Texas, a whole other country, that’s a slogan used to promote tourism a few years back, and there is more truth to it than most people realize. I live in Austin, which although it is the capital of the state does not really reflect the culture of the state as a whole. The main campus of the University of Texas is located in Austin, and both the students and the professors have a huge impact on the character of the city. Austin is much more liberal than the rest of the state, but that liberalism is tempered by a conservative streak that would seem contradictory but somehow makes sense here. The local support of Ron Paul is a result of this seeming dichotomy. There have been large signs, both printed and handmade, promoting Paul for President posted around town for months, even before the race truly began. Some of the posters have slogans that sound much like the ones we are now hearing from supporters of Barak Obama, with claims that Paul inspires hope.

In this strange political cycle, Texas is in the position of king-maker for the Democratic Party nomination, and it also may lock-up the nomination for John McCain on the Republican side. Ordinarily, Texas came too late to play any kind of role in the nominating process, and in the past few cycles has been considered a Republican stronghold in the general election, so the state tends to get ignored in campaigns beyond a potential source of donations. Not this year, with a nationally broadcast debate between the two Democratic contenders along with many public events, including a large, open air gathering of supporters of Barak Obama that closed down the center of Austin for an entire day.

Last night Senator Hillary Clinton held a “town hall” meeting at the Austin Convention Center followed by a campaign rally in the Berger Center, where many area high schools hold their graduation ceremonies along with using it for various indoor sports and other activities. I had the opportunity to attend the rally and hear Senator Clinton speak. It was very enlightening for me, because I found her a much more effective speaker than I expected, the short sound-bites typically included in the news shows do not convey the emotion that she obviously feels regarding public service. Despite my skepticism, and despite the widely held cynical view of her, she comes across as very genuine in what she wants to accomplish in terms of using government to help the less fortunate.

As the events of the last 8 years have illustrated, my mistrust of the Republican Party in preserving the rights of individuals against the powerful, such as corporations or even the government itself, was very well founded. The intolerance and religious zealotry endemic in the Republican Party has also disturbed me; the embracing of the endorsement of John Hagee by John McCain is a good example of how the party includes such tendencies. I tend to vote Democratic not because I have overwhelming support for the entirety of their platform, but because I feel they are less damaging than the Republicans. This year, my choice for whom to vote in the Texas Democratic primary has been difficult, because I do not like the appearance of political dynasty that would come from a victory by Senator Clinton. The roll of the Presidents starting in the 1980s would read Bush – Clinton – Bush – Clinton, which I do not believe would be healthy for our system of representative democracy. However, I have serious concerns about Senator Barak Obama in terms of both experience along with the feeling that there is more rhetoric than accomplishment behind his candidacy. I believe that only after many trips around the sun does one develop the judgment necessary for an office like President of the United States.

There is strong support for Senator Obama in Austin, likely reflecting the large student population of the University of Texas. I have seen people standing on street corners nowhere near early voting locations holding Obama for President signs. On my route in to work through a sparsely populated area, parked beside the road was an ancient RV with “Obama for President” painted on the front and a cowboy-hatted man standing on the roof with a handmade sign reading simply “Obama”. The Clinton supporters seem to be more targeted, clustering with signs and enthusiasm on curbs near the early-voting polls, and sending emails explaining the caucus process as practiced as part of the “Texas two-step primary”.

In Austin, at least, it seems to truly be coming down to the wire. It will be interesting to see what happens when I attend the caucus tonight.

Here’s how they’re doing:

Let us take at face value the nominal, stated reasons as why various office-holders claim the have for taking their various actions.

So, President George W. Bush vetoes the recent renewal/expansion of the S-CHIP bill because he is concerned that it is “creeping socialism” that would ultimately result in publicly funded healthcare, which goes against the libertarian philosophy of self-sufficiency and avoiding governmental interference.

Yet, he promises also to veto any bill regarding the FISA courts and wiretapping statutes that limits the ability of the executive branch to monitor communications that the government claims are important to preventing “terrorists” from attacking.

In other words, do not trust the government to be involved at all in health care, but do trust the government to know when to and when to not monitor the activities, statements, communications, and other matters routinely regarded as private in order to “prevent terrorism”.

Do not trust the government when it comes to protecting collective heritages, such as the environment in the form of clean air, clean water in the rivers, and land preserved in its natural state, do not interfere with property rights, but it is OK to search citizens in the most personal way when they want to fly or have any other kind of interaction with the government such as attend court sessions.

Unfortunately, those in nominal opposition to George W. Bush are no better, promoting agendas that interfere with the rights of individuals when it comes to the “collective good” while decrying the individual invasions of quasi-impersonal searches using millimeter wave radar, which reveals in images far more than a pat down search without the indignity of having someone actually touch you in a far more invasive manner.

In the end, both the right and the left are hypocrites.

What we, the people, need to decide is what exactly is the role of government in our lives.

It has been publicly proclaimed by President George W. Bush that he feels that one of the primary goals of the United States’ government is to “protect the people from terrorists.”

Does that come under the fundamental right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the preamble? That assertion would be debatable at best if the “protection” involved the invasion of “liberty” explicitly stated because of a self-proclaimed power of the Presidency to declare any US citizen as an “enemy combatant” who can be imprisoned indefinitely with no appeal, no access to legal counsel, and subject to treatment that by any reasonable definition would be called torture.

By contrast, one of the largest goals of the Democrats has been to establish a nationally financed system of health care. This is invasive upon liberties because it would force those who have large incomes to pay for the medical care of those who do not have have the same level of income.

Is that fair?

It depends upon what factors one chooses to consider in your personal calculus.

Both the left and the right are now on paths that lead to creeping authoritarianism, where the government knows what is best for you, The only difference lies in whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not a “terrorist” who threatens the authority of the state and its protection of the collective good against “terrorism” or whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not engaged in any behaviors that are a threat to your own good or the collective good as defined in fuzzy terms such as health and societally good or bad behaviors ensuring conformance to the notion that it is good for you.

Many like to label themselves as “small ‘L’ libertarians” yet they continue to participate in the kabuki play that we call our representative democracy, assuming they choose to vote at all.

Is that sufficient?

I say it is not.

Thomas Jefferson warned against the very situation in which we find ourselves, and he stated flatly, in no uncertain terms, “The tree of liberty occasionally needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots.”

Where are our patriots, who are not beholden to parties, but to ideals?

Ideals are worth dying for, parties and ideologies are not.

Are the ideas and ideals of 1776 and 1790 still too radical for the majority to fully understand?

I fear they are…

—

Related links that you can parse for yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21205942/

http://www.courierpostonline.com/specialreports/statesecrets/m062403b.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2142155

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/01/012604.html

http://www.privacydigest.com/2007/09/20/state+secret+overreach+editorial+barry+siegel

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2006/05/70785?currentPage=2

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/09/1013076-supreme-court-refuses-torture-case

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3876/

http://supreme.justia.com/us/345/1/case.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=345&invol=1

Upon becoming a stepdad, I’ve been introduced into the wonderful world of middle-school homework. One of the prevalent tasks (appearing in more than one class in more than one grade) is a “current event” summary. The student is to find a news article related to the class (this year we have two, one for Social Studies and one for Science) from a reliable source, primarily a newspaper or one of the major media websites, read the article, and write a summary that includes a summary, any points being pushed in the article, and the student’s reaction to the content. In helping with this assignment, I’ve noticed two changes in how news articles are written that I find very disturbing.

First, it seems that the “inverted pyramid” that I was taught to use when I was writing for my high school newspaper has been abandoned. Instead of starting with the most essential elements of the story in broad strokes with progressively more details as the article continues, a narrative style seems to be taking hold. The inverted pyramid (or painting style as I liked to think of it, where an outline sketch is the starting point, then broad background colors are added, then the final shading and details are painted) allowed the hurried reader to get the gist of a story quickly and if the story merited further interest, all one had to do was keep reading. Now, it is difficult to extract the news from most stories until halfway or more through the article, and even then some of the key points may not be written about until near the end.

The more troubling change I find is related to the loss of the inverted pyramid; it is the lack of context provided, especially for complex topics. To take one non-political example from the recent news, the so-called “comeback performance” by Britney Spears at the MTV Video Music Awards was reported cruelly focusing on her weight and her seeming lost on stage, completely lacking in the context of how she is a mother twice over and has had what can best be described as a turbulent personal life in the past year. While I am not advocating sympathy for the barely-clad Ms. Spears, understanding that she was trying to reclaim her status in the music industry as a mover and player and contrasting that attempt with the result makes her and her story a tragedy rather than an object of ridicule and fun that is obviously cruel when the context is considered.

Regarding a topic of significantly more importance to the future, few articles I saw about the widely discussed “Petraeus Report” noted that General Petraeus had previously made a progress report during the period where he was responsible for training of Iraqi security forces. This earlier report was very optimistic regarding the progress being made by the same security forces that are now said to be completely unreliable and better to be disbanded than kept. Instead, the testimony before Congress has been reported as part of a tale of Democrats versus President Bush instead of with the context of the previous history of the commands of this general and the results he claimed to achieve versus what has subsequently come to light. Placing the report as a set-piece in a narrative of political conflict forces the reader to view it through a partisan lens rather than accepting or rejecting the conclusions reported based upon the history of accuracy of those drawing the conclusions.

Is it any wonder with this type of forced narrative that political discourse has descended into accusations of “treason” and “warmongering” instead of discussions and yes, arguments, that still accept the good intentions of all parties involved?

I have too much compassion to be a conservative and too much sense to be a liberal.
   -Stephen Millich

…deny, deny, deny, with a big shout!

Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed.
   -Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)

A “tag cloud” has been generated for the recent State of the Union Address by President George W. Bush. Tag clouds were originally created to indicate which tags used to label/categorize blog posts were used the most; it lists the words (or tags) used in different sizes, with the larger sizes for the most used tags. In this case, the larger words are the ones used more often in the speech.

I am always interested in new and creative ways of displaying complex information, and tag clouds can be more effective than a mere listing of words with their frequency.

Technorati Tags: President Bush, State of the Union, politics, technology

Sigh…

Where to start?

Two years ago, before the last election, I believed that many bloggers who I read were reasonable despite their differing political views.

Since then, however, despite their own protestations, the Partisan Derangement Syndrome (or PDS, formerly known as the Bush Derangement Syndrome among those who are not able to recognize the universal nature of this malady) has taken hold, and unreasoning support of “their own side” in the face of all evidence to the contrary still takes hold. Perhaps not all the time, but often enough where the rationality and clear vision of those involved comes to question.

I will present two examples, and if those involved choose to take offense, I offer my apologies, but I am merely trying to illustrate a point. If you do not want your opinions discussed publicly, then do not post them on weblogs.

The first example is one of conversion, the Commissar of The Poliburo Diktat, who is now asking the same questions I have been asking for the past three years, but only after evidence beyond even an unreasonable doubt of the incompetence of those he formerly supported:

An agonizing gotcha moment

The other day, I posted a long piece questioning the widely-blogged report of sharply decreasing Iraqi casualties in August. When I saw a new, corrective report today, being human, I felt quite vindicated. While there was a slight drop-off in August, the 2/3 decrease was just was not credible. It never happened. But does this put me in the position of rooting for more deaths of Iraqi civilians? I certainly hope not. Do I want to say smugly, Ha! Eat sh1t, Powerline boys! … um .. only for a moment.

But that is one of the challenges of the debate that this country is having about the Iraq war. The administration (perhaps understandably) puts out a relentlessly positive, upbeat party line. Conservative bloggers (also understandably) jump on any favorable fragment of news and give it great prominence. Political opponents adopt the same tactics, with bad news.

Simply trying to bring facts and reality into that atmosphere is difficult. And when the news from Iraq is mostly bad, one ends up sounding like a moonbat. *sigh*

Well, gee, Commissar, it would have been nice to have you in the reality-based community (not to be confused with the Democrats) back BEFORE the current set of idiots were elected or re-elected back in 2004.

Somehow, even in his repentence of following the party-line, and despite facing overwhelming evidence to the contrary, acknowledging reality is “sounding like a moonbat.”

It is a sad archetype when pursuing rationality is perceived as completely irrational by the wing currently in power…

Then there is the sniping from one of whom I expected a bit more of a balanced view. In one of his “H&I Fires” posts, John Donovan of Castle Arhgghhh!!! writes:

Oh, my. I may be getting free books, but I’m not getting free review copies of TV stuff. But this is delicious: Senate Dems are threatening ABC’s broadcast license over the 9/11 mini-series. Which indicates *just* how much they fear it. Wow. Talk about “Soviet-style chills” oh, wait, that’s the NYT when Rethuglicans are talking trash about television… One wonders what the Grey Lady’s tortured thoughts will be this time ’round.

Update: While we haven’t heard from the NYT Editorial Board, we have heard from their critic who saw the show.

NEW YORK The film-makers and network responsible for the upcoming miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” which is now under assault for its alleged conservative bias, received critical support from a perhaps unexpected quarter on Friday — The New York Times.

The paper’s TV critic, Alessandra Stanley, declares the film “fictionalized” but still evenhanded.

Others cited in the same Editor and Publisher article didn’t necessarily agree…

Chicago Sun-Times TV critic Doug Elfman calls the movie a total “bore” and “amateurish.” John Podhoretz, conservative columnist for the New York Post, labels it a “stiff” and attacks the film’s depiction of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger. USA Today’s Robert Bianco writes that the movie “has enough trouble just following history. Rewriting history is an ambition it should have left at the door.”

Hey, fair and balanced, that’s us!

Hey, John, this isn’t your original comment of “What are they afraid of?” in reference to the Democrats, and that particular snark was unworthy of you despite the apparent subsequent edits, for they are not much better.

I am forced to wonder, is the bias evident in only showing preview copies to conservative commentators and right-wing polititicians bothering your conscience, or did your sense of “fair and balanced” get reawakened by the protests from conservatives regarding the “docudrama” about President Ronald Reagan that was to be shown around a decade ago, which orgininally showed him having total indifference to the effects of the AIDS epidemic on the homosexual community but was alterered in the face of partisan protests?

Or are you fully supportive of a film presenting distortions and outright fictionalized scenes as history? One must wonder…

Or was the current imbroglio too close to the Dan Rather standard of “fabricated but balanced” for you?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Perhaps, John, you might want to read a few other posts on the matter, starting with what Joe Gandelman had to say, especially when it comes to the partisan nature of the pre-release DVDs issued.

Am I angry?

Yes.

I am sick of the unthinking, non-rational nature of what we call political “discourse” in the nation today.

Excuse the fuck out of me for asking for reasons and full discussions of options when it comes to sending Americans (including our soldiers) into harm’s way.

Via Boudicca’s Voice comes a reference to how the system of government in the United States is beginning to resemble that of China in terms of ignoring property rights in favor of what is “best for the community.” From Ogre’s Politics & Views:

What a damn nightmare. As many as 6,000 people may become homeless, directly because of direct government action. Why? So some politicians can line their pockets with cash — I kid you not.

The situation, if you’re not aware of it, is that the mayor and government of the “city” of Riviera Beach wants to use eminent domain to kick 6,000 people out of their homes (where most have been for OVER 40 years) so he can give the land to other private individuals — developers who will build an aquarium, condos, a mall, and a yacht club.

While watching, I took some notes. Hannity, when speaking to the mayor, said at least 10 times, “So, you’re going to kick people out of their homes to increase your tax base?” The mayor would not respond. The mayor FINALLY said, in response to that statement, “We will rescue them.” Why? “For the good of the community.”

Welcome to Amerika, 2005. People have no rights at all. If you do not have the right to own property, you simply cannot have any other rights. Free speech? Sorry, you can be arrested for standing in the wrong place, since you cannot own land, so that right is gone.

Freedom of religion? Sorry, if you are in a church the government doesn’t like, they can take it from you and demolish it, because you have no right to own property.

Right to bear arms? Nope. If you cannot own property, government can, quite literally, take anything away from you that you own.

How about the right to be secure in your own property and “their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?” Nope. If you cannot own property, then this right simply does not apply. The government can just claim that your house is their house, and they can do whatever they like in their own house.

Boudicca’s view carries great weight because she is someone on the scene:

Now, as a person who lives 15 minutes from Riviera Beach… let me give you my 2 cents.

It is not a blighted community. There are parts that are. It is where our ghetto is located. Our crack houses and whores, drug dealers and general all around low life DO live in Riviera Beach. Parts of it.

BUT, there is much about Riviera Beach that is NOT all that. There are those old fashioned Florida concrete block homes, nestled close to the intercoastal. Nothing big and gaudy. Homes that are kept pristine with grown in landscaping.

And those homes… those homes my friends… are the ones the government in Riveira Beach REALLY wants. Forget the subsidized housing, the run down vacant rat shacks that harbor folks that are so strung out their worst fear is the DTs, not the rodents. Forget that.

Those are the EXCUSE. Those are the EXCUSE the government needs to get their hands on the Golden Chalice. Coastal Land that they can build upon… Claim other people’s land as their own, shuffle them off somewhere with a pat on the head saying, ‘See, we’ll look out for you’, moving them into some inner city apartment that has no family memories, no past Christmas dinners or children’s growth measurements on a door frame.

They use the ghetto as the excuse to develop land they have no right to develop.

This is exactly why I am suspicious of the promotion of business interests over the rights of the individual, which is what I perceive is the agenda of the non-religious component of the Republican Party. While I cannot truck with a lot of what the Democratic Party advocates, I find the wholesale invasion of privacy and undermining of fundamental rights undertaken by the Republican Party for reasons related to promoting business interests, along with imposing a morality through government combine to make a double-barreled threat that is far too often overlooked.

In other words, I am not pro-Democratic, I am anti-Republican, until they demonstrate they are NOT a threat to our liberties.

Technorati Tags: amber and cruelty, commentary, politics, eminent domain

The University of Kansas is offering a course on the so-called “Intelligent Design Theory” but not exactly in the way the proponents of the belief might prefer:

Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies.”

“The KU faculty has had enough,” said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.

“Creationism is mythology,” Mirecki said. “Intelligent design is mythology. It’s not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.”

I repeat yet again (redundancy intended, because that seems to be the only thing that reaches those whose beliefs triumph all reason), science and religion do not conflict.

Science is the how.

Religion is the why.

If you cannot see the difference and insist upon imposing your religious beliefs upon everyone, how can you truly say you have faith in the truth of your beliefs?

If your beliefs are the truth, they should stand on their own, immune to any challenge without the need to impose them upon others.

If your beliefs are so weak as to require imposition upon others, are they really the truth you claim them to be?

—

Submitted to the latest Outside the Beltway traffic jam.

Some of the email messages sent by former FEMA director Michael Brown have been released. They do not make Brown, who is currently acting as a “consultant” and still receiving money from FEMA equivalent to his salary as chief of the agency, look as if he had a sense of the scope or urgency of the disaster in the wake of hurricane Katrina, nor does Brown come across as the “strong leader” he presented himself to be in the Congressional hearings after the disaster.

While political patronage has a long history in the United States and has been practiced by both parties as a matter of routine, perhaps we as voters should reconsider the position, “It has always been this way,” and begin insisting that many federal agencies should be directed by professionals in the field rather than by people who were given the job because they acted as political operatives for a successful candidate. The price of this patronage may now be too high. The world has changed over the years, we should change accordingly.

Technorati Tags: commentary, FEMA, politics