of my parents generation, and the folk music that was popular at the time. It was something we could share and enjoy together, a rare thing for us. My aunt and uncle furthered this process, and my musical exposure and education as a child was varied and helped formulate my being.

My point here, really, is to wax philosophical on my love of music, via a long and twisted road. And, as I suck at closing a stream of consciousness post, I wish to say a few words: tweak, oddment, and blubber. Thank you.

Battle Hymns, by The Nightwatchman (Tom Morello)
Battle hymns for the broken
Battle hymns for the misled
Battle hymns for the wretched
The forgotten and the dead
Battle hymns of redemption
Of solidarity and pride
Battle hymns we will be singing
At the turning of the tide

Can you explain to the mothers
And the fathers of those
Who come riding home in coffins
In their military clothes
Shiny medals pinned
To their dead teenage chests
While the trumpets blare
And you lie your best
So ask all you want
From the dusk til the dawn
The answer's still no
Cause brother I'm gone

Battle hymns for the broken
Battle hymns for the misled
Battle hymns for the wretched
The forgotten and the dead
Battle hymns of redemption
Of solidarity and pride
Battle hymns we will be singing
At the turning of the tide

Can you explain away the sleight of hand
And the criminality
Of spending souls for oil
Well in the mirror I can see
I am the path that leads down
I am a dark and bloody hall
I'm the reaper, executioner
Hangman, judge, and the law
So tie a yellow ribbon
Round the oak tree on the lawn
But the cavalry's not comin'
Cause brother they're gone

Battle hymns for the broken
Battle hymns for the misled
Battle hymns for the wretched
The forgotten and the dead
Battle hymns of redemption
Of solidarity and pride
Battle hymns we will be singing
At the turning of the tide

So I'm sharpening my shovel
I'm firing the kiln
I'm blind and I am purposeful
A martyr on the hill
The dream you might be dreaming
Might be someone else's dream tonight
I'm the whisperer of misgivings
I'm the fading tail light
I'm the call for retribution
From the back of the smoke filled hall
I'm the vow of bitterness
I'm the poison in the well
I've a photographic memory
Of the deeds I will avenge
I'm the cold in the river hollow
I've a hatpin, I've a plan
I don't care of cause or consequence
Head shaved and body lean
I'm the go-getter, the score settler
I'm the shadow on the green
There's a flock of blackbirds flying
Nearly ten thousand strong
Who set off this morning
And brother they're gone

Battle hymns for the broken
Battle hymns for the misled
Battle hymns for the wretched
The forgotten, for the dead
Battle hymns of redemption
Of solidarity and pride
Battle hymns we will be singing
At the turning of the tide

BREAKING: Craig Resigning

2007-08-31T19:11:00.001-04:00

He's formally announcing his resignation from the Senate tomorrow, it seems. So now we wait and see who Idaho's governor appoints to fill the rest of his term.

Rez, Plz (Or "How I Learned to Stop Slacking and Love the Blog")

2007-08-31T18:07:00.001-04:00

It has been a long year since I last touched this blog, and during the time... well, little has changed about me. Eight months of democratic rule in Congress has done little that I had hoped, but hey, at least we have a minimum wage hike, right?

One year of silence, a communications blackout from the twisted genius that authored this blog only to let it fall before it could truly be established. My sounding board for my insanity, home to my outrage, core of my hope for the future. The place where I wax poetic about the corrupt realm of politics ("many blood-sucking insects").

But no more. I have said it before, but this time I mean it: never shall I fall silent again, lest the grave take me from this world. Even then, I would hope there would be a meaningful message in the end of my time on this Earth. But let us not speak of such depressing possibilities. There is much afoot that needs addressing, many wrongs which need righting.

I guess it strikes me at how sad it is that the Republican Party is so full of closeted homosexuals at the top. Strange to ponder how a person could be a gay Republican and be accepted by the party, so long as they follow the subtle (or often times not-so-subtle) anti-gay party agenda set by the leadership. The hypocrisy required is just staggering, and it makes you wonder why these men just don't come clean about who they are instead of trying to maintain an unhealthy lifestyle in the closet, soliciting sex from strangers in public restrooms.

The Craig situation both sickens me and excites me. It is sickening in the way the G.O.P. calls for his head and forces him out of his position for something as personal as his sexual orientation. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality that I can identify, and I believe that they should leave his sexual preference out of things. So he was busted for trying to hook up with a stranger in an airport restroom. What the hell are they doing wasting police resources trying to catch gay people, not in the act, but in the attempt to even make contact. I would call that entrapment, as he didn't commit any lewd acts to be charged with.

On the other hand, it's exciting that Democrats might have a chance in Idaho because of this. Not necessarily because of Craig being gay, but because of his impending resignation and the flaws of his potential replacements. Idaho Republicans could very well slaughter each other in the primary for the seat, just because there are more Republican politicians in Idaho than positions they could possibly fill without engorging the size of the state government.

I feel good about our chances in an Idaho Senate race for a change, and may well be contributing to Larry LaRocco's campaign this cycle.

Speaking of campaign contributions, I'm seriously considering making a contribution to Senator Obama's campaign for the presidency, and I'm also considering small contributions to Gary Peters for MI-09 and Mark Shauer in MI-07. Chances are that I'll be living in one of those two districts when I move back up to Michigan in early November, and I would like to do my part to secure Congress out of Republican hands.

Which reminds me. I'm moving back up to Michigan from Dayton, OH. The move isn't finalized yet, but it will be happening before the year is out, probably in early November as stated above. If you need to be in the know, you will be. If not, you can find out the details after the fact.

That's all for now. I'll be back, I promise.

Marijuana's Bad, Mmmmkay?

2007-08-30T20:20:00.000-04:00

Growing up like I did, with illicit substances always around the house in the hands of my stoner parents, I guess I have a hard time understanding -- even though I haven't smoked since I was a high school Junior -- what exactly should make my parents criminals and marijuana illegal. How can something less damaging than alcohol with more legimate medical uses be considered a dangerous narcotic?

This brings me to another one of my random, off-the-wall theories: should marijuana be used to treat menopause? Or better yet, hash brownies? Because if marijuana acts enough like estrogen that males can begin to develop breasts after enough exposure (supposedly), then why exactly aren't we using it to treat women with hormonal imbalances across the spectrum? Imagine it, hash brownies -- pot and chocolate -- being used to treat women for entire spectrums of problems, relatively naturally! Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass -- I'm not a chemist or a biologist. But if I'm right, think of the potential! :-P

It just always struck me as funny that even the big three illegal drugs -- marijuana, heroin, and cocaine -- all have legimate medical uses. Novacaine is a synthetic form of the main painkiller in cocaine, and it replaced the use of cocaine in modern medicine. Heroin is a derivative of morphine. Then there's pot, the seeming wonder drug. A myriad of uses is possible with the most harmless of the big three, and I really wonder why we don't just give up the stupid war on hash. What good has that part of the Drug War ever really brought us? Although I'm in danger of sounding like every other pothead legalization advocate -- or as they call themselves, the "anti-prohibition" movement -- I really do think we need to give it up and make weed a regulated substance, complete with sin tax.

I mean, imagine the revenue for state and federal governments from sin taxes on weed. And yes, there would be so many more people who might use it recreationally due to relaxed fears of being screened out of jobs and custodial rights by drug tests; but is that a bad thing? They would be regulated with the strength of their pot under strict control, much like we control the various proofs of alcohol. Let people do with their bodies what they want: you're not going to stop someone from drinking or smoking by enacting draconian laws and punishing them far beyond their crime. You're just creating a lot of bad will towards the law and the government. If the general consensus becomes that there are laws that are unjust and they deserve to be broken, then they will be. But when, then, should people stop ignoring the law? Total freaking anarchy, am I right?

I know I can't be the only one to see this? Are there really that many authoritarians who want to see draconian legislation and bans on (mostly) harmless substances like marijuana maintained and expanded?

Iraqinam?

2007-08-22T20:57:00.000-04:00

There's nothing that bothers me more than the twisting of historical fact into political rhetoric to justify a certain course of action. I've been watching President Bush use our withdrawl from Vietnam to justify not withdrawing from Iraq for years, and however you feel about the war, the analogy just doesn't fit. As the article linked states, "Asia didn't go Communist. Our Asian allies didn't abandon us. Rather, the Vietnamese began to fall out with her Communist allies."

And the boat people I understand, but the killing fields? Sorry, but that was Cambodia, not Vietnam. Sheer historical fact twisting, misrememberance, and idiocy. I just can't stand that sort of thing.

Back to Business

2006-08-28T20:06:00.000-04:00

Well, Karr isn't being charged with killing JonBenet. Hopefully that means that the media circus over the issue can die back down within a week and we can get back to the real issues threatening the nation today: corruption, war, media consolidation, and the devestation of the Gulf Region from last year's Hurricane Katrina. When the media is so focused on the lurid circus of their own self-perpetuation, ignoring all else, then it does little service to democracy, to the need for the public to be well-informed so that they may make decisions. Why couldn't one of the major media outlets focused on important local, national, and world issues during the Karr circus, and leave the for-profit insanity to every other station, newspaper, and newsmagazine across the nation. The American media are serial-sensationalists, focused on the murder cases and fluff of the globe. Campaign coverage is practically issueless, the way the mainstream media portrays it, and only soundbites and photo ops matter: Dean's "Scream", Kerry snowboarding, Bush on an aircraft carrier. The "Scream" is the perfect example, a repetitive attack on a Democratic frontrunner by the media which culminated the end days of the most powerful Internet mobilization of peole power -- democracy -- in this nation as of 2004. An Internet movement that once again made myself, and others of my generation, proud to be not only Americans, but Democrats. Progressives. Even... liberals.

This nation is so ruled by for-profit media, with few exceptions to the rule (Christian Science Monitor comes to mind). Everything is about entertaining to increase viewership; all at the expense of information. "Info-tainment" they call it, but have you taken a close look at it lately? More "tainment" than "info", that's for sure, and it's progressively decaying to an even worse standard. There are your bright lights among the murk still, but they come infrequently. Democracy is being held at gunpoint, and the gun is in the hands of the Murdochs of the world. Media is no longer an independent voice to inform the people so that they may make educated decisions: it is a massive entertainment machine operated to maximize circulation and effeciency at the lowest possible cost to the owners. Operating at the least common denominator is not news, not when you've eliminated your own actual national and international reporting and depend on someone else -- AP, Reuters, the Monitor -- to do it for you. And when you do ship one of your guys out there, it's for a media circus: O.J. Simpson Trial, Michael Jackson Trial(s), et cetera.

This is by-far one of the biggest threats to our electorate, lagging only slightly behind partisan redistricting, restricting ability to vote in states like Ohio and Florida, and outright "buying" of the vote through high-paying corporate donors and their "bundling" policies which buys them access to the pols once elected. Why the hell do "we the people" stand for it? This is our democracy, God damn it, and we're going to take it back. And when we do, the news media won't know what the hell hit them. Infotainment is reaching it's limits, all the while the people are striking back: blogging and organizing where they're blind. On the Internet.

The Anti-Democrat / Green Coalition of America

2006-08-15T17:08:00.000-04:00

I used to respect the Greeg Party, I even considered switching my official affiliation over to them between 2000 and 2004, but something made me hesitate. While I agree with many Green positions, something gave me pause. I was disgusted with Nader in 2004 for running the way he did, but he was also running independent of the Greens that election cycle, so I gave it little thought. Now, however, I'm pissed off.

A Green is running for the Senate in Pennsylvania for Santorum's seat, which is annoying enough in its typical spoiler scenario for the Democrats. But, like Nader in 2004, Carl Romanelli has accepted G.O.P. funds and the G.O.P. worked with him in order to secure the signatures for his candidacy petition. How could the Greens debase themselves so? This isn't just running to prove a point, or running to offer a third option; this is purposefully trying to spoil the election of a Democratic challenger to a seat held by a Republican incumbant. The Green Party has lost its credibility in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others. This move is down right infuriating and sickening.

Clinton Talks About Lieberman

2006-08-15T16:53:00.000-04:00

DailyKos and Atrios have it covered, I can't think of anything else to add.

Iran and Energy

2006-08-14T20:12:00.000-04:00

What most disappoints me most about the international attempts to deal with Iran on the nuclear issue is the apprehension over Iran's control of so much oil. Nations are seemingly really loathe to declare sanctions against a country with such a large oil exporting capacity, and they fear that Iran itself might try to restrict oil exports to most of the world, thus driving up prices for its enemies and potentially lowering them for its allies. If we were doing more to wean ourselves off of oil, the potential threat Iran poses would be lessened, at least economically.

The other thing, possibly the most ignorant argument I've ever heard, is that why does Iran need nuclear energy when they have so much oil at their disposal. Well let's see, perhaps they too are considering the creation of alternative energy sources in preparation for a time when using oil can become prohibitively expensive. Or perhaps they're doing it to free up more oil to export and profit off of, instead of burning it all up at home. The only ones who really know are the Iranians. If you're going to accuse Iran of doing something wrong, don't make it out to be about nuclear energy, focus on the real issue: nuclear weapons.

I don't disagree that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They exist in an increasingly -- sadly enough -- nuclear world, and an increasingly nuclear Middle East. Though not officially, some claim -- one could even say have proven -- Israel to have at least 300-to-400 nuclear devices through the help and assistance of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Iraq, then Iran's enemy when Saddam was dictator, also was pushing for nuclear weapons prior to his nation being crippled during the 1991 Gulf War. Also, one must consider that both Pakistan and India are nuclear, and Iran is separated from Pakistan only by Afghanistan, where U.S. forces are centered in that region.

On the other side, Iran has the occupied nation of Iraq, which is currently controlled (mostly) by U.S. troops. Indeed, if I were Iran, I would be worried about my neighbors using their nuclear stockpiles in negotiations, as well as fearing my neighbors could become U.S. invasion corridors. So Iran's position on nuclear energy and -- although not widely spoken -- nuclear weapons is a dangerous, unfortunate, and destructive policy, in a way I can almost see why they would go such a way.

Is there a solution? Not an easy one, I'm afraid. The United States seems to have designs for Iran, and Iran has designs for Israel. The entire region hangs on the constant brink of annihilation so long as nuclear weapons are an option worldwide. The thinking generally goes, "If my enemies can have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, why can't I?" The United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom are setting a poor example in the world by maintaining their nuclear stockpiles as a "deterrent" against nuclear war. But other, smaller nations -- seen as less responsible -- are questioning "why not us, too?"

Can't we start downplaying nuclear weapons as a deterrent before that deterrent is so widely spread that eventually it will fail to be so? Couldn't we start to willingly give up our nuclear arsenal, much like South Africa did with its six warheads in the early 1990s? I doubt much progress would be made with such moves in today's world, not easily. But then again, what's wrong with trying?

Axis Moste Evile

2006-08-13T18:41:00.000-04:00

The New York Times printed, unopposed, accusations against Iran that it was inciting and organizing attacks in Iraq. The only source for this is Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. After the Times reported his accusations, they had this to add in the sixth paragraph:

But he acknowledged that there was no proof that Iran was directing any particular operations by militias here.

I know my readership of one, maybe two people isn't much, but the more publicity attempts to further demonize -- falsely -- Iran get, the better. Iran has its definate faults, but there's no need to add false ones to the list, it just serves to further degrade American integrity later on. There's no need for the mainstream media to continue parroting administration propaganda, you would have thought they would have learned their lesson in the first five years of the Bush Administration.

Remember, Republican talking points never die; they just become political headlines.

Failed Approach?

2006-08-13T15:24:00.000-04:00

David Sanger's piece in today's New York Times, Does Calling It Jihad Make It So?, brings up some interesting analysis, although, as always, much is left out. My main issue is with something I read at the end of the piece, the last two paragraphs:

For Mr. Bush, however, dropping the talk of a “long war” would be to send a message that America can go back to sleep. Thus, each terrorist attack or threat is woven into the bigger picture of a global struggle.

It helps explain the recent redeployment of American troops to the streets of Baghdad: to pull out early would be a return to the failed approach of the 1990’s. It would be another Somalia, another Beirut. The problem is whether staying may give the jihadists something else: A narrative of never-ending conflict, in a war to be fought in Baghdad, in Lebanon and in economy class over the wing of a 747.

Now, let's look back at the situations in Somolia and Beirut. Between 1993 and 1995, the U.N. force in Somolia suffered significant casualties and was involved with various military disasters, such as the crashed Black Hawk helicopter in 1993. The withdrawl from Somolia didn't make the nation any more of a breeding ground now than it was before, during, and after the withdrawl.

Lebanon is much the same: the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings forced U.S. troops first offshore, and then completely out of Lebanon in 1984. Not only did Lebanon not collapse into a "failed state", but they came out of their civil war five years after American withdrawl and have been rebuilding ever since. In fact, Lebanon is less of a breeding ground for extremism now than it was before, during, and after the barracks bombings. Hezbollah is the only armed militant group remaining from the civil war, with the others having been disarmed.

So in fact, a withdrawl from Iraq would not necessarily result in a failed state, but only if the withdrawl was properly planned and timed. A mid-2007 withdrawl would give enough time to complete the training of Iraqi security forces and transitioning them into being the public face of the counter-insurgancy in Iraq. Then we could mostly withdrawl and stay on in a supportative role, providing assistance when needed, and otherwise letting the Iraqis handle their own affairs.

What bothers me is Republicans trying to paint the Democratic Party as being "anti-war" and in favor of a "cut-and-run" policy in Iraq. Sure, some of us are anti-war, but don't lump everyone who wants to end the military catastrophe in Iraq in with the anti-war movement. Likewise, I don't know of a single conscientious Democrat who wants to abandon the Iraqi fate to civil war and a failed state. We need to fight back against the Republican propaganda machine, and the mainstream media which is complacent in helping spread it.

Administration Cut Anti-Terrorism Funding

2006-08-12T20:35:00.000-04:00

Apparently the Bush administration wants to cut $6 million from programs directed at developing new explosive detection technology. This after the Department of Homeland Security failed to spend $200 million earmarked for the same purposes of research and development. Just more proof that this administration's focus on the War on Terror goes no further than Iraq.

Comcast's Lobby Stinks

2006-08-12T15:15:00.000-04:00

I wasn't really fond of Comcast before today -- I've dealt with since as long as I could remember, they were the only cable service provider in the Detroit Metropolitan Area, my place of origin -- but now I've been given even more reason to dislike them. I present to you: lobbyist lies about network neutrality.

Warm Fuzzies

2006-08-12T13:16:00.000-04:00

I love the good people over at Daily Kos. The kind of snarky humor they use is right up my alley, and I highly appreciate it.

Also, apparently the threat of someone using liquid bombs on planes has been known and ignored by the administration for year, and they did nothing to act on it. I'm impressive by this administration's record on national security. Not.

Democratic Revolution?

2006-08-12T11:56:00.000-04:00

Matt Bai of the New York Times has written a piece about Lamont supporters within the Democratic Party which I have found over at the Times' website. In it, he compares the current situation within the Democratic Party, the rejection of triangulation and blind bipartisanship, to "Reagan's Revolution" in 1976, when the right-wing of the Republican Party rose up against the same political strategies which now define the DLC-wing of the Democrats, and therefore dominate our parties politics. This passage in particular caught my eye:

There are, in fact, some compelling parallels between this moment in Democratic politics and the one that saw the ideological cleansing of the Republican ranks three decades ago. In ''Reagan's Revolution,'' an inside account of Reagan's failed 1976 campaign, Craig Shirley notes that aides to President Gerald Ford warned that they were ''in real danger of being outorganized by a small number of highly motivated right-wing nuts.'' Those so-called nuts, meanwhile, waged war on the then widely held belief that ''if they were to succeed, Republicans had to be 'pragmatic,' they had to 'broaden the base' and they had to 'compromise.' Otherwise, they would always be in the minority.'' The very same things might be written now, substituting the words ''left'' and ''Democratic'' for ''right'' and ''Republican.'' And like those bygone Republican leaders, establishment Democrats exhibit a surprisingly shallow understanding of the uprising that now threatens to engulf them.

While Bai makes some interesting points on the comparisons between the two movements, he also upholds the view that the Democrats, and even more so the liberal "revolutionaries" within the party, don't have a governing agenda, that we're not "for" anything. Yes, while many of us believe that it's easier to formulate a governing strategy after you've won the elections, we are still for things, it's just the media doesn't want to look at it that way. They just like attaching a view to us as revolutionaries without values.

Health care: roughly 16% of Americans are uninsured, more are under-insured. The American health care infrastructure has the highest administrative costs in the industrialized world. We wish to make health care available and affordable to all, by reducing the overall administrative costs of health care, streamlining the system, and providing subsidies and incentives to ensure everyone is insured. A publicly-funded healthcare system would be nice too, but let's not push it yet. In fact, Ned Lamont has stated a pretty solid health care proposal in his bid for the Senate. It's not as much as some would like, but it's a start.

National security: Democrats support increasing security in our nation's ports and vital infrastructure, and have made proposals aimed at furthering those goals which have been rejected by the Republican-controlled Congress because we can't afford them, because of the deficit. Yet we can afford a repeal of the estate tax, which would cost over $250 billion over ten years in tax revenue on the top 1% of the population. The Republican Party's heart just really isn't behind real national security, and the Democrats have advocated actual port security, reducing the causes of extremism by reducing poverty and furthering education worldwide. Our party, especially the liberal wing, has also advocated an end to "Cowboy Diplomacy" which makes us hated worldwide.

The economy: we have proposed removing the disastrous tax cuts for the wealthy, rebuilding the public sector, creating jobs through the reconstruction of our public infrastructure in the wake of several national disasters, including the Blackout of 2003 and Hurricane Katrina. We liberals also support keeping American jobs at home, and American-made products in our stores. International trade is nice, great, awesome; but it shouldn't come at the expense of the middle-class.

Those are just three key issues in which we have advocated. Of course the community have its differences, and everyone has their own ideas and own versions of what to do, but we are united in our desire to see this country done right. We tire of "Cowboy Diplomacy", of the mishandled War on Terror, the floundering economy and the destruction of the middle-class. We also tire of the Culture Wars; the portrayal as the Democratic Party as a party without values, who are against family values. Not only do we have values, but we have great ones: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The protection and survival of the citizens of the United States. The education and well-being of our children and families.

So I say to Matt Bai, before you accuse us of not standing for something, why not try asking one of us what we do stand for. You might just find yourself surprised at what you didn't know already existed.

Links of the Week

2006-08-11T19:18:00.000-04:00

News Links of the Week:

Daily Kos: Two Great Democrats: Bill Clinton and Jim McDermott
- Clinton gave a frank, up front speech on the big picture of the conservative movement within the Republican Party at a campaign fundraiser for Jim McDermott.

The Columbus Dispatch - Local/State - Bob Ney is stepping down as the candidate for Congress in Ohio's 18th District and Joy Padgett steps up. But is her replacement of Ney legal? A Republican-passed state "Sore Loser" law, often called the Strickland Amendment, which was designed to prevent Strickland from running both for Senator and Governor may preclude her involvement in the race for Ohio's 18th. Republican's say it applies only to the same ballot, while Democrats say it means the same year. State Attorney General says it's legal, but Democrats plan to challenge. Padgett ran as Petro's Lt. Governor in the Republican Primary for Gubernatorial candidate.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall August 11, 2006 06:48 PM - A Pro-Social Security phase out Democrat, ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey, has thrown his support behind Lieberman, a fellow Social Security hater. Will evil prevail? :-P

Media Matters - NBC's Today, New York Times repeated GOP claim that arrests benefit Republicans in elections, when polling shows Democrats have erased GOP advantage on the issue - And Democrat's have apparently removed the Republican's national security advantage.

And finally...
Eschaton - Aasif Mandvi - The Daily Show has a new Middle Eastern correspondent. Funny stuff.

Also, as a quick comment... apparently Democrats want to appease our enemies aboard and domestic. Really, this comes as a surprise to me. I'd love to see how this idea is justified among conservatives. Explain it to me, someone. I'd love to debate the issue.

To All You "Christian Fascists" Out There, Listen Up!

2006-08-11T18:49:00.000-04:00

...You're hurting America. :-P

Bush made the wise decision recently, when commenting on the foiled terror plot announced by the U.K. yesterday, to call the terrorists "Islamic Fascists". U.S. Muslim groups are criticizing, rightfully, the President on this move. Daily Kos, I believe, has provided a solid post exploring the issue. My favorite is the following passage, taken from a Gallup Poll last month:

While Americans tend to disagree with the notion that Muslims living in the United States are sympathetic to al-Qaeda, a significant 34% believe they do back al-Qaeda. And fewer than half -- 49% -- believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States. Almost four in ten, 39%, advocate that Muslims here should carry special I.D. That same number admit that they do hold some "prejudice" against Muslims. Forty-four percent say their religious views are too "extreme."

My roommate, Amber, I believe put it best when we noticed the President's use of language: she observed that the "enemy" has been slowly evolving. We've gone from calling them "terrorists" to "Islamic Fascists", which is such a loaded term. You're combining Islam, a religion which many U.S. citizens seem to percieve as being in opposition to Judeo-Christian western society, and Fascism, an extreme-right nationalist social movement in several nations worldwide which has resulted in the deaths of millions, the persecution of peoples for various reasons, and warmongering across the globe for nationalist interests.

In fact, I know a government which fits many of the qualities of a budding fascist regime: this one. If we don't start changing our culture and our politics soon, we could spiral down the path of fascism. I'm not saying Bush is the next Hitler, but his policies have tended towards that of more benign (relative to Nazi Germany) form of fascism. We need to shy away from the ideological trap as defining an entire group of people as "enemies" just for a vague set of criteria. Because at this rate, the "enemy" will become Islam. We cannot let that occur if we ever want to see peace again.

Also, the G.O.P. political machine pissed me off with the "presponse" to the foiled terror plot. Knowing about the plot before its official announcement, they started attacking Democrats on national security earlier in the week.

Terrorism

2006-08-11T16:51:00.000-04:00

Ever since the U.S. Embassy bombings in 1998, and the Clinton Administration's response to them (Operation Infinite Reach, which consisted of cruise missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan), I've wondered why we didn't start consulting more with other security and counter-terrorism experts worldwide. It would have been better to consult with people in other countries who have had a history of dealing with terrorist threats. Israel and Egypt have much experience with the types of Islamic extremists which were targetting the United States. The United Kingdom and Spain have dealt with home grown "terrorist" militias advocating independence of certain provinces dominated by specific ethnicities. So many nations have the experiences and training we lacked, and we could have learned much instead of trying to blunder our way through it.

September 11th, 2001 was not the first time I had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden. I remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombings from when I was young, and remember in subsequent years of hearing about possible connections between those attacks and Osama Bin Laden. I heard more about this man following the embassy bombings in 1998. I came to know and understand more about Osama Bin Laden, but until 2001 he was not a figure whose motives I knew very well, nor did my young mind understand them as well as I now understand them. Still, I always knew that if people were trying to attack us, particularly targeting our transportation infrastructure, that we should consult with the experts who have dealt with such things in the past, and still deal with them day to day.

That fateful day back in 2001, however, strengthened my belief that we needed to consult with international security experts immediately. My thoughts automatically focused on Israel, whom I admire for their transportation security and most of their counter-terrorism policies (although not all, especially the way they've treated Lebanon and the Occupied Territories). Since then, I haven't really aired my beliefs on the matter to many people, because of one reason or another: I was shy, no adult would listen to the ideas of a teenager, the system was too big and too corrupt for me to attempt to penetrate, et cetera. Eventually it faded from the forefront of my mind as other issues occupied it: the economy, the War on Afghanistan, the illegal War on Iraq, the dismantling of our civil liberties, et cetera. Still, deep down, I've always been disappointed with the blunder that our attempts to solo our "increased" homeland security has been.

Then the foiled terror plot announced yesterday began to bring it back to the surface, as my disappointment with homeland security and the fearmongering of the U.S. Department of the same name (only capitalized!) roiled. But I didn't really remember it until I spotted a quote in an article on CNN.com from an Israeli named Rafi Ron, the former head of security at Tel Aviv's Den Gurion Airport:

Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv, Israel's Ben Gurion
Airport, said screeners should focus more on finding suspicious people
than on hunting for potential terrorist tools.

"It is extremely
difficult for people to disguise the fact they are under tremendous
amount of stress, that they are going to kill themselves and a lot of
people around them in a short amount of time, and all the other factors
that effect their behavior," Ron said.

And it hit me again: we should have Israeli security consultants training transportation security around the country. In the airports, the train and bus stations, the ports. In power plants and water purifying facilities. This is what we need: expert advice and training from countries who already have established counter-terrorism training and expertise. Maybe not all of Israel's programs are right for us, but maybe those that aren't can be replaced by European programs, or homegrown programs, or something else entirely. Why do we always have to go it alone? As a country, we're different from other countries... but not that different. I mean, what could it hurt? Maybe it could save the lives of more civilians.

2006-08-10T22:24:00.000-04:00

My blog has sat idle for the past two months due to life stress and just a general apathy which I've been working to overcome. I'm reengaging with the outside world and meeting wonderful new people. Hopefully this, combined with my close scrutiny of the news becoming once again active, I will be posting more often. Who knows, maybe someone will even read them this time.

Also, ninjas versuses pirates, who wins?

Congressman Boehner

2006-06-08T22:55:00.000-04:00

A wonderful individual, I must say. Unless you've been living under a rock, you've probably heard of the fight to save network neutrality. While I participated in e-mailing my representitives on the issue, and I actually got a reply back for Representitive Boehner's office -- a form letter. Below is the full text of the e-mail:

Dear Sean :
Thank you for contacting me regarding recent interest group proposals for so-called "net neutrality." It is good to hear from you.

This year, Congress will reauthorize the 1996 Telecommunications Act. One of the key criticisms of that act (and the original 1934 version for that matter) is that, despite supposedly benevolent intentions, Congress essentially picked winners and losers in the various sectors of the telecommunications industry instead of allowing a free marketplace in which competition would lead to new technology, better service, and lower prices for consumers. As a result, many industry experts have concluded that governmental regulation has impeded the emergence of new technology and better applications. Perhaps the biggest example of America's stifled telecommunications progress is that the United States, despite being the world's economic powerhouse, is currently ranked 16 th for Internet broadband deployment. In anticipation of the reauthorization, I believe we must honestly examine and reflect upon the many government regulations already on the books and carefully consider the pros and cons of any newly-proposed regulations before endorsing proposals that may simply sound good on the surface.

One of the issues that Congress will address is the concept known as "net neutrality." Certain interest groups and press editorialists proclaim that Congress should mandate that cable and telephone industry broadband operators offer control of their networks equally to any and all Internet traffic. In fact, several major software and e-commerce firms have already formed a lobbyist organization called the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators (CBUI) to petition the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to do just that. In the name of preserving "network neutrality" and Internet "openness," CBUI members argue that the FCC must adopt preemptive "nondiscrimination safeguards" to ensure Internet users open and unfettered access to online content and services in the future. Despite the rhetoric however, there is currently no evidence that broadband operators are going out of their way to block access to any widely used websites or similar online services. In fact, any significant discriminatory behavior on the part of broadband service providers ( BSPs ) would generally be financially counterproductive considering that BSPs make more money by carrying more traffic. On the rare occasion that a BSP may actively regulate traffic or impose differential pricing schemes on their network, it would likely be for rather sensible reasons. Network owners may want to discourage the use of certain devices on their networks to avoid system crashes, interference, or signal theft. They may want to price services differently to avoid network congestion and/or conserve bandwidth. They may want to exclusively partner with other firms to help them reach new customers and ultimately create superior services. And perhaps they may very well direct users towards some content before others because it helps them make the necessary money to recoup the huge investment required to create and build out broadband networks. Outlawing the ability of network owners to favor certain content kills a major financial incentive for entrepreneurs to invent and build new networks in the first place. Ultimately, in the absence of clear harm, government typically does not regulate in the preemptive fashion that CBUI members are requesting.

Please be aware that the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Efficiency Act of 2006. Among other points, the act empowers the FCC to enforce the Commission's broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated within including: 1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice, 2) consumers are entitled to run the applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement, 3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network, and 4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Throughout the 1990s and more recently, I have resisted placing additional regulations and taxes on the Internet because of its effect on slowing development and service for consumers and the propensity for those regulations to actively harm certain businesses while rewarding competitors. Instead of being so preoccupied with maximizing consumer welfare within the confines of existing systems, "net neutrality" proponents would be better served to put more thought and energy into how future alternative networks may be created. The principle that "net neutrality" advocates seem to ignore is that competition in the creation of new networks is as important as competition in the goods and services that get sold over existing networks.

Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as this legislation comes before the House floor.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please continue to keep me informed of your concerns.

Sincerely,
John A. Boehner

The only thing editted about that letter was some of the formatting. You can tell it's a really badly coded pre-written reply by looking at the remaining original HTML from my direct copy/paste prior to editing.

Well I e-mailed him again, with a reply to the above e-mail. This was my reply:

Dear Representitive Boehner,

I thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to send me a reply, even if it is a generalized form letter in response to the deluge of e-mails you have recieved as part of the various network neutrality advocates and their petitions which I am sure you have been receiving. I am, however, writing you back to correct you on a few points.

In Canada, where there are no similar safeguards for network neutrality as there are here, a BSP had blocked access to a site supporting a worker's union while they were in a negociation with their workers who belonged to that union.

Also, I am all for future development of the internet and of the networks -- my chosen major centers around computers and the internet, after all. But what I also think you fail to understand is that the Internet did not start as a privately-funded and developed enterprise: it was born from publically-supplied investments and publically-developed networks. The broadband networks were laid down by corportate interests, under regulation from the government. Yes, private investment in networks is needed and desired, but a little thing like network neutrality has not and will not kill the profit of large corporations with their hands in numerous pots.

Also, BSPs make more money dependent on how many clients they have, not how much traffic they have. Traffic -- as in bandwidth -- is a commodity which it costs money to allow access to, and they make extra money alloting extra bandwidth to high-end users like websites, heavy downloaders, et cetera.

The real concern with the repeal of network neutrality is not that corporations be forced to issue everyone the same bandwidth no matter what their usage is -- that's why they have a sliding billing cost depending on bandwidth usage for high-end users. The concern is that they will use the lack of network neutrality to "double bill" and block competitors off of their networks. The double-billing would come from a tiered internet which functions on a cable TV model: if you want access to the higher tier of bandwidth, you must pay a special "fee" to the BSP in order to access that, and then you're still paying the sliding scale fee based on actual bandwidth usage.

Blocking competitors services is another concern. There are many VOIP -- Voice Over Internet Protocol -- providers, among them the very BSPs which we are currently discussing. The concern would be that, say Time Warner, the key broadband, internet phone, and cable TV provider in this area would, for example, block Skype, a cheap VOIP service, and YouTube, an online video service, as they would be competitors to Time Warner's VOIP service and cable television services.

The other concern, though certainly lesser, would be the blocking of views which dissent with the corporation (in terms of labor disputes and others) and/or are unwilling to pay the fee to access the higher-tier (a "bribe"), and therefore would be silenced.

Yes, BSPs may lose money blocking content -- but only if they can't make up for it in double-billing and creating a tiered internet much akin to the way cable tv operates. You see my concern, as both a citizen, a netizen, and a (hopefully) future participant in the development of computers and the networks which connect them?

I doubt my views will persuade you, or that this e-mail will see anyone higher than a staff member assigned to wade though all of these e-mails. I do, however, wish you luck in your endeavors, good sir, and that I am glad I live in the district which the House Majority Leader represents.

Again, good luck to you and your re-election campaign this fall.

Sincerly,

Sean Stinnett

So yeah. That was my big reply. I decided to be formal with him, despite my urgings otherwise.

So yeah, I knew I was going to be voting against Representitive Boehner, the House Majority Leader, before this... but somehow this was the final straw. I've been pushed by Mr. Boehner into actively campaigning against his re-election.

Anyway, peace.

Two Things

2006-06-08T17:00:00.000-04:00

One, I may not be posting as often for the rest of the week so I can spend a little more time catching up on the news and doing a little more factual investigating on some things. I am disappointed with the Kennedy article, which I believed in solidly and only briefly glancing through the sources. While I still believe that there were many irregularities in the 2004 election, and I believe there was fraud in the election, I believe that the focus on exit polls as 'proof' takes the focus off of the real problems: elections.

The other thing is, Blogger seems to be having issues today and that will affect the frequency of my posts. I've been on Blogger for three days and am already looking to move off of it. However, until I can make a bit more of a footprint in terms of being able to make developing, hosting, and writing my own website. So I may be on Blogger for a short time or a long time, depending on how it goes, but for the near-future I am here.

Peace.

Illegimate Illegality

2006-06-07T19:35:00.000-04:00

They work so hard for us, to further our way of life on their backs. Can't we just cut some of them a break? Isn't that fair?

Iraq

2006-06-07T12:36:00.000-04:00

This week's been big in announcements of Iraq-related events. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced 2,500 inmates would be released to help reconcile various sects within Iraq. Yesterday nearly 600 inmates of the 2,500 were released. I see this as a step forward in healing the wounds Iraq suffers from, but it won't solve the problem. You have to get to the causes of fundamentalism and extremism: people deserve better lives for what they work for; they deserve to be treated like equals and not have foreign powers coming in and telling them that they're running not just their government (which they usually don't have a hand in), but their society all wrong. And it's not just "you're doing it wrong, so we're here to help", it's "you're doing it wrong, so we'll do it for you how we see fit". It's not fair to a people to have a superpower come in and try to change the way your society functions via force. It's not fair and it doesn't work. Iron handed tactics only drive more people towards extremism: it's human nature.

The other big news is a timetable from the new Italian government, led by Prime Minister, Romano Prodi, issuing a timetable for withdrawl of Italy's troops from Iraq by the year's end. There are currently around 2,700 Italian soldiers serving in Iraq who will be returning to their homeland before the year's end. However, in my mind this raises a question: who is filling the gaps in Iraq's security arrangements? Believe me, I'm no fan of the war, and have opposed it all along on ideological and socio-political grounds, but I also don't believe that Iraq's security forces are ready to take over. In fact, I don't think Iraq's security forces really constitute any such thing right now.

I am a big believer in allowing Arab countries to assist patroling in Iraq. I say Arab countries because Turkey and Iran have too many interests in Iraq right now -- the Kurdish and Shiite situations respectively -- to act fairly in Iraq. And maybe I am wrong in that belief, maybe there are Arab countries who have similar conflicts of interest in Iraq; in fact, I know there are, but there are also many nations in the Arab League, and Arab League peacekeepers would therefore be a diverse group of international peacekeepers. Maybe allowing its neighbors -- any of them -- to police Iraq is a bad idea, but it's bound to be better than flooding the country with white soldiers from Christian nations which fundamentalists can paiunt as crusaders and target, right? Even a fully international U.N. peacekeeping mission would be better than the current situation, but any of the above proposals would require the conservative administration and Congress of America to come down off of their collective high horses about America's moral and political superiority and give up their dreams of American hegemony.

We can create a stronger, more globalized community if we work together with other nations in the best interests of the human race instead of working against everyone in the best interests of a national administration. But we'll see, maybe I'm wrong and the Iraqi security forces will ultimately turn out to be mostly competent, above corruption, and well-trained.

But I wouldn't hold my breath. Man do I get off-topic sometimes. Oh well, later guys.

Peace.

Ken Blackwell for Ohio Governor 2006

2006-06-06T18:24:00.000-04:00

No, this is not an endorsement. This is commentary on something I have observed. I am a big believer in a person's right to choose, whether it be at the grocery store, in bed, in the clinic, or at the voting booth. The right to vote is the foundation for our democracy, and the disenfranchising of legitimate voters is downright criminal and unconstitutional. So how can I live with the knowledge that Ken Blackwell, our Secretary of State and Republican gubernatorial candidate, is the man who presided over the 2004 election disaster?

To be honest, I really can't. How can I trust a man who presided over some of the worst election anomalies in modern U.S. history? A man who tried so desperately, while working as co-Chair of Bush's Ohio re-election campaign, to abuse his position as Secretary of State to disenfranchise thousands of voters, primarily in Democratic strongholds? This time it's his campaign he's presiding over as Ohio's chief elections official: how do we trust that?

There are so many allegations of corruption in the 2004 election and how it went down in Ohio, most of them centering around Ken Blackwell primarily (though it is clear that the national and Ohio GOP were involved on varying levels), that it makes me sick. The abuse of people and the stripping of their rights over something seemingly as petty as whose candidate gets to be head of state for the next 4 years. But in Ohio, it's more than that: it's about maintaining the status quo, about advancing Ken Blackwell through the GOP ranks.

Why should we even consider this man for Ohio Governor? If anybody can tell me one reason why he deserves to be our governor, I would much appreciate it. And I will respond in kind, participating -- hopefully -- in a civil debate over his qualifications for governor.

RFK's Rolling Stone article: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

2006-06-06T17:21:00.000-04:00

Just a real quick post on an article I found from the June 1 2005 issue of Rolling Stone which I have come upon rather belatedly -- that's what I get for falling out of the loop for a year. The article, written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., affirms my belief -- one that I have held for a year and a half, since November 2nd, 2004 -- that the 2004 presidential election was corrupt, especially in my new home of Ohio. The article is well-researched and supported by various investigations before it. One section really caught my eye, dealing with an investigation done by Rep. John Conyer's, one of Michigan's representitives and one of my favorite homestate polititcians:

The most extensive investigation of what happened in Ohio was conducted by Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.(52) Frustrated by his party's failure to follow up on the widespread evidence of voter intimidation and fraud, Conyers and the committee's minority staff held public hearings in Ohio, where they looked into more than 50,000 complaints from voters.(53) In January 2005, Conyers issued a detailed report that outlined ''massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio.'' The problems, the report concludes, were ''caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.''(54)
''Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake,'' Conyers told me. ''He saw his role as limiting the participation of Democratic voters. We had hearings in Columbus for two days. We could have stayed two weeks, the level of fury was so high. Thousands of people wanted to testify. Nothing like this had ever happened to them before.''

Anyways, just thought I'd share that. Now back to sorting through the news today.

Peace.

EDIT 6-8-06: Well, turns out I made an error because my source was wrong. The article is from the June 01 2006 issue of Rolling Stone. Makes more sense as to why I've just now come across it. I was out of the loop, but I didn't think I had been that out of the loop. Turns out I was right. Makes me feel better about being able to do this.

The other addendum I wished to make to this post was this. It's a Salon.com article by Farhad Manjoo which counters Kennedy's. Farhad Manjoo also wrote a another piece on the 2004 exit polls last year. Both make for excellent reading.

Peak Oil?

2006-06-06T16:06:00.000-04:00

A lot of people are advocating alternative energy sources based only on knowledge of steadily increasing prices of gasoline for powering our cars, natural gas for heating our homes, and electricity -- much of which is generated from fossil fuels. But the Hubbert Peak Theory, or 'Peak Oil', may add some urgency to the hunt for alternate fuels.

In a recent article on AlterNet.org, James Howard Kunstler engages in something of an angry tirade at the American people for their lack of understanding for what he sees clearly as an obvious crisis, as well as their dependence on a lifestyle which he describes as: "an easy-motoring utopia of suburban metroplexes that (makes) incessant driving inevitable". Clearly he has a lot of frustration built up on the issue, but is he justified in lashing out this way?

I personally do not believe so. Yes, I am not a fan of suburban America or the sprawl it produces, and yes, I do believe that Peak Oil is a real threat and that something has to be done about it. But to blast the American public for a lifestyle that was pushed on us by corporate America and the upper class isn't fair. Sure, we are also complecent in the creation of this lifestyle we live, but none of us conjured Wal-mart out of thin air, or presided over the explosion of the American highway system which occured under former GM CEO Charley Wilson, Eisenhower's Commerce Secretary. The lifestyle we live came about because some very powerful people had a stake in creating it.

It is our duty to inform the public as to the dangers of Peak Oil, though. It is our moral responsibility to our descendents: they should have the right to live, consume, be happy -- oil and natural gas are a large part of the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides we use today. They should also have the right, as should people today, of being able to have a family without feeling guilty that they may be bringing them into a world which is worse than the one our generation inherited. Our children should not have to live through food shortages, oil wars, social upheaval, et cetera.

Peak Oil is a dangerous thing, but maybe not as dangerous as some make it seem. For example, Kunstler's gloom and doom view of how events will go down, with predictions such as:

Our suburbs will enter a shocking state of economic and practical failure.

and:

We'd better start paying attention to the signals that reality is sending or we will be living in a very violent, impoverished and demoralized nation.

These things are possible, yes, but not entirely likely. Promoting more research of better quality into replacement energy sources could abate many of these problems. Yes, there will be changes, but hopefully they will be generally positive -- I believe -- and not violent upheavels, die-offs, and what not predicted by some of the direst of Peak Oil advocates.

Worldwide peak oil is predicted to happen this decade, how accurate that prediction is -- or the prediction of worldwide peak oil happening at all -- remains to be seen, some even say it happened back in 2004. In the U.S. our production peaked in 1971. Some of the major oil fields in Mexico and Saudi Arabia have reported evidence which indicates they hit peak last year. Peak oil happens, what the consequences will if it happens worldwide be is entirely up to us.

First Post

2006-06-06T12:46:00.000-04:00

It's been nearly a year since I last blogged... my old LiveJournal having been my rantspace on political, social, and economic events for roughly two years between the summer of 2003 and 2005. It was sparsely updated, not as well written as I would have liked it to be. It was angrier and less focused than I intend this to be. You can say that I've mellowed a bit, but I disagree: I believe that I have matured a bit, grown wiser about how I can opine and state my beliefs to others.

I hope this doesn't become just another progressive/liberal rantspace. I would really love honest, open, civil debate; I hope that I can do my part to assist in that goal. I plan on using this space as commentary on current and past events in the world and in America. Yes, I do try to stay informed on the news and yes, I do consider myself an amateur journalist -- how much of a typical blogger am I?

I hope to break out of that mold, though, and aspire to provide something unique, something worthwhile to the great debate in this country. Yes, I have bias; yes, one of my goals is to help unite the progressive movement in the face of long odds and a strong conservative movement. But everyone has bias, almsot everyone thinks their way is best. I do not intend this to be a neutral site, but I also do not want it to be a place where only one side is heard from.

As for a bit about me... I am about as left-wing as they come: liberal democrat (democrat as in supporter of democracy, not necessarily supporter of the Democratic Party), socialist, civil rights activist, et cetera. But I am capable of understanding and even comprimising with others who do not hold the same beliefs as I -- I have friends in the conservative movement, as well as others who fall into other socio-political affiliations. I wish I could say that I have never argued with them, but I have. But I try to keep the discourse civil, even if I am not always successful. I also have been working on my ability to do so, hoping that future arguments may be abated.

Otherwise, I am a 20-year-old male nanny. I watch a wonderful child, approaching three years of age, full time for a very close friend of mine, whom I share a home with. I am something of an amateur journalist and am always looking to be able to break into the field. I also desire to return to college and major in Computer Engineering, a path which I only have a semester worth of credits towards, due to my financial situation. I am currently a resident of southwest Ohio, and plan on settling in the area for the long-term. I am originally from the state of Michigan (go Wolverines!), and moved to Ohio after joking in late 2004 that I was going to adopt a swing state -- though ultimately that is not what brought me down here.

Anyways, I hope to make an actual post on current events sometime this week, and hope to at least be able to provide weekly posts for the time being. Until then:

Peace, love, and chicken grease.