Thoroughly Modern Marx

An Interesting Discussion Everyone Should Watch:





To see the rest of the discussion, go here:
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=393

Sotomaynia!

Thank you, national media.

Thank you for your vigilance in protecting me and my heavily under-represented and oppressed Caucasian brethren.

Thank you for taking a stand against the day-to-day "reverse racism" of which every white male in this country suffers.

Thank you for responsibly summing up Sonia Sotomayor's 40 years of legal experience with 2 comments which, if taken completely out of context, could almost - if I turned my brain off for just a few seconds - be construed as racist.

It's important to make sure that a Supreme Court nominee, when they're a Hispanic male appointed by a white male, is not questioned about their membership in an organization that called for capping female and minority university admissions, because that's going "too far." We might hurt their feelings.

But when a Hispanic female appointed by a black male makes a comment that points out she may be able to bring fresh perspective to a court that, until now, has produced 106 white males out of 110 total Supreme Court Justices, appointed by... hrm, let's see... all white male presidents? She may be a racist; we better make it the single biggest issue concerning her candidacy. Even the New York Times agrees.

Good job, national media. Let's send a message that comments like those recently made by Gordon Liddy hoping Sotomayor doesn't make any key decisions while menstruating, and that the Supreme Court "is not designed to be and should not be a representative body" are legitimate criticisms. Or Bill O'Reilly's rants against "putting women and minorities in power" shouldn't bother us for other reasons entirely. Let's not focus on former representative Tom Tancredo's statements that Sotomayor is part of the "Latina KKK" and doesn't know whether or not Obama hates white people, per Limbaugh's suggestion.

It's important to focus on the "new racism," as Newt Gingrich so eloquently puts it, against white males. All of this concern for white males couldn't be an indication that "old racism" and blatant sexism could still be very much alive in our society, on our televisions, in our newspapers, and all over our national media outlets.

The War Unseen, Unheard & Unplanned

I remember my first introduction to Barack Obama. The man who was against invading Iraq from the start. One of the only politicians of any national recognition (as of primary season) who had voiced his opposition while it wasn't politically expedient to do so. One of the few among his newfound colleagues who hadn't fallen for fabrications and manipulations, who had ignored the lies and considered the facts (a brief montage below, for the memories):



This man, I thought, this man stands for reason. Here is someone who's studied their history, who understands the lessons Vietnam should have taught us. Here is a man of the 21st century, who is not mired in the zero-sum games of the past.

On the campaign, though it was understood he needed to look tough, Obama still reinforced this image. Debating a war veteran, he needed to emphasize he would not be afraid to use force and, to support such a position, he advocated a more aggressive plan in Afghanistan. At the same time, he continued to question our actions in Iraq and drew up timetables for a structured withdrawal. Most importantly, he placed a great emphasis on the need for diplomacy, on the necessity of being open to talks with leaders in states like Iran, North Korea and Venezuela.

We can trust this man to lead us, I thought. We can trust him because he won't commit American lives to an unnecessary war with no exit strategy. Here's someone who will exhaust all avenues of diplomacy before looking to a military solution. Here's a Commander-in-Chief who will carefully consider the human cost of war, the civilian casualties that will result, the lives that will be forever changed, before making such a commitment.

Fast forward to present.

We've committed 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. General McKiernan, currently in command, asked for 30,000, a doubling of our presence. Just last week, a U.S. air strike killed over 100 civilians. In the midst of all this, President Obama cannot provide a plan coherent enough to even outline our goals or withdrawal strategy. Meanwhile, the Taliban strikes deeper into Pakistan - a country funneling billions in American aid meant to safeguard its nuclear weapons to build more... because 100, of course, isn't quite enough.

We now have soldiers returning for 3-4 tours of duty. That's unheard of. The strain the horrors of war place on the human mind is exacerbated by prolonged exposure. According to a recent story in Time magazine, "For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan." Fully one-in-five of returning veterans are suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, if not more. That number's 300,000 and growing. People sacrificing their lives for our country are returning home and hanging themselves. Why are we ignoring this? What's the matter with us?

Hardly a peep can be heard from the national press corps and mainstream media. Instead, the hot topics are credit cards, Notre Dame and Ms. California's implants.

With all the press conferences he's been holding, why is Obama not focusing the discourse on this war? Where is the "support for our troops"? For the first time, there really is a threat a terrorist organization could get its hands on WMDs - actual, launchable nukes. Why is the media not seriously talking about these issues? Why are we escalating in Afghanistan and what are we planning to accomplish there, and how? How are we working with Pakistan on this? How are we working with NATO and our allies?

This war needs to be talked about. This war needs to be in the national headlines. The psychological strain being demanded of our servicemen should be on the minds of every American. We should be debating the ramifications, the consequences of war in Afghanistan. We should be discussing Pakistan's security. We should be calling for a detailed plan of action.

Why aren't we?

Our largest near future threat: US Dollar Collapse

Hold your horses, as this is an economy post.

Two years ago, however, if anyone shouted US Housing Bubble Collapse, they were a libertarian, and were labeled something akin to a conspiracy theorist.

Here is a recent video interview of Ron Paul worth watching, where some stupid-sounding TV people give him credit for what is essentially a brilliant word for word prediction of the current economic meltdown. I was impressed, and I liked Ron Paul already.



The next immediate threat, and it also appears briefly in the above video is the possibility of the collapse of the US Dollar. This is too big a topic to explain thoroughly, but I will try to summarize. We have been on an unsustainable path for quite some time. By being the largest country, and with the US dollar being the major reserve currency of the world, we were allowed special status in the world. As a country, we have been running a trade deficit for decades. As individuals, in 2006, our country's savings rate was -0.6%. Our historical savings rate had been in the teens, and East Asian savings rates loiter as high as 30-50%. This means that as a country, we spent more money than we created. This is essentially unprecedented, and has been very much unsustainable. Our federal deficit, while a sore topic for discussion, is similarly contributing to our woes.

The thing is, all of this is only really possible because the US dollar is so important in the world. Had Russia engaged in activities similar to ours, the rouble would have been devalued many times over and Russia's external investment would have dried up.

The US dollar is a essentially a made up piece of paper. It has no inherent value. Owning a dollar is almost like owning a share of the US Government, and it is sustained by the belief that the Government will make good on its debts, that it will not continue borrowing indefinitely, and, very importantly, as a result of all the previous factors, that it will not have to resort to printing currency to make up the budget difference.

The collapse will happen the moment that foreign countries decided our government won't pay back the debts. The US government will have to start printing trillions of dollars to balance our overspending, and the poor dollar will fall in value, exacerbating its status as the world's reserve currency forever.

More recent evidence involves strong words from China and a shift in foreign currency reserves. The scariest evidence I have seen, though, was a decrease in our credit worthiness as determined by insurance companies. The US still maintains its AAA credit rating, but we had a brief moment where insurance rates backing US debt had a higher cost than that of MacDonalds. MacDonalds briefly had a higher credit worthiness than our whole country. Crazy - no?

Even Obama's on board, though he has to use softer words about the dangers, or his statements alone could cause a US dollar collapse.

In some ways, a weaker dollar is already hitting me personally. My current foreign trip is costing me 10% more than it would have a few months ago.

For more evidence, just read any of the dozens of posts that come up when you google US Dollar Collapse. This one has a good step by step explanation of possible causes of a dollar collapse.

More Torture

This issue seems to be a resilient one and is getting harder to follow on different threads so I figured I'd bring it back up...

To answer Sal:

Popularity is only useful insofar as it produces a useful outcome. I could care less about Obama's popularity and his agenda if it means the powerful are above the law. To me that would undermine any other supposed "gains." If this administration has to suffer a blow to its popularity because it applies the law and seeks a just outcome, then it'd be a happy day.

I suspect this isn't happening, and that investigations are not taking place, not because Democrats are afraid of being seen as partisan, but because key Democrats are complicit. See Nancy Pelosi:

The China Problem

In contrast to Sal's approach, I'd like to look at the 'man/nature' question at the collective level - through a particular case of increasing controversy. Krugman's Op-Ed piece today discusses an growing source of worry for climate scientists: China's exponentially expanding environment endangering emissions (how's that for some alliteration?).


China's cumulative carbon consumption - chiefly (cheap) coal - has doubled in a decade and shows no signs of slowing down. Just this January, the government announced its plans to increase coal production by 30 percent over the next 6 years. And they already lead the world in CO2. However, when confronted with critisms of its policies, largely from American and European environmentalist groups, China simply shrugs and says, "Really? Look who's talking."

The majority of global warming can still be attributed to Western nations - who themselves never had to deal with any type of environmental restrictions while going through their own phases of industrial development. And in the U.S., for all the administration's talk about renewable energy and taking the lead on proactively confronting climate change (through such Congressionally unpopular measures as cap-and-trade) Americans still have the highest global levels of per-capita emissions. This is, of course, the very same United States that distinguished itself as almost the only country in the world to thumb its nose at the Kyoto Protocol.

But is Western hypocrisy at all relevant to the issue at hand? Can the world sustain China's development in this manner without suffering severe environmental repercussions? And India's? And Brazil's? If the answer is no, then how do industrialized nations incentivize eco-friendly economic development? Do they even have the ability to do so when countries like the United States have yet to even implement such policies themselves?

Is it even possible to cooperate on this issue or must some short-term/long-term interest threshold first be met? And will we hit such a threshold before we lose the ability to effectively reverse the environmental consequences?

Drunk monkeys attack humans

April 17, 2005 was a day of mourning. Baralapokhari, a village 142 km from Bhadrak town was attacked by an army of monkeys drunk on some perverted type of weed booze. The injured had to be hospitalized.

You can find the whole (sorrowful) story here.

Humanity and nature have a unique path together. Sometimes we work together, sometimes we fight when we could have worked together, but sometimes there is no choice but for humanity and nature to clash. In the Indian jungle, you kill the tiger, or the tiger eats you. A stranded hiker may have to choose between starvation, and eating an endangered cute koala bear. On a more familiar front, we choose to build roads, destroying what plants/animals/minerals lived upon that sacred ground. I am not even talking about the Amazon forest, but more about small patches of woods all along the American east coast where beautiful trees and squirrels are cut down to make room for human civilization.

My question is... if we have to choose between man and nature, where do we choose? Where is the fine line? If Mozambique could cut down all of its forests to save its country from starvation, should it? If Brazil's destruction of the jungle sent it to 1st world rich no-starvation status, should they cut it down? And I want no bull about cooperation, as I am only talking about scenarios where there is no possible cooperation.

Personally, I say we cut down as many koalas as we need to move into the future.

Comedian-in-Chief

Absolutely hilarious White House Correspondents' Dinner:


Part 1:


Part 2:


Wanda Sykes owns Limbaugh, Hannity & Cheney:

On torture: "You can’t defend torture! That’s like me robbing a bank and going in front of a judge and saying, “Yes your honor, I robbed a bank… but look at all these bills I paid!”

Fun with Libertarianism

Here's a little something to provoke our libertarian friends. I thought it was good for a laugh:

Multivax Intelligent Design

This is as plausible an intelligent design argument as I've ever heard:
Multivax's Last Question

Media, Free Speech, and Savagery

So last night after bowling I was chatting with Mike about Britain's ban of Michael Savage. I thought the discussion was interesting, but apparently Mike is not a blogger so I thought I'd post a few things on this issue to generate a little discourse:

Here's an article on this from Savage's website. For more, go to: http://michaelsavage.wnd.com

Here's a couple of differing views from Common Dreams:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/06-10

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/06-7

Whaddya think? I tend to side with Greenwald on this one...

Spanish Universal Jurisdiction

Tom I am not familiar with Garzon's political motivations... perhaps you could describe for me what axe he is attempting to grind and how that would negate international cooperation? I do believe the Bush government imprisoned and tortured several Spanish citizens/residents...does that not give them some interest and jurisdiction in the matter?

Here's a quote I found on CommonDreams about it:

"Spain since 2005 has assumed the principle of universal jurisdiction in alleged cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, and terrorism. But it can only proceed when any such cases of the alleged crimes are not already subject to a legal procedure in the country involved."

So if nothing is done here, they will pursue it. I think it is that pressure on the Obama administration to follow the law that is a good thing. Why is it you object?

Here's the arcticle:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/29-6

Let me know what you think...

Some Encouraging News...

RE: Torture

Some encouraging news about this today...

Re: Torture

Ian, I had to respond in a full post of my own; I had too much to say that it just wouldn't fit as a comment!

First off, I don’t think it’s fair of you to characterize torture as a possible Conservative value. Besides the fact that it’s contradictory to even call torture a “value” in the first place, self-styled “Conservatives” like Dick Cheney are extremists and more accurately represent a fringe group in America that, I believe, is represented far more in the media than they are in the mainstream population.

You bring up several questions, which, in turn, bring up even more questions; here's where I stand...

1. Whether torture is ever OK:

It’s not.

There’s zero question that torture violates basic human rights and it’s absolutely absurd for anyone to even attempt to make the argument that it’s ever okay, in any way, shape or form. I am severely disturbed that this question is even being debated in the media right now. If someone can find justification for torture, then what can't they find justification for?

The question this raises for me is: what does it say about our society that this argument is being given any kind of credibility at all? And why is it largely coming from members of a party that not only identifies itself as a protector of "traditional American values" but also finds its staunchest support among a demographic that votes according to religious conviction?

Regardless of the reasons cited by those arguing in torture's defense, whether it be due to a misplaced hatred or even a lock-step deference to authority, their stance violates one of the most basic codes of human morality.

Even Fox News Anchor Shephard Smith gets it:

2. Whether its use on suspected terrorists keeps any more safe:

It doesn’t.

As is explained in the video you provided, there is not a single shred of evidence to even suggest torture is an effective tool; experts in the field roundly reject its viability as a method of obtaining information.

Not only is it highly unreliable, but torture-free interrogation techniques exist that are vastly more sophisticated and provide much more accurate results. But don't take my word for it, here's the former CIA Chief of European Operations:

…And that’s before even taking into consideration how engaging in the practice utterly compromises any kind of moral authority whatsoever you may have had, which hamstrings your ability to cooperate internationally with nations that will want to distance themselves from your actions.

Bottom-line? It’s not even useful.

3. Whether water-boarding is torture:

It is.

This claim is almost as bizarre as the first one. And it’s being echoed on mainstream media outlets as well.

Water-boarding, i.e., the modern day form of Ancient Chinese Water Torture. Christopher Hitchens thought it couldn't be such a big deal - what's some water on your face, I mean c'mon - so he tried it. Guess what? He didn’t last ten seconds. Weeks later, he’s still having nightmares. His column about the experience should be coming out with the next Vanity Fair.

Meanwhile, Sean Hannity has sneered with derision at water-boarding, offering to undergo it for charity.

…here we are almost a week since he made the claim and he still hasn’t went through with it. Why? Because not only is he full of shit, but he knows it.

If water-boarding is not torture, if water-boarding is not a crime, then why did we have Japanese prisoners of war executed for it?

-------------------------------------------------------------

No, the real question here is why are those who perpetrated such a crime against humanity not being investigated? Why are they not being held accountable?

Why, in the name of everything that is fair and just, are those responsible not being prosecuted?

Why, Obama?

It's more than fitting that you posted just before his press conference tonight, in which he was asked no less than 13 times about his stance on this very issue. His response?

“I believe whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.”

A mistake? Not a crime, Mr. President? Just an "Oops. Well, let's move on." Really? Is that how we reclaim our "moral authority"?

And what about the over 100 detainees who died while held in Iraq and Afghanistan, 27 of whom were kicked to death, shot, drowned, or strangled? What about the fact that the U.S. leadership became aware, very early on, that many of the detainees were innocent of any wrongdoing and should be immediately released -- and chose to ignore it because it would have hurt their approval ratings? Where's that story? Where are those memos?

Thomas Friedman made a couple arguments in support of Obama's decision not to go forward today. One, prosecution taken to its full extent would put Bush, Rumsfeld and others on trial and "rip our country apart." Two, "Al Qaeda truly was a unique enemy."

Mr. Friedman, two things. One, if there are really enough torture-supporters in this country to 'rip it apart' then this is a discourse that needs to take place. Right. Now. Two, that's the type of excuse that could be used to justify anything. And that's exactly the kind of thing the law is supposed to protect against.

Torture: A Conservative Value?

So it seems the recent release of the torture memos by the Obama Administration, along with the speedy reaction of torture apologists and former Bush officials, has re-kindled what seems to be an ongoing debate among American conservatives: Is torturing one's captives a conservative value? (Or perhaps I should put it another way: Is causing extreme discomfort and severe mental anguish to one's captives a conservative value?) Or is torture just an effective method of extracting information that has no basis in ideology? Or is it something else? Here are a couple pieces done by the Real News that highlight this debate:





I suppose this all depends on which history conservatives wish to conserve, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that the torture of one's captives is an abridgement of value. What do yo think? Is torturing a person who no longer poses a threat (assuming they posed a threat to begin with - which is a HUGE assumption considering they've never been tried) a lapse of judgment and morality that has more to do with vengeance and hatred than anything else? And do those that argue in defense of torture do so because they share that hate or do they do so for other reasons? Perhaps they do so in deference to authority? That surely has been a conservative value going all the way back to the original defense of the Monarchy. If you ask me this whole issue highlights just why such deference is highly problematic.

Your Ideology Sucks

So I'm afraid I'm going to get serious on everybody and say that I'm very interested in political ideology and how it effects all of us. Specifically the way it shapes our opinions and worldview, and causes us to argue one point and agree with another (despite how crazy it might seem to someone of another ideology). Since Tom and Sal and myself share pretty different views on a number of issues, I'd like to explore political ideology a bit with this blog and question why it is we think what we think and whether these differences are incapable of resolution or whether they all just stem from misunderstanding and our own political prejudice. This may sound boring to some, but I think no issue is more salient to understanding our present political turmoil and the reasons we seem so ill equipped at developing solutions to it. In short, I think: political ideology is everywhere and it's keeping us from solving a host of big issues. So without further ado I'll commence a post or two... and I'll also try to be more entertaining. : )

Oink Oink

Michelle Bachmann has just come out with her latest hit! The new solo is tentatively titled "Blame It On The Goose'o'crats (Swine Flu REDUX)." Listen here and enjoy the poppy new tune as your brain goes into critical failure.





Jamie Foxx could not be reached for comment.


Brought to you by the very same Congresswoman who gave us such memorable classics as:

"Obama Wants Mandatory Political Re-Education Camps But All I Want is You" (by M. Bachmann)

"Let's Get Armed & Dangerous Against Global Warming's Lies" (by M. Bachmann, Exec. Producer B. Oil)

"We Are One... But Not All Cultures Are Equal " (by M. Bachmann, feat. I. Racist)

...And, of course, who could forget the 2008 blockbuster that sold for a record 187,818 votes (easily outselling Tinkleberg's lackluster flop "Vote For Me Because I'm Not that Crazy Bitch"):

"We've Got to Come Together (And Investigate Congress to Find Out Who's Anti-America)" (by M. Bachmann, back-up vocals by S. Palin, lyrics by J. McCarthy)

Dial 1-800-How-Was-She-Ever-Elected to reserve your advance copy now!

Of Ghosts and Specters

Specter has changed parties! If Coleman ever gives up the ghost, the Democrats will have a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate...

Who knew 312 Minnesotans would end up accounting for such a difference?

Sneaky Little Hobbitses!

The hobbit skeleton is now on public display! It's being shown at Stony Brook University in Long Island, where they held a conference last week. Scientists are now saying there's a consensus among experts now that Homo Floresiensis was indeed a distinct species, according to an article in today's Times.

Back in 2003, when a team of paleoanthropologists were looking for evidence of human migration from Asia to Indonesia they discovered the remains of seven skeletons of hominids about 3 feet in height. The skeletons ranged from possibly 74,000 to 13,000 years old.

Since then, there's been a bit of back and forth between scientists who've found the evidence conclusive and others who say they've just been reading too much J.R.R. Tolkein. Here's a bit of the evidence on both sides:

For:

-Ridiculously short: the most complete skeleton, that of a 30 yr. old female, is 3'6" and a second skeleton is estimated to be 3'7". They were shorter than even the smallest human populations, such as the African pygmies which aveaged 4'11".

-Small brains: Homo Erectus had more than double the brains of these guys. But the hobbits didn't let that get in the way of developing Stone Age tools for themselves. In fact, they hunted the local dwarf Stegodons. So basically there were mini-cavemen using mini-spears to hunt mini-mammoths in Indonesia. That's fucking cool.

-Different bones and teeth: they have a different shoulder stucture, no chin, disproportionately wide leg bones and their wrists' bones are wedge-shaped, as opposed to square. Their premolars are larger, crowns and roots are different and their jaws are lower.

-Local myths of the Ebu Gogo, modern day hobbits who steal babies from nearby villages and eat them. Perhaps calling them "gollums" might be more fair. MY! PRECIOUS!

-As recently as 2003, hobbits were caught on film saving Middle-Earth.

Against:

-You guys are high, these are just the bones of a bunch of really retarded short people.

He's Joking? You're Joking.

In a study recently published in The International Journal of Press/Politics, students at (The) Ohio State University found that conservatives were more likely to think Colbert genuinely means what he says on his show. As in, they somehow don't get the character he plays is a... character. A participant's identification of themselves as a "conservative" served as a relatively accurate predictor that the participant would perceive Colbert to be 'anti-liberal.'

That's right, there are actually people out there who don't realize The Colbert Report is political satire: the very ones he's making fun of.

And if you had any doubt about the study's accuracy, take a look at the response last week by the National Organization for Marriage to Colbert's spoof (at bottom) of their Anti-Gay Marriage Ad:

"I've always thought Stephen Colbert was a double-agent, pretending to pretend to be a conservative, to pull one over Hollywood. Now I'm sure," said Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

"Thank you Stephen for playing our ad in full on national television--for free. HRC eat your heart out. Plus we all had a great chuckle, too!" said Brian Brown, NOM's Executive Director. "Where can I make a donation to the National Organization for Colbert?"

Now, at first, I thought NOM was joking; perhaps their reply was some kind of bizarre, misguided attempt at humor. Of course, how does one respond when it's rightly pointed out to them that they're a myopic, bigoted hypocrite? In light of this recent study, however... I'm not so sure. Perhaps, just as the conservatives in the study, NOM genuinely believed Colbert was trying to help them out here and is thanking him, with pathetic sincerity, for mocking them.

Which isn't so far-fetched, really, when you think about it. I mean, if they can believe basic civil rights are a threat to the "sanctity of marriage" (or should I say, "opposite marriage") then they can probably believe anything.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage Commercial

Obligatory 100 Days Commentary

So apparently there was this guy, FDR, and he had a pretty important first hundred days in office. Obama hits the quasi-traditional milestone on Wednesday in case you haven't heard already from say, I don't know, CNN. Or Fox News. Or Time Magazine. Or the Wall Street Journal. Or the BBC. Or the Palatka Daily News. Ok, maybe not Palatka, but pretty much everyone else is offering up their respective analyses. That includes the President himself, who will be commemorating the occasion with another one of those "town-hall-style" events we've all grown so fond of.

Anyways, I didn't want to be left out of all the fun. Here's what I thought were some of the highs, lows, and in-betweens of the past one hundr- ahem, ninety-eight days:

Highs:

-The Budget. A progressive tax structure, a plan for universal health care, cuts in unnecessary defense spending... are we finally past this 'supply-side' and 'starve the beast' nonsense?

-Foreign Diplomacy. A President who commands respect abroad, keeps his cool and enunciates his words. Fuck. Yes.

-The National Service Bill. Providing incentives & funding for increased involvement of America's youth in community service projects in health care, clean energy and education? Unless you're Michelle Bachmann, you have to admit that's a good thing.

-Stem Cell Research. Duh.

Lows:

-Bank-o-philia: The heavily bank-o-centric composition of Obama's economic team has compromised the long-term effectiveness of the administration's economic plans and sticks us with zombie banks that still aren't lending and who aren't being held accountable for the taxpayer money that's keeping them afloat.

-Gun Control. Jimmy Carter's Op-Ed for the NYT today lays out why, in case common sense didn't tell you already, AK-47s should be illegal. Despite the fact that this was a campaign promise of Obama's, he's been avoiding the issue. Perhaps he's still puzzling this one over:
Question: Why does someone buy an AK-47?
A) Because they're a psychopath.
B) To shoot people.
C) To shoot lots of innocent people and then kill themselves in yet another horrifying example of why we need stricter gun control laws.
D) All of the Above.

-Laughing off a legitimate suggestion to legalize & tax marijuana as a way to significantly boost revenues for states like California that are currently facing major budget crises while, at the same time, effectively cutting out THE major source of revenue for drug cartels currently running rampant in Mexico. No, really. Time to wake up and smell the buds.

In-betweens:

-Foreign Policy. Positive steps taken on Cuban embargo. Finally a plan for withdrawal from Iraq. But committing 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan without any real military solution on the table? Hrm.

-Torture. Step 1: Close Gitmo, check. Step 2: Release classified memos authorizing torture, check. Step 3: Green light to initiate investigations into illegal actions of previous administration for which, by any definition of the law, they must be held accountable, ... ?

-The Stimulus Package. Good start, not enough. To quote Paul Krugman, a nobel-laureate economist who actually saw the crisis coming years before it hit, "Mr. Obama’s promise that his plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 looks underwhelming, to say the least... 3.5 million jobs almost two years from now isn’t enough in the face of an economy that has already lost 4.4 million jobs, and is losing 600,000 more each month." There has been a total failure to recognize the pressing need for a comprehensive plan to restructure the banking system; most likely, largely due to the bank-centric view of his team... but I digress.

-Bo Obama. Seriously, what is that thing? Get a real dog.

-----------------------------------

Great promise so far, especially considering what was inherited. And I don't even want to think about the alternative.

You're Not Wrong,

You're Just an Asshole.

Post what you want, invite who you want, but make sure the monkey gets fed.

Sal's contribution:
Sometimes you are just wrong. Sorry.

Tom says:

I agree.