Palin's Idea of Freedom of Speech

Dear God. Palin is at it again, showing her ignorance and ineptitude by completely reversing the ideal of the First Amendment.

Perhaps she should read Democracy For Dummies. I heard that the new version is coming out around January 20th of next year. It's anticipated that it will greatly outsell How To Build A Fascist Theocratic Regime By Cheating, Stealing & Lying To The American People For Dummies. I've already ordered my copy.

You can order yours as well by going here: voteforchange.com

Freedom

A beautiful description of freedom, IMO. This was a comment posted on by imadis on 538... this closely mirrors my philosophy.

DECONSTRUCTING BASIC PHILOSOPHIES OF PARTIES ...

Basic Individual Rights:

1) Freedom ‘To’
2) Freedom ‘From’
3) Freedom ‘Of’

Defining Individual Rights:

1) Freedom ‘To’ is the right that most people think of when hears the term ‘freedom’. This is one’s right of choosing one’s own religion, freedom of speech, freedom to ride across America on a Harley. It also includes the right to choose your spouse, your vocation, where you live, where to send your kids to school, etc.

2) Freedom ‘From’ refers to protecting you and your property from harm. Most criminal statutes fall under this category. Examples include banning thievery and murder, protecting property rights and one’s own health. This right is apparently so important that even the THREAT of violating this right can result in penalties, by acts such as speeding, drunk driving, or wanton endangerment.

3) Freedom ‘Of’ is one’s freedom of opportunity, regardless of race, class, sex, religion, etc. Most civil rights laws fall in this category. Education being equal and available to all as well. I also believe that this encompasses the belief that if one works and contributes to society, he/she should be allowed to earn a living wage and provide for one’s family. NOTE: This does NOT mean equal outcome, just equal opportunity.


Comparing the philosophies of the two parties, the Republicans tend to put an emphasis on number one. The Democrats tend to weigh each individual case balancing the 3 rights. One side is more ‘cut and dry’ while one is more ‘nuanced’.

For people to have their rights ‘from’ and ‘of’ protected, we need a strong central government enacting and enforcing laws. There is no other way to do it. It would be great in the Republican's minds if we could just do away with government and let everyone be what they can be by self-determination. The problem with this is now the power moves to those with the $$$$.

When times are good, this problem is not as evident. The meltdown on Wall Street has recently exposed this problem. Whether they know it or not, the realization of this represents a tectonic shift in the thinking of the role of government. This is why it does not matter what John McCain does, he CANNOT change the circumstances we are now living in.

Capitalism is the most efficient economic system, but works best when there are checks and balances to protect individual rights. Even Alan Greenspan admits that complete free markets cannot police themselves. An economic system is there to work for society's needs, not the other way around.

It Ain't Over 'Til The $150k Wardrobe Sings

This is getting precious. Excerpts from a CNN article describing the blind ambition of Caribou Barbie Governor Palin:

(CNN) -- With 10 days until Election Day, long-brewing tensions between GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin and key aides to Sen. John McCain have become so intense, they are spilling out in public, sources say.

Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin "going rogue."...

A second McCain source says she appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

In other news, Newsweek has already released a poll in anticipation of the 2012 election (seriously). Anyone sick of the polls yet?

Arugula Gets A Bad Rap

I admit it, I'm elitist. I live in San Francisco (the hotbed of commie marxist librul terrorists, you betcha), I drive a Prius, vote for the Democrat, eat mostly vegan, recycle and am a community organizer (*gasp!*) So it may come as no surprise that I was attacked by little starbursts when I saw the arugula winking at me in the Trader Joe's produce aisle.

Now, I've had arugula before, but I've never seen it in a package at my local grocer before. Of course, I just had to pick it up. I recommend you try it! It's highly NOMable. And quite good for you, too.

For instance, did you know that arugula:

* is rich in vitamin C and potassium?
* is considered an aphrodisiac?
* is used to create a liquor called rucolino?
* is only 2 calories per 1/2 cup serving?

I'd like to announce that I am officially beginning a campaign to Save Endangered Arugula. Will you join me? Here are some arugula recipes to get you started.

Wasssup!?

I hated the original, but this is just an awesome remake.

18 Million Cracks, But No Shatter

A very interesting column in the National Review by Kathleen Parker:

McCain had met Palin only once — in February, at the governor's convention in Washington, D.C. — before the day he selected her as his running mate. The second time was at his Sedona, Ariz., ranch on Aug. 28, just four days before the GOP convention.

As Draper tells it, McCain took Palin to his favorite coffee-drinking spot down by a creek and a sycamore tree. They talked for more than an hour, and, as Napoleon whispered to Josephine, ‘Voila’

...

That men are at a disadvantage when attractive women are present is a fact upon which women have banked for centuries. Ignoring it now profits only fools. McCain spokesmen have said that he was attracted to Palin's maverickness, that she reminded him of himself.

Recognizing oneself in a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, as the case may be) is a powerful invitation to bonding. Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in the river, imagining it to be his deceased and beloved sister's. In McCain's case, it doesn't hurt that his reflection is spiked with feminine approval.

In the end, physical beauty could be pinpointed as the lasting glass ceiling for women in American politics. Sarah Palin's attractiveness - which caused narcissistic McCain to ignore her blind ambition and vapid ignorance - tarnished us all.

Joe The Plumber - for CONGRESS?

Ok, SRSLY. This guy has had more than his 15 minutes of fame... first he's seeking a book deal, and now he contemplates running for Congress?

Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. "Joe the Plumber," said Friday he may consider running for Congress in 2010, challenging longtime Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D) in the Toledo-area district.

"I'll tell you what, we'd definitely be in one heck of a fight," Wurzelbacher said during an appearance on the Laura Ingraham show Friday, "but, you know, I'd be up for it."

"There is a movement afoot to draft you to run for Congress," Ingraham said. "Joe, let me tell you something: you decide to run for Congress, and I'll help you with your PR, I'll help you do your ads, I mean, I'll volunteer to help you."

Pardon mon français, but are you shitting me? The same Joe the Plumber that's not really a plumber, has an interesting legal history, evades his taxes, and has bordered on race-baiting? I, for one, find Joe a very fishy GOP plant, but we may never know (and honestly, I don't care). However, this Congress bit just puts me over the top.

I'm all for Mr. Smith goes to Washington, folks, but after the Palinscapades, I'm beginning to dread these types popping up on ballots across the country for a long time to come.

Obama at Harvard Law Review

Thanks, Andrew Sullivan, for bringing this one to my attention. I don't usually lay out entire posts in this way, but this was a very insightful post.

Bradford Berenson, remembering what Obama was like as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review:

I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there's an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it's our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in. And Barack was reluctant to do that.

It's not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that ...

He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn't wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn't do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.

He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. ... It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.

It's Back: "Voter Fraud"

Some compiled comments on the role of ACORN and the noise the GOP is generating:

1. ACORN's primary goal is to empower economically lower class citizens. One of the many ways they do this is by registering people to vote. While ACORN does not discriminate, they do focus primarily on exploited groups such as Hispanics and African Americans, which of course have higher numbers of impoverished individuals. Such groups obviously pose a threat to McCain and his fellow Republicans.

2. It is ILLEGAL for ACORN, or any other group or individual, to NOT submit a completed voter registration form to the appropriate office of the supervisor of elections. THEY ARE LEGAL DOCUMENTS and ACORN cannot withhold them or throw them away, for any reason. It does not matter whether or not the form is obviously filled out fraudulently (e.g. if the person writes his or her name as Mickey Mouse) or even if the person who fills it out says they are lying. The reason this law exists is to prevent groups from discarding, and therefore disenfranchising, groups that they do not want to vote. What this means is that in any and every voter registration drive there will be fraudulent registration forms.

3. ACORN takes extra time and effort to separate voter registration forms that are obvious forgeries from the legitimate forms so that the supervisor of elections can deal with them properly. They flag these before they turn them in, and there is nothing they can do about the fraudulent ones except point them out. It's up to state elections officials to weed out those that aren't legit, and all applications are marked as good, incomplete or suspect. Unfortunately, many of the state elections officials are GOP, and therefore choose to disregard the flagged applications and cry "VOTER FRAUD!" These officials come back weeks or months later and accuse ACORN of deliberately turning in phony cards. In many cases, ACORN can actually prove that these are the same cards they called to official's attention.

4. McCain spoke at a pro-immigration rally in Florida in 2006 that ACORN co-sponsored. A recent response from ACORN:

While in recent weeks your campaign has stooped to engaging in tactics that do not reflect the John McCain who proudly appeared at the 2006 ACORN event, we hold out hope that the 2008 John McCain will do the right thing and call upon his supporters...to take the necessary steps to protect the public's constitutional right to participate in our nation's democracy.

5. ACORN's canvassers are paid by the hour, not by the card, so there is NO incentive for them to falsify cards. And trust me, ACORN does NOT want the falsified cards as it creates the bad press we're hearing 24/7 from Fox and the like. Even if Mickey Mouse fills out an application, Mickey Mouse can't show up at the polls to cast a legal vote. ACORN has a zero-tolerance policy for deliberately falsifying registrations, and in the relatively rare cases where their internal quality controls have identified this happening, they have fired the workers involved and turned them in to election officials and law-enforcement.

6. No criminal charges related to voter registration have ever been brought against ACORN or partner organizations. Convictions against individual former ACORN workers have been accomplished with ACORN's full cooperation, using the evidence obtained through their quality control and verification processes — evidence which, in most cases, ACORN called to the attention of authorities.

7. The plain truth is: there are only about SIX voters found guilty of federal voting fraud in a year - out of over 178 million registered voters, despite the large amount of time and money that the GOP spends crying VOTER FRAUD! every election.

8. I'd like to take this moment to personally chide America for only having 178 million registered voters when we have a voting populace (as of 2004 statistics) of over 215 million. In 2004, only 125 million actually voted, which was only 58% of the population. Come on people... it's not hard. Get out there and VOTE. I don't even care who you vote for. Make your voice be heard. One of the greatest threats to our democracy is the silence (read: apathy) of the people.

< / stepOffSoapbox> Anyway, the bigger issue here is voter disenfranchisement.

Mainly excerpted from gregpalast.com, with links added for verification:

In the swing state of Colorado, we found that the Republican Secretary of State wiped out 19.4% - THAT'S ONE IN FIVE - voter names in an unnoticed mass purge.

In swing-state New Mexico, in the February caucus, one in nine Democrats found their names missing from the voter rolls supplied by the State. The elections supervisor of San Miguel County - whose own name was missing from the rolls - has no confidence the state contractors will fix it. Our statistical analysis showed there was a direct relationship between your name and your race and income. The poor and the dark were disappeared.

In Indiana, 10 nuns lost their vote because their ID - drivers' licenses - had expired (they were all over eighty). But what about the others? We've calculated that 143,000 others were turned away - disproportionately Blacks and new voters.

Visit www.stealbackyourvote.com if you're interested in learning more about disenfranchisement and what you can do about it. They even have a nifty comic book and movie.

Don't let them steal it from us again. Be informed and protect the vote!

Senate Projections

As reported by Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic, as reported by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com:

The Democrats appear to have nearly as much momentum in the race for Capitol Hill as they do for the White House, and now have approximately a 3 in 10 chance of winding up with a 60-seat working majority in the Senate.