Dear members of the political media,

Every time you refer to someone changing their mind as a "flip-flopper," you continue to act out the script set for you by the Bush campaign back in 2004.

Are you not tired yet of being manipulated so easily and baldly by mudslinging campaign strategists? Are you so simple-minded that you sincerely believe this phrase is of any value to anyone thinking critically about issues of national and international import?

It is 2008 now. Please grow up. Thinking, intelligent adults change their minds. It's part of being informed and realistic about the world around you, so stop treating it like a weakness, you fools.

Sincerely,
Chris Rugen

I’ve had The World According to Monsanto playing in the background as I work today. In short: Monsanto, throughout its history, has acted on a policy of poisoning, lying, legal bullying, and bribery. They are in the process of spreading their genetically modified crops around the world, both through commerce and the simple fact that plants spread themselves, to eliminate unmodified crops and to, quite literally, own all of the major food crops in the world. Think about that. You wouldn’t be allowed to grow, for example, corn without their permission and without paying royalties. Think it isn’t happening? It already is. This isn’t something that will happen, or might happen. It already is. The only thing left to determine is how much it happens. Think the government will do it for you? Wrong. The government and Monsanto have a revolving door between them. The last three presidential administrations have connections with Monsanto. This is not a party-specific issue, either.

As I learn more and more about the corporation named Monsanto (which began as a chemical company, not an agricultural company, by the way), I become more disgusted and confused by the people behind the name. What do these people think is the inevitable result of something like this? What do they tell themselves to make the destruction of lives (both professionally and literally) seem acceptable? The worst part is that I’m sure sitting down with them would only yield groomed PR doublespeak. But I would love to have a frank conversation with one of them.

“Oh, Daddy, I’ve had such a dream;
I dreamt that I saw the pit all afire,
And men struggled hard for their lives;
The scene it then changed, and the top of the mine
Was surrounded by sweethearts and wives.”

—Don’t Go Down the Mine Daddy

I attended an interesting talk this past weekend given by University of Pennsylvania Professor of Astrophysics, Ken Lande. He made an interesting point during the course of his talk on the "post-fossil fuel era." While his ultimate point was that a decentralized energy source such as wind or solar would be far better, safer, and more secure for us, he pointed out an interesting comparison between two other, far more prevalent, energy sources in use today.

Listening to NPR this morning on the way to work, I caught some interviews with voters in Texas, leading up the the primaries there. The self-identified Christians they spoke to all seemed to echo the same sentiment: I won’t vote for Hilary because a man should lead this country.

Seriously? Seriously. Seriously.

I know that conservative Christians have trouble with scientific scholarship. Are they also now ignoring all of recorded history?

I’ve been listening to NPR coverage of the presidential races all morning (unfortunately) and seeing blurbs online. I’d like to send a message to those of you covering the primaries and caucuses:

Winning one state is not a crushing blow to the opposition and winning one state after losing one out of a total of two is not a comeback. You idiots.

Now please start covering something other than your airheaded opinions about other people’s opinions about 1/25th of something.

Thank you.

By way of my friend Steve, a Washington Post story that says it just about as clearly and forcefully as anything:

“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess.

ABC News is reporting some terribly important news. My friend Adam passed along this thrilling article to point out what has to be the absolute perfect quote from Sean Hannity. Why am I repeating something that this slack-jawed puppet is saying? Because it precisely communicates why he should be ignored and then we can all move on.

Apparently, Senator Barack Obama stopped wearing his American flag pin.

Thrilling, right? Glad we’re focusing on things that are of any importance. Oh man, what if he’s secretly a terrorist now? We should totally ask him:

“You don’t have the American flag pin on. Is that a fashion statement?”

I did not make that question up. Obama responded, “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

All of this is pretty expected, right? Silly question that he knew would be asked is asked. He answers it. What’s so mind-bending is Sean Hannity’s response:

“Why do we wear pins? Because our country is under attack!”

I could not make stuff like this up. Is this really what masquerades for political discourse these days?

Now, with all that free time you have now, you can go read some real news.

Monsanto, the wonderful people who’ve brought genetically engineered seed and bovine growth hormone into every virtually every household in the U.S. and elsewhere, are now complaining to the FTC that “ads mislead consumers into thinking that milk from cows not treated with rBST are healthier or safer than dairy products from cows treated with the hormone.”

If you aren’t laughing scornfully at Monsanto, you should read up. Monsanto’s responsible for some good and some bad things in this world, but that’s less the point than that this move is so ridiculously hypocritical. Monsanto is a very large, very powerful corporation which has, as corporations must, defended itself and pursued its interests very aggressively via lobbying and marketing. It is laughable when they whine about an ad that says:

“We work exclusively with farmers that supply 100 percent of our milk from cows that haven’t been treated with artificial hormones. So, who do you trust when it comes to your family’s milk?”

I hope that rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin) is eliminated from all milk everywhere. It makes it into the milk and it makes it into your body. End of story.

Hey, maybe Monsanto can get back to focusing on selling farmers seeds that yield sterile plants, so they have to keep re-buying all of their seed each year. That’d be nice for Monsanto.

So, Capcom is developing the fifth Resident Evil videogame in the series. The Resident Evil series is about various misdeeds of corporations and cults that lead to zombies. In the fifth installment, it appears that there’s an outbreak in Africa, and the lead character who you play as has to kill African zombies in Africa. This worries a woman named Kym Platt, who writes a blog that focuses on African Women’s issues. She writes:

The new Resident Evil video game depicts a white man in what appears to be Africa killing Black people. The Black people are supposed to be zombies and the white man's job is to destroy them and save humanity. "I have a job to do and I'm gonna see it through."

This is problematic on so many levels, including the depiction of Black people as inhuman savages, the killing of Black people by a white man in military clothing, and the fact that this video game is marketed to children and young adults. Start them young... fearing, hating, and destroying Black people.

In case you hadn’t heard, the Democratic hopefuls fielded questions from from YouTube users via YouTube videos in a weird sort of awkward lurch of traditional media and politics into the user-centric land of the web. I heard some excerpts from the debate, and I have to imagine that the candidates all saw visions of themselves never working in politics again, but it all seemed to come off okay. There were a few song questions and bizarre voice questions and silly leading questions, but it was just a political debate (or Q&A, whatever), in the end.

I found the whole thing a little silly and gimmicky, but I think Matthew Baldwin really hits the nail on the head when it comes to my views on the YouTube community. You should really just bookmark his site. It’s in my sidebar, people. I can only assume you overlooked it while enjoying my wayward prose.

I just heard on NPR about scientists questioning Gore’s documentary An Incovenient Truth that says, basically:

...after the talk, a couple of [the scientists] came up to me and said, you know, “He didn’t exactly get the science right.”

And this is exactly what should happen in a scientifically-oriented, scientifically-conscious society.

Do not forget to vote today. If you think politics don’t affect you, then just look at where we were in 2000 and where we are now. Don’t know where to vote? Find out here. If you live in Pennsylvania and have a driver’s license, you’re already registered. If you’re reading this, you have web access and have no excuse not to be informed enough to vote.

And remember, if you don’t vote, you can’t complain afterwards that you aren’t getting what you want.

Gather ’round kids, it’s time to Know Your Rights! Check out our handy little model below to understand how your rights are swirling all around you, like sunshine and dust mites!

After, for a few days, hearing vague inklings about a furor over an ABC/Disney fictional drama called The Path to 9/11, then seeing it get mentions on some of my favorite sites, I decided to find out what the hubbub was all about.

Y'know what ABC and Disney? Nobody needs a fictionalized version of the attacks and the events leading up to them, especially when you’re making changes to what actual people did in actual situations that occurred only 5 years ago. And as for the assertion that the film isn’t final, and therefore we can’t comment? Riiiight. I’m sure those scenes were filmed that way for fun so the editors could scramble to change them. Tell me, why is it that Americans can’t comment on your use of their national tragedy to sell advertising slots on its anniversary? I’m curious.

I applaud Keith Olbermann for speaking out against the current administration with the force of language that it deserves, taking them to task for dismantling the very values it claims to uphold and protect. He reminds us that our leaders are “transient” and “our employees” and that the freedoms we enjoy are easily lost and easily taken. The video is more than worth the time to watch.

Thanks to Steve for pointing me to this link.

My mind immediately leapt to this image upon seeing Bush’s paler, more vacant face. Please feel free to extend the metaphor, I just don’t have the time right now.

I love reading comics and they mean a lot to me, but I am confused.

Gun control has always been a thorny issue for me (not that this makes me unique) because, at a fundamental level, I question the need for our citizenry to be able to arm themselves with weapons designed to maximize human death. But on the other hand, I understand the Constitutional issues and the idea that bearing arms is the only way to get a piece of the monopoly-on-violence pie of which the government has the biggest piece. History teaches us that an armed citizenry needing to overthrow tyrannical rule is not a ridiculous proposal. Hell, in Switzerland everyone has a gun, unless they go through a somewhat difficult process of returning it to the government.* But then something occurred to me today that kind of settled some of the issues for me, and I’d like to run it by you to see if I’m missing anything.

Has anyone ever heard of a drive-by knife-throwing wherein an adult was the intended target but a child was accidentally hit and killed instead?

I don’t think you hear about much of that. But, then again, I don’t really listen to the local news that often, so who knows?

*Though, they have rifles, not handguns or assault rifles, which I have little to no problem with.

House Resolution 579

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.

Well, I’m glad we got that sorted out. We’re all a lot safer now that our hard-working representatives are focusing their attentions on very important empty resolutions to protect things that aren’t in need of protection. Now they can all add “succumbed to pointless and divisive campaign of partisan rhetoric to make a partial syllogism into a federal document” to their resumés.

Merry Christmas, everyone! I said be Merry, dammit!

Bruce Schneier combs over the details of the White House’s memos on the subject and analyzes the security problems with the illegal activities of the Bush administration, but I’ll quote him for the purpose of summarizing why this administration is a threat to, well, Americans and American democracy:

The result is that the president’s wartime powers, with its armies, battles, victories, and congressional declarations, now extend to the rhetorical “War on Terror”: a war with no fronts, no boundaries, no opposing army, and -- most ominously -- no knowable “victory.” Investigations, arrests and trials are not tools of war. But according to the Yoo memo, the president can define war however he chooses, and remain “at war” for as long as he chooses.

This is indefinite dictatorial power. And I don’t use that term lightly; the very definition of a dictatorship is a system that puts a ruler above the law. In the weeks after 9/11, while America and the world were grieving, Bush built a legal rationale for a dictatorship. Then he immediately started using it to avoid the law.

Via Bruce Schneier’s blog, the Washington Post reports on “the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents the heads of police departments in the United States and across the world, has issued new guidelines saying that officers who confront a suicide bomber should shoot the suspect in the head.” But this isn’t the scary part, considering that not shooting at the bomb seems fairly obvious. This is the scary part:

The police organization’s behavioral profile says such a person might exhibit “multiple anomalies,” including wearing a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather or carrying a briefcase, duffle bag or backpack with protrusions or visible wires. The person might display nervousness, an unwillingness to make eye contact or excessive sweating. There might be chemical burns on the clothing or stains on the hands. The person might mumble prayers or be “pacing back and forth in front of a venue.”

The police group’s guidelines also say the threat to officers does not have to be “imminent,” as police training traditionally teaches. Officers do not have to wait until a suspected bomber makes a move, another traditional requirement for police to use deadly force. An officer just needs to have a “reasonable basis” to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb, the guidelines say.

To be blunt: if you have a Middle Eastern appearance and luggage, or are an electrician, make sure that you’re never nervous in public, or the police may lawfully shoot you in the head. Y’know, to be safe. I sure hope this doesn’t get traction in the U.S. But it probably will. I’m less concerned about awareness of important warning signs than I am of a policy of ‘preventative’ shooting to kill.

A friend of mine pointed me to this interview of Senator Rick Santorum by George Stephonopoulos, which demonstrates why his railing against “village elders” (by which he means liberal media and intellectuals) is so much fear-mongering to make the right look like the underdog when they have majority control of the U.S. government.

Santorum falls into the trap of believing the ideology over viewing the reality. He’s part of the group, which the Bush camp is part of, that instead of trying to see what the world is like, wants to just change it all in their own way, regardless of the reality of the world (see the war in Iraq for further examples). The interview is largely Santorum speaking about his views we’re familiar with, and refusing to apologize for implying that liberalism in Boston made priests sexually abuse children (a statement that was easily refutable, even when he made it in 2002). However, he is stopped dead in his tracks when it comes to his views on feminism and the “radical feminists” who are responsible for a “war” and a “crusade” against women who don’t work. Stephanopoulos asks him one simple question: who are these feminists. Read on to watch Santorum demonstrate the idiocy of his own position:

I admit, I’m gleeful that such a high-profile Republican sleaze-merchant* like Karl Rove (shown on the left) is running from the harsh gaze of the spotlight concerning his exposure of Valerie Plame, a formerly covert CIA operative. That being said, it’s not easy to get a handle on the whole debacle and subsequent public squirming by the White House. Which is why it’s great that Matthew Baldwin of Defective Yeti has written a nice, easy-to-read, mostly even-handed summary of the events that lead to the renewed hullaballoo.

*I don’t call him that because he’s Republican, but because he’s the wet-work, dirty politics player who keeps Bush looking clean to those who can’t connect the dots, but allows Bush’s campaigns to be conveniently timed with sudden slander campaigns and malicious rumor mills.

Does anyone else get a kick seeing most of the major news outlets in the United States displaying the phrase ‘deep throat’ on their front pages and covers?

I mean, think about it. Am I the only one thinking this?

Alright, everyone. Apparently many of you need my help here, so I’m going to put it in simple terms: Activist judges are not liberal or conservative. They are imaginary.

Some people in politics, particularly conservatives in the media’s light, are railing against ‘activist judges’ with phrases like this one:

“Ideologically driven courts have disregarded and dismissed the president’s evaluations of foreign policy concerns, in favor of theories generated by academic elites, foreign bodies and judicial imagination,” Ashcroft said.

I will translate. What he’s saying is that he’d rather have judges that agree with him and the current administration, than with someone else. Notice the lack of specific examples.

The detention centers at Guantanamo Bay have always bothered me, but perhaps the worst part will be the military comission reviewing the status of those held there. This is the point at which justice can be sought and reason, based on the foundations of our government and legal system, can interecede. The outlook is not good. James Grimmelmann compares trial transcripts from 1554 and Guantanamo Bay. You should check out this brief examination to see the direction our government is unabashedly headed.

The most notable difference in procedure between the commission that tried Nicholas Throckmorton and the one that tried Mustafa Ait Idr is that Nicholas Throckmorton was tried before a jury. The second most notable difference is that Throckmorton was allowed to learn the names of his alleged co-conspirators. It does not speak well of the Guantanamo commissions that they come out on the losing side in a comparison with Bloody Mary’s treason trials.

Thanks to Steve for bringing this to my attention.

Normally I shrug off political bumper stickers, as they are reductionist and empty of anything other than a witty turning of a phrase or a bad pun. However, I saw one on Monday that made my stomach turn and I believe it strikes at a broader problem. The sticker reads:

There are Americans... And there are Liberals.

First off, let’s dispense with this phrase’s legitimacy before we examine the broader issues: A) America is built on the idea of a political system that incorporates a broad spectrum of views, B) Have you heard of voting? Do you understand its purpose and how it works? C) This bumper sticker is devoid of logic.

Now that we’ve dispensed with the phrase, let’s examine the bigger problem here.

It's official, Alisa and I are sorry (third one down).

If you don't know about Sorry Everybody, the short explanation is that it's a page devoted to apologizing to the rest of the world for not having enough votes to vote G. W. Bush out of office. It's not about being mean or vindictive, but expressing hope and sympathy (and trying desperately to give other countries a reason to not hate all of us for the opinions of 51% of us). It was started by a friend of my friend Jon. Within a few days, I saw a segment about it on CNN.

Anyway, if you're a non-Bush voter, scroll through a few pages and see some of the many people who are with you and will help us undo whatever crap Bush brings down on our heads. Also, there are apology acceptances from other countries, which is pretty cool.

It's done. In spite of my optimism and an excellent voter turnout (particularly compared to last election), President George W. Bush has maintained his seat at the head of our country. Bush's strategies of fear, deception, and 'it's better to be simple' have won the hearts of more voters and, more importantly, more votes in the electoral college. Apparently, according to both the popular vote and the breakdowns by affiliation that I've seen, this country is going conservative.

On top of that, roughly 51% of this country is loudly and proudly proclaiming, "We prefer action movies to intelligent discourse," when it comes to the world and politics. This group of Americans wants bullying, simplistic fear-mongering. And they will get it in spades.

Don't get me started on the Legislative Branch.

Voting is such an empowering and singular act. It truly feels good to vote. One of my friends recently did it for the first time, and commented on how he never realized how empowered and connected one person could actually feel by voting. It's such a large process, but that's what makes it so great. You know, across the country, others are participating in what must be one of, if not the, largest free elections in the world.

First, we have Bush using September 11th to flog his agenda, yet again. As though his ability to hug a crying girl makes him different from any other president who would've experienced a tragedy like this. We were all sad. Anyone who can vote was around for the aftermath. WE ALL SUFFERED. Bush is not special.

And second, we have POWs decrying Kerry for being appalled by war and atrocities associated with it. I don't care if my grandmother committed terrible acts, it doesn't make them right. But what do you expect from the supporters of Bush, who want us to believe that the world is yes/no, black/white? They want you to believe that someone who willingly served in Vietnam thinks all soldiers are evil. It's just asinine.

Alright, it's official. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could be undecided at this point in the election. Is it because it's been made a big important thing, a new demographic of sorts by news media outlets? Perhaps all this talk about the oh-so-important Undecideds is making people feel OK about remaining blissfully ignorant of the candidates' positions (though I have no idea how you'd do that).

I'm going to make it easy for all of you out there who are on the fence about this issue. Click through to find out how you should vote (because, at this point, you need to be told).

AP News Wire: Washington, D.C.

President George Bush issued a statement following the Vice Presidential Debates assuring America that the War on Terror will not interrupt seasonal fesitivites. Amidst growing concerns about Terror, and its role in Horror, the Bush administration has released a statement concerning the specifics of scaring and celebrating.

"Now, I understand that what with the...ah...Halloween holiday coming up...the...ah...American families who enjoy candy and sweets are concerned," President Bush began at an impromptu news conference on the Hill. "We are committed to fighting terror. In all its forms. But horror is OK. We are not fighting horror. With Halloween...on the way...it's important to understand that your children may attempt to elicit fright through specific use of 'horror'. Scares, frights, chills. These are a healthy part of American culture at this time of year."

Last Thursday, I watched John Kerry do exactly what he needed to in order to make Bush look bad. He didn't trounce him, or have a movie moment of utter victory, but he played it exactly like he should've. I am a liberal, with strong Democratic leanings, but I realize that the debates determine the tone for the rest of the campaign and I am less interested in declaring the winner and more interested in seeing who looks like a winner. John Kerry looked like a winner.

The event occurring tonight involving Kerry and Bush is not a debate. However, I'll watch it, since the outcome will influence the home stretch heavily, shaping the rest of the election and framing the candidates in the news.

However, I, like others, do not want anyone to imagine that they're watching a real debate. So, using a link provided by Steve Laniel, I'm posting this list of The Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates by Connie Rice, for NPR's The Tavis Smiley Show.

Read on to preview the list without the attendant explanations.

I was recently pointed to an article written by Christopher Hitchens for Slate, the online news outlet. It’s a strong case for ignoring Fahrenheit 9/11, which stirred up some lingering thoughts I’ve been having.

It presents many interesting refutations of Moore's film, and what he proposes as fact. What drives Hitchens crazy is what tugged at the back of my mind while watching the film: Moore presents any and all arguments against the Bush administration and their actions, without anchoring his own position. Moore tries to create a sympathy-free zone for Bush and his administration.

Essentially, Hitchens' point, minus factual refutations, boils down to:

"I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them."

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is a blistering and scrutinizing condemnation of George W. Bush, and the administration he represents. Moore presents a case with about two or three major threads. He presents his argument on how, through political connections, media connections, and Congressional weakness, Bush was falsely placed at the head of the U.S. government by the Supreme Court, not the voters. He reveals Bush's faltering record not only as a business man, but also as a politician (pre-September 11th), making an argument that he continues to be this incompetent. The body of the attack in this film is split between the Bush family's connections to the Saudi royal and Bin Laden families, an unsterilized view of the realities of war both for U.S. soldiers and Iraqis, and the use of America's poor to fight for the benefit of the richest.

The film covers such a broad range of emotions, that I came out of the theatre unsettled and shaken, but further motivated against Bush. Moore's sense of humor is consistent with the rest of his films, which usually let the subjects create their own absurdity, but he also tosses in movie clips and funny musical choices to amplify the sometimes astounding events he is describing and showing. This humor is dramatically offset by the revolting and terrible war footage of both Iraqis and U.S. soldiers killing and being killed. This horror is also set against the unbearable anguish of Lila Lipscomb, a mother of two veterans, who lost her son to the war. It was hard not to cry with pain and rage, as others in the theatre were, as her unbearable and unquenchable ache for her son came pouring out on her visit to D.C. In fact, one woman passing by Lipscomb, speaking to a protester outside of the White House actually accused her of being part of a staged event and questioned her about where her son was killed. Nice. Hurrah for another Bush apologist.

Ultimately, Michael Moore is a left-wing political bomb-thrower, but his film Fahrenheit 9/11 makes arguments that are as strong as or stronger than those made by the Bush administration to fund and start a war. If you swallowed the logic of the administration's chain of facts (which flip-flopped after the attacks on the U.S.), this film is a searing condemnation of that administration and its leader. Even if you ignore the implications of unsavory and wide-spread war-profiteering and outright manipulation of global politics for the gains of businessmen (the Saudis and the Bushes), the demonstration of George W. Bush's incompetence in the face of, well, presidency and responsibility, is very damning.

While passing a TV today, I caught the headline "Crisis in the Middle East" on CNN. I'm curious, when in recent history has this phrase not been applicable to the Middle East?

You may as well just say, "More on the Middle East."

::shrug::