Political.Critic

Dope

2004-10-04T18:52:00.000-04:00

So, the President did a little cocaine at Camp David. Is this really a big deal? I can confidently say that he probably didn't inhale. Haha

Back in Action

2004-10-02T21:10:00.000-04:00

The debates have rejuvenated my interest in the plausibility of candidate Kerry.

Celebrate the Tragedy!

2004-09-10T18:57:00.000-04:00

My town is holding a remeberance this year for the September 11th attacks. This is noteworthy in only the fact that we have done nothing in the past two years to recognize the event. For reasons that defy explanation, we a recognizing the tragedy with a two day event.

Well, perhaps, there is explanation. The event itself was initiated by a stron republican presence in our county. It seems only fitting that we choose to remember our victims during an election year.

I have to say that I am disgusted by the exploitation. Why must we repeatedly be publicly reminded of the event. The images were strong enough on that dark day.

Cheney threatens the US

2004-09-08T11:33:00.000-04:00

This new nugget from the VP.

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

When will Cheney be detained by Ashcroft as an enemy combatant? He is clearly threatening the United States with terrorist activity.

Perhaps the FBI will place him under arrest. Isn't this blackmail or extortion?

What about the FEC? What's the difference between this and threatening to beat up a voter if they don't vote as you tell them?

Maybe I'm over reacting. I don't think so. The words used by this administration are not mistakes. It's non stop propaganda.

-From MSNBC.com
Bush refused to answer questions from reporters. He simply stared at a reporter who asked if he agreed with Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that if Democrat John Kerry is elected, the danger is that well get hit again by terrorists.

I guess no one has told him what to think yet.

They make me angrier every day.

Do I have to support them?

2004-09-07T17:00:00.000-04:00

What does it mean to support the troops?

I don't support their mission. I don't support the man that sent them there. While I don't wish for anyone to be injured or killed I also don't really care. I find myself wanting to reach 1000 killed so maybe there will be more reporting about what's happening. Perhaps that will lead to Bush losing the election.

I don't criticize the soldiers. I'm aware that they are doing what they are ordered to do. I don't hold it against them.

I think my hatred for Bush is so strong that I have no compassion for the troops.

Do I support the troops? No. I can't honestly say I do. I feel sorry for the people who have no choice but to join. But I don't support them.

Lucky 13 Point Bounce

2004-09-04T18:53:00.000-04:00

Typically, an incumbent president experiences a marginal bounce compared to their opponent. As I suspected, Bush would receive an above average bounce and receive the extreme media attention that will more/less seal the deal for him. Well, George W. Bush got a 13 point bounce out of the convention.

Click here for the latest poll

John Kerry's midnight counter-attack was too little, too pithy, and too late. Apparently, America loves negativity and hatred. I commend Clinton for coming to the rescue with his bypass surgery. It's not quite as effective as Tom Ridge's buzz-killing home land security announcement, but at least it reminds us that the democrats had presided over a strong economy.

A Bunch of Crocodiles

2004-09-03T13:52:00.000-04:00

This just in from a friend...

The president's speech was full of rhetoric and would only impress the naive, sinister and those who don't have firm knowledge of facts. It's easy to write a great speech that appeals to and bamboozle those who are easily impressed; a tear or two and a false look of compassion on the speaker's face is a plus!

The cynical attacks on John Kerry's character and at his patriotism will only fuel enthusiasm for him!

It's striking to see two leaders (or misleaders) who chickened out when they had the opportunity to serve their country and to do what they are now asking American youth to do, it's striking to see their audacity when accusing a man, who FOUGHT in a REAL battle, accusing and slandering him and belittling his brave sacrifices. This same man also, being a man of conscience, he also protested and condemned the atrocities that he witnessed during the war. His opponents are calling his act of conscience unpatriotic; as if patriotism dictates blinding yourself in the face of all sorts of injustice and aggressions, as long as they are being committed by your country--not against them!! Dissent, objections to wrong-doing, whistle-blowing and being conscientious are the utmost displays of patriotism in the book of virtues! It's no surprise to hear that sort of accusations from the people, who encouraged, incited and covered-up all sorts of unutterable methods of torture, atrocities and humiliation to the citizens of a nation that they mislead Americans into occupying!

This entire RNC was full of superficiality and pretentiousness--or as Bill Clinton put it, "it's time for them to put on their once-every-four-years compassionate face".

What good is being consistent when you are "consistently wrong?" Contrast that with revising your actions and decisions as you go and as new facts surface. They call that flip-flopping!! Well, what's a flip-flop, if you consider the president's constant contradictions "we can win the war on terror" "we can't win the war on terror" "we are safer" "our nation is in danger" "Iraq has wmd" "well, they don't" "we are going into Iraq to disarm them from wmds" "we went their to free the people"... and on and on!!

The laughable parade of idiot (supposedly humorous) twins, imported and paid (inarticulate) speakers who paused at every statement-end soliciting applause or laughter (I laughed alright!!) and that poor hapless dog that was dragged into the parade of pretensions, are only some of few displays of disingenuousness that only serve as a true metaphor for what this party is all about; even the little children were made to applaud, when the camera focused on them--a clear indication that the entire event was staged and all those tears and emotional displays of compassion are true tears--of crocodiles!

Tonight's the night. What to do?

2004-09-02T20:05:00.000-04:00

W is making his speech tonight. A speech in the round.

I can't decide if I should watch the speech or watch a porno.

I think I'll start with the speech and then switch to the porno.

I feel it's an appropriate alternative.

I usually can't take more than a few minutes of his voice.

I'll check out the transcript tomorrow.

Does he ever stop lying?

2004-09-01T22:34:00.000-04:00

Excerpt from Today show interview of President Bush by Matt Lauer.

Lauer: Are we safer because Saddam is no longer in power?
President Bush: I think we are. Yeah.
Lauer: Explain that to me. How?
President Bush: Well, because Saddam Hussein had terrorist ties. And he had the capacity at the minimum to make weapons of mass destruction. And he could've passed that capacity onto enemies.

Did he have terrorist ties? What about Syria, Arafat, Iran, Libya. When do we invad...I mean Liberate.
Pakistan, India, China have WMD and Iran and North Korea have the "capacity at the minimum to make weapons of mass destruction." When do we invad...I mean Liberate.

What load of crap. It's all propaganda.

Police State

2004-09-01T17:57:00.000-04:00

This week's convention in New York will not experience any acts of terrorism. There may be spin calling the "disloyal" protesters "terrorists", but that use truly diminishes the meaning of the word.

Terrorism is not about disrupting the political process. I know that this intrudes on the vanity of politicos. It has little to do with symbolic targets. Acts of terror are committed to frighten the masses and create a sense of danger that permeates throughout everything. In short, it is about body count.

New York is a pretty weak target in this regard. During the convention, the city has been dead. The media has managed to frighten everyone away. If a dirty bomb went off, would there be anyone around to notice? That is the reality of this week with the RNC.

We can relax this week. An overpowering presence of law enforcement combined with racial profiling makes the city an unfriendly place. Not just for terrorists, but for citizen's as well.

Unemployed Shell Game

2004-09-01T17:46:00.000-04:00

Republican's have proclaimed that the unemploment rate is lower than during Clinton's presidency. Yes, they are trying to tell us that we're doing better than the halcyon days of dotcom. It's too bad that the unemployment rate has nothing to do with the rate of joblessness.

In the strictest of terms, the rate reflects the number of unemployment claims for a given period. It is the acceleration of job loss. Further, it provides no useful metric as to the number of unemployed who remain jobless after their benefits are exhausted.

Michigan is a fine example of this. The state has fairly typical rate of unemployment claims while the jobless rate approaches 40% in some areas. By itself, the unemployment rate is meaningless unless it is accompanied by job creation.

I personally know five unemployed technology workers who have been without work for more than a year. These workers are not reflected in the unemployment rate. They comprise a growing group in this country of the long-term jobless.

With mediocre job growth, this problem will not be addressed in the immediate future.

Bush Girls Gone Wild!

2004-08-31T22:41:00.000-04:00

I did not realize that Yale was a community college. If Jenna and Barbara are products of Yale, the university's accreditation merits review. I mean... Wow. The apple really doesn't fall from the tree. Their posture and smiles were so saccharine that I wished they would just get off stage and return to their stupid party girl lives.

Both Bush daughters would be perfectly at home on a Girls Gone Wild video. Word has it that there are several video tapes floating around of naked and half-naked druken Yale escapades.

You can find more fun pictures and anecdotes of their escapades at http://www.thefirsttwins.com.

Bush/Cheney: DWI Birds of a Feather

2004-08-31T19:39:00.000-04:00

In case anyone has forgotten, both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney having DWI's on their records.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/cheneydwi1.html

Although this is very well known, some conservative web sites argue that a DWI is nothing special and that they're quite common. Funny, I think the lack of judgement that lead to these DWI arrests is quite notable.

Both Cheney and Bush were arrested well before the drunk driving crackdown of the 80s. Back in the 60s and 70s, you had to be "butt-fucking drunk" to get arrested.

City on a Holiday

2004-08-30T19:25:00.000-04:00

With all of the hoopola regarding the Republican convention, it appears that New Yorkers are taking a holiday. My strolls through mid-town Manhattan were an utterly spartan experience.

The street closings are massive and pervasive. Streets that remain open feature traffic officers and cones. It's so controlled as to purge the experience of the fun. In many respects, it is a quiet conservative city this week. It is not New York.

Desire is for Eskimos

2004-08-30T19:19:00.000-04:00

As I found myself increasingly obsessed with issues of national politics, these waves of political protagonism were disrupted by exceedingly local issues. Today, I engaged in a heated exchange with a superintendent of our school district. The topic of discussion - desire versus policy.

My eldest child is very close to the age cut-off for enrollment at the local elementary school. Given her academic tendencies, I felt that it was my duty as a parent to investigate our options for kindergarten.

This thinking led to the innocent inquiry, "What steps can we take for the consideration of my child in your kindergarten program?". That seemingly benign question revealed much about our local school district.

Through rampant and unchecked construction with a total neglect for infrastructure, our district has grown to be the largest in the state. This growth has led to remarkable changes in the demographics of our area. It has also established the school district as a force to be reckoned with.

My simple inquiry resulted in a hostile "policy" response. I was told that the school board "desires" strict conformity to the age guidelines. Desires? Unless there is a law or ordinance otherwise, the desires of the school board do not carry a lot of weight with me.

Yet, here I was being berated by an administrator who views the taxpayer in a different role.

In some respects, I was happy to be communicating with them at all. The receptionist was quite artful in her attempts to subvert my contact with this very "busy" official.

I responded to this administrator in the most tactful manner possible. In doing so, I also expressed my objection to desire and culture in the absence of process and policy. I am not one to accept no for an answer.

I loathe parents who carry a distorted view of their child's abilities. That said, I also respect the commitment to do what is best for a child as appropriate. My desire for my child's success is more powerful than any bureaucrat.

Doing the Abortion Math

2004-08-29T21:29:00.000-04:00

Like many Catholic churches during this election season, our local franchise has put abortion on the table as a voter issue. Outside of the church, forty-one crosses have been erected. Each cross represents 1 million (not a typo) abortions since 1973. Being an engineer, I was somewhat blown away by the statistic.

How can that number make any sense? I decided to do a little research on the Internet. Every anti-abortion web site posted estimates of that magnitude. They cited all kinds of facts and figures including the CDC to "back up" their estimates. Most of these web sites list something on the order of 1.3 million abortions per year. Wow, that feels like a serious number. Especially considering that abortions would "ramp-up" from 1973 and that there was a notably smaller population back then. It's an annual statistic with shock value.

Further, I recently got into an argument with an anti-abortionist whose position was that Social Security insolvency was the direct result of the incredible number of abortions being performed. There's alot of passion behind these numbers and folks on the "No Choice" side quote between 38 million and 42 million.

It was time to put on my thinking hat and give some thought to the numbers. First, let's hit the U.S. Census web site. There we find really handy downloadable data for this information.

For 2003: (from www.census.gov)
Total estimated population = 290,809,777
Total births = 4,026,538

With the purported 1.3 million abortions, that would indicate (1.3/(1.3 + 4.0) * 100) that 25% of women decide to get an abortion instead of giving birth to the child. That's 1 out of 4! Of four pregnant women you know, one is going to have an abortion. The number starts to feel like nonsense.

Let's go a step further. Take the population and split it by gender. We don't have a precise gender split for 2003; we'll have to make do with adjusted 2000 numbers.

For 2000: (from www.census.gov)
Total population = 281,421,906
Total Male = 138,053,563
Total Female = 143,368,343

Estimated 2003 Female = 148,150,925
(290,809,777 * 143,368,343 / 281,421,906)

Assuming a 50/50 split for/against abortion and you're left with 74 million women who would even consider having one. You can split that number again to get a rough cut of the women who are of age that can actually conceive a child. This leaves you with approximately 37 million who could be potential "customers" for an abortion. By their statistics, 3.5% of this population opts to get an abortion. Huh, wait a minute. A 25% reduction in births is affected by this tiny group?

As I slice and dice through the numbers, it becomes increasingly evident that even armchair analysis yields foul-smelling fruit. Why are quoted numbers so high? You begin to read the fine print -- unfortunately, this fine print isn't everywhere. I did manage to find more than one site that admitted that the estimates included the use of chemical contraception, "the pill" in the totals. Given the relatively few web sites that include this disclaimer it hardly seems to matter. Apparently, menstruation is murder!

It's when these organization's cite the CDC that I raised an eyebrow. Planned Parenthood, the McDonald's of family planning, claims to only perform approximately 100,000 abortions/year. Others are performed via referral. I had to check out the CDC agency web site for a reality check.

You can click here to view actual statistics from the CDC's Abortion Surveillance. Low and behold, the CDC identifies 861,789 legally induced abortions in 1999. Anti-abortion web sites state 1.328 million (estimated) for the same year.

For the record, this is 35% exaggeration of the actual number of abortions performed. That's a significant distortion of the reality.

The anti-abortion organizations that mis-cite the CDC in their literature are purposefully trying to mislead citizens to further their cause. It's not even close to 1 in 4 pregnancies. The actual statistics point to a total rate that is less than 1 in 6. Total number of abortions since 1973 is less than 25 million. Now, I just have to convince the church to remove 16 crosses.

Those interested in following the abortion leader board on the CDC web site will note that New York City is #1 in the procedure followed by Texas! Go Texas. You're #2 to New York in something!

NYC RNC

2004-08-29T18:13:00.000-04:00

I'll be in New York this week for obvious reasons. Let's hope for
peaceful and effective protesting with over the top law enforcement
response. It'll be a great time.

Our First Lady of Nicotine

2004-08-29T17:26:00.000-04:00

In a Time magazine interview, Laura Bush carries the party line on stem cell research, gay marriage, and what she calls "false hope".

Click here for the article

Although the article states that the first lady is a "former smoker". White House staff are well aware of the First Lady's need for the nicotine. On numerous occassions, she's enjoyed a cigarette off camera.

International Help from Where?

2004-08-29T17:02:00.000-04:00

As the quagmire of Iraq continues, I cannot accept John Kerry's call for "International Involvement". Who does Mr. Kerry expect to participate in the disaster we affectionately call the "Liberation of the Iraqi People"?

It's simple empty campaigneering. What nation will join us? Do we expect France and Germany to commit troops? Spain was already there and withdrawn. We are on a very short list of nations that could even participate in this scale of military action.

In the absence of additional military force, we must either conscript our young people or withdraw from Iraq. Anything else is unacceptable.