Tu Quo Que?

Ron Paul attacked Rick Santorum twice in the week before the South Carolina Primary over the anti-union “Right to Work” laws in Pennsylvania that Santorum stood against. Now let me be very clear on something. I hate unions. I think they’re the scum of the earth, and moreover, I think they’re deep in bed with the liberal democrats in Washington. I have no love for unions whatsoever, and I also live in a Right to Work state—and I love it. However, Santorum voted against the Right to Work legislature in Pennsylvania. This may be a shock, but I’m ok with that for one simple reason: Santorum did what his constituency wanted him to do. He voted the way his people wanted him to.
Many people complain about Washington DC being “out of touch” with the average voter. One good example of this is ObamaCare, which the majority of Americans want overturned. The liberal house and senate rammed it thru, and the will of the people be damned. Obama signed it, and declared it with Taxation and Healthcare for All. We fault Washington for doing whatever they want against the will of the people. Ron Paul faults Rick Santorum for following the will of the people—because what Rick did violates Paul’s ideology.

Yet Ron Paul’s stance is one of hypocrisy, and one that leaves him in a rather nasty place in front of conservative voters. Paul firmly believes that Israel should be cut off from our foreign aid. Yet a recent Rasmussen Poll stated that a majority of Americans (over half) stated they wanted our financial support for Israel to continue. My question would be: “Mr. Paul, if you are elected will you follow the will of the American people and continue to financially support Israel? Or will you cut them off and follow your own ideology wherever it leads you? Because we already have a President that does that, and we don’t need another one.”
Some of the more inane PaulBots may say, “Well, we should do what’s right and best for us no matter what!” Others may go so far as to say, “We should do what’s right for our country even if the people think it’s wrong!” Translation: Our ideology is more important than the will of the people. That’s dangerous. Any time a group or a politician says, “We know what’s best—what you want doesn’t matter” the country takes another step towards totalitarianism. If that’s the line that Ron Paul and his Kool-Aid swigging followers want to draw, then fine. At that point their doom is secure, because they have become just like the liberals they claim to hate.

Ron Paul's Kool-Aid Brigade seems familiar...

Ron Paul and the PaulBots often like to say that people are afraid of them because they want constitutionalism and liberty. They say that scares people.
Well, Ron Paul and his followers do scare me. I’ll admit it. But I’m not afraid of liberty, or the constitution or cutting the fed back to a reasonable size. What I am afraid of is the lack of rationale, the lack of systematic logic, and the lack of reality I find in Ron Paul’s supporters.

Every time Paul speaks they flock to the TVs, the YouTube, the blogs and declare just how brilliant he is. “It’s gold, pure gold!” they gush, and they will not tolerate naysayers.
Worse, they never question him, his ideas, or his philosophies. Ever try arguing with a Paulbot? It's like arguing with a two year old. I hate to say this, but I’ve had more productive and rational arguments with Marxist Liberals—whom I vehemently disagree with.

A Paulbot never stops to think, “Maybe I don’t agree with that.” I respect a Ron Paul supporter who says, “Yes, I love him, but this particular issue/policy that he has bothers me. I don’t agree with him on _______.” Yet many people see him as doing no wrong. Many of my friends feel this way about him, spouting press-release catchphrases, and over-simplified BS about foreign policy. You know what you call someone who can do no wrong? Messianic.

That’s why the Paulbots scare me. They remind me of someone…a lot of someones.
They remind me of a thronging mass of people, a people who believed, a people that could not be argued or reasoned with, a people who proclaimed vision, a people who finally had hope, and were ready for change. We all know what those people did.
They elected one of the worst presidents in US History…Barack Hussein Obama.

I don’t like people making messiahs--and I don’t believe in political messiahs. I don’t believe any one human is that perfect (save for Christ). They’re human: by definition they can’t be 100% right.
If the Paulbots want any form of respect, they’ve got to take logic to the floor and acknowledge that the man has problems, some big, some small--just like anyone else. As long as he stays put as their unquestionable messiah, they’ll be treated exactly like the cult that they act like. And the internet polls where the Kool-Aid Brigade show up to stuff the ballot box aren't helping matters any. Tin foil hats anyone?

2011 GOP Debate - PMSNBC Sunday Morning Pre Church Analysis--winners and losers

I ate a good amount of homemade pulled pork before bed…and a lot of powerade…and a Big Mac. Yes, my night went badly.

I was up early for the debate…alarm or no, I was not sleeping.

Here’s my pitiful little 2 cents.

The PMSNBC debate was far, FAR better than the ABC debate last night. The dynamic duo of Sawyer/Stephanopoulos was pathetic…I guess this explains why ABC isn’t even on the same level as a real news channel. George’s hypothetical questions earned him pushback from the candidates, and it was getting silly enough that I wondered if his next question might not be, “So if the alien gummy bears attack, how will you prepare the nation for an intergalactic candy war?”

While PMSNBC did host a better debate, I felt that the time allotments and the questions were skewed. The questions seemed to focus on other candidates strengths, and on Mitt’s weaknesses….or maybe everyone else just defended better. I felt like the real losers for TIME were Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. I felt that the questions and exchanges didn’t really include them…and this is why Fox put on a far better debate: Everyone got a lot more time on camera with a live mic. I also felt Fox’s questions were better.

So here’s my thoughts candidate by candidate.

Romney – got the lion’s share of airtime, but also the lion’s share of attacks. He had good answers for the most part, but he trended to the moderate tightrope in a hurry on some issues. Santorum and Gingrich really landed some effective blows, and while this may be “too little—too late” for NH, it may hurt Mitt in South Carolina.
He did not come across as “The Conservative”. He also got more airtime though, and this probably won’t hurt him with crossover voters or with moderates—given his answers. Verdict? Partial win. His recent McCain endorsement will not, and does not endear him to conservatives what so ever.

Gingrich – Newt offered good answers to the moderators, but Romney called him out near the end of the debate for pandering to Nancy Pelosi (shudder), and for some of his more moderate ideas. Newt’s performance wasn’t bad, but at this point, given the polls, I’m not sure it matters. Newt may be more useful as a spoiler for beating up Romney than as a top tier candidate. His personal life doesn’t help him either. Verdict? Partial win…he didn’t hurt himself, and he did hurt Mitt.

Santorum – Santorum showed a few really good strengths: wit, clear answers, inability to be bullied, and most importantly, he used a lot of specifics. He looked bright eyed and bushy tailed in spite of the late debate last night. He spoke with passion and clarity. He was memorable and his answer on Iran was extremely good. In fact, it was nearly perfect…he showed understanding of Islam and took a tough question well and delivered a memorable, smart, and informed answer on why Iran is different than North Korea, Pakistan, or Russia: Iran is a theocracy.
Verdict? He didn’t get away scot-free, but he did very well and possibly legitimized himself in South Carolina. I’d expect a good showing on Tuesday in NH.

Ron Paul – I’ve got no deep-seated love for Paul’s foreign policy or stance on Islamic-jihad (in fact I really disagree with him on those issues), but I will say this: his economy answers were darn good. Fortunately for Paul, the questions asked of him were not about foreign policy—which means he didn’t take much damage from the other candidates. Unfortunately his answers were abbreviated…I wanted to hear more and I knew he had a more complete thought, but he honored the time limits and it seemed to me like few questions came his way. His energy and fed size answers were great, and even Newt gave him a nod on oil and jobs. Ultimately his verdict isn’t great because it’s split: Partial win because he didn’t damage himself with foreign policy, and he answered very well on everything else. But it’s also a partial loss because he didn’t get the time to give better answers, and because he didn’t get many questions or attention from the moderators. This may be a good thing in some ways…they could have dragged a lot of stuff about newsletters and Iran into the light and other candidates could have really hurt him over those.

Perry – not dissimilar to Newt: Good answers, but who cares? Perry has about two weeks left in this gig if he can’t turn the car around. He did show humor when dealing with his past “forgotten answer” from 3-4 debates ago…kudos! He also spoke clearly, but I think he sounds like G.W. Bush to a lot of people. Even though those two are mortal enemies, I don’t think it’s going to help him. He was specific and very collected, but again, the poll numbers are against him. I think at this point he has to nuke Mitt and Newt in a big debate and put the hurt on them so eloquently and so badly that they really do reel from it to regain his footing.
Verdict: Win…in a sense, He didn’t get hurt, but he really didn’t get helped. I wonder if he’s thinking of a VP offer? He threw grenades when he needed a nuke.

Huntsman – in my mind, Jonny-boy got a free pass from PMSNBC. He came across as “safe” and “nice”…and REALLY moderate. I don’t think that’s going to help him here.
I forget which candidate (might have been Santorum or Newt) that asked (and I paraphrase), “Hey, our socialist president picked this guy…do you really think Obama would pick a genuine conservative?” It’s a good point. As ambassador to China, he values the relationship, and that might hurt him—because other candidates do NOT value China and neither does the conservative base. He felt smarmy, clichéd, and very much like Mr. Rogers. He felt too smooth and “safe.”
For the red-blooded conservatives that want a nutcracker like Reagan, this ain’t the guy. Verdict? Partial win, but he took a few (precious few) shots from the other candidates. And the partial win was only because the mods gave him a pass more or less.

Other thoughts:
Think VP picks. See any weird sort of alliances going? Maybe a few…

All told, a good debate…not a terrible day for anyone, though I think Romney took the most hurt, but I doubt it will effect Tuesday that much. Who knows though…the talking heads say that 20% of voters haven’t made up their minds. That’s a big swing…we’ll see. Primary Party at my house on Tuesday? ☺

Ugly Ugly Occupy

Two grass-roots movements have marked this year in politics. One is the Tea Party, which objects to taxes and the fiasco we refer to as the IRS. The other is the Occupy Movement, which is pretty much mad about taxes, and corporations, and …well it’s complicated. Mostly, they’re just mad. The Daily Iowan (among others) mentioned a “lack of continuity” in the movement, and it’s true. A few interviews reveal this fairly clearly. They’re mad. They agree on that. What they’re mad about depends on who you ask.

But it's no Tea Party. Like them or not, the Tea Party protests were quiet, non-violent, and well behaved. Like them or not, the Occupy Protests have a nasty, ugly side that doesn’t make it to the TV as often as maybe it should. How ugly is it? Here’s a list of the ugly. In the words of Bruce Willis,

“Just the facts ma’am, just the facts” (sic).

- Arrests as of 10/27: 2,750. ¹ This does NOT include the crackdowns of Weeks 2 and 3 of November.

- The protestors eat, “organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad” but won’t share with the homeless…who are poorer than they are. ²

- ACORN has been monetarily supporting OWS. ³ Is that grassroots??

- Several cases of anti-Semitism have been documented at OWS gatherings. ⁴

- OWS said in mid October that their biggest problem is…internal theft. ⁵

- The media coverage from “the Big Three” has been more positive on the OWS movement than negative. Media hate? Don’t think so! ⁶

- Crime is up in NYC due to OWS. 154% to be exact. ⁷

- Occupy Boston illegally occupied the Israeli Consulate, chanting anti-Israeli slogans. ⁸

- Occupy Minnesota has so far cost taxpayers half a million dollars. ⁹

- Occupy NY has cost taxpayers $6 million dollars.¹⁶

- Who supports the Occupy Movement? Iran, the American Communist Party, the American Nazi Party, North Korea, Hugo Chavez, Communist Party of China, Hezbollah and more.¹⁰ You know, all those humanitarian countries…

- As of early October, OWS in NYC had cost taxpayers $2 million. ¹¹

- You can’t be the 99% if 44% don’t like you, and 15% or more don’t know what you want. ¹³

- The OWS movement has raised over $500K to date. Interesting…at the end of the article, the author says they’ll need to keep making money to stay in business…¹⁴

- Hey OWS! Did you ever wonder where BHO got his money to get elected? ¹⁵

- Total OWS cost (minimum) is $13 million.¹⁷ That’s a cost to the tax payers. What are they getting for their money?

- Total death toll: 7. Some have died of drug overdoses or drug related issues¹⁸

- Rapes and sexual assaults are more common than you might think. ¹⁹

- As of Nov 16, arrests were over 4,000. (More facts in link). ²⁰

- Disease becoming a problem in Occupy SF. ²¹

- Total rap sheet so far. ²²

- American Politicians who support OWS. ²²

As much as Occupy supporters hate to admit it, the movement has very little good about it, very little congruity outside of pure socialism, and for all the hubbub, violence, disease, sexual misconduct, and cost to tax payers, nothing has changed. No laws, no collapsed corporations, no increase in socialism. Just more crime, racism, public indecency, and ugly clashes with law enforcement—many of whom have lost vacation time to deal with malcontents (who should be at work).

Many Americans tell pollsters that they don’t know enough about the movement to have an opinion. For a movement that claims to be the “99%”, the majority of Americans either don’t like them, or have no idea what they want.
When looked at through global eyes, the movement is a group of a few thousand angry people in a country of 300 million on a planet of 7 billion. Given that America’s poorest are still some of the most well-to-do in the world, it seems ironic that this group is actually among the richest 25% on the planet. In fact, depending on the person, they may actually be in the top 20%, and even the Occupiers living in tents have it better than most of the nation of India.²³

This raises the question: “Out of 7 billion people, you have it better than 5 billion of them. What on earth are you complaining for?” If someone is doing better than 70% of others and yet they still want more, doesn’t that make them…you know…
greedy?

CITATIONS

1. http://www.toberight.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-arrest-tally/

with many sub links to specific city websites.

2. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL

3. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/acorn_taking_root_again_amid_protests_S7oqpPcxPTpqp3uH2cEjQI

4. http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/hate-crimes-at-queens-libraries-and-jewish-temple-20111104-lgf

5. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK

6. http://www.owsexposed.com/2011/11/07/biased-reporting-in-the-mainstream-media/

7. http://patdollard.com/2011/10/nyc-shootings-up-28-as-police-are-diverted-to-occupy-wall-street/

8. http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/11/occupy-boston-occupies-israeli-consulate

9. http://www.owsexposed.com/2011/11/01/occupy-minnesota-costing-minneapolis-taxpayers-100000-a-week/

10. http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/

11. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/new-york/occupy-wall-street-costing-taxpayers-2-million-police-125205009.html

12. http://www.owsexposed.com/2011/11/03/shock-poll-after-rapes-drugs-violence-and-death-voters-view-occupy-movement-negatively/

13. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2011/36_say_wall_street_protesters_represent_views_of_mainstream_america_44_disagree

14. http://globalgrind.com/news/more-money-more-problems-occupy-wall-street-rakes-500k-stacks-details

15. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

16. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-17/wall-street-protesters-blocked-in-attempt-to-disrupt-nyse.html

17. http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-protests-cost-nations-cities-least-13m-073242555.html

18. http://www.owsexposed.com/tag/death/

19. http://www.owsexposed.com/tag/sexual-assault/

20. http://www.punditpress.com/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-rapsheet-so-far-with.html

21. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/17/san-francisco-officials-fear-disease-will-spread-at-occupy-encampment/

22. http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

23. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/world-income-inequality.html

If you move your finger like this

That note will sustain forever

And that’s good

Because

All music comes from the Great Spirit

And goes back to the Great Spirit

He says with his Chicago

Accent

And white frizzy hair under a newsboy

tweed cap, ponytail and shades

made for the blues man

He was the

Blues

Feckless

Feckless

It’s the cars I tell you
he rants driving down the freeway

Twenty miles from the gas station to the rear
Fifteen to the town ahead and

The sun, the sun blares like a klaxon

And the cars carry the ills of the world
he screams slamming the wheel against the heel

Of his palm, oh yes the cars—curse them all—

Have brought us suffering and all evil

They carry to our doors

Every hate of man (oh the death and suffering)
trains planes pay no mind

It’s the automobile that has ruined the world

He rages in the passing lane foam flecked lips

Ten over till finally

In his fury he stops and slams the door

Grabs the shotgun from the back

And with a bestial roar he dispatches the tires

And the rest go into the motor

Until his murder spent

He begins the long walk into town alone
his self-righteousness intact

In tow behind him

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

I rarely, if ever, side with the media. Generally, I consider them to be more interested in ratings, and sensationalism than in the truth. Or sometimes, I strongly suspect them of not even being interested in the truth: case in point, Anderson Cooper and his 36 degree view of the recent Egyptian political overhaul.
However, the case of Casey Anthony does have me siding with most of the reporters and anchors on the telly. Everyone is a little shocked, and horrified at the inaction of the jury. What should have been evaluation of reasonable doubt instead became mockery of justice and the willing suspension of disbelief. Instead of trying the facts of the case, (which could only lead to at least Casey being liable in some form for her daughter’s death), they tried the prosecution, and their presentation of the case. In a world where CSI, Criminal Minds, and Law & Order have the cases sewed shut in 57 minutes minus commercials, the jury wanted the television-case, the one beyond all doubt—not just reasonable doubt.
From all appearances, the jury was convinced early on of doubts, rather than waiting to hear the whole story. Jose Baez flung as much nonsense as he could against the wall, and prayed to whatever god he believes in that some would stick. It seems to have worked.
“But the prosecution didn’t give the jury a coffin-nailed-shut-case!” Arguably, they shouldn’t have to. The prosecution’s job is not to prove the case past all doubt—just beyond reasonable doubt.

For instance, the time stamps on Cindy Anthony’s work PC, and the searches for chloroform on Casey’s computer should have been solid enough for premeditation to be proven. “But, it’s possible…” Yes. It is possible. It’s within the realm of physically being able to happen that someone other than Casey was on the computer. By in the realm of possible, I mean no aliens, or paranormal activity.

But probable? No. As a former IT worker for several companies, I am convinced that Casey Anthony did those searches. Computers don’t lie, but people do. Cindy lied, and there was not a shred of proof for her “dog-ate-the-plants” story. Additionally, the idea of someone using Cindy’s work PC to cover for her is absurd. She had no motive to suddenly run home, and she had no reason to cover it up as Caylee was still alive and well at the time, and she only had something to lose by having someone cover for her at work. Ask yourself, is it reasonable to conclude that a good worker in the health industry suddenly got up in the middle of her work day, had someone else work for her (with her login, which would have been bad had she been caught), run home, make some very dicey internet searches, run back and continue working? Is it possible? Possible, yes. But not reasonable. Not even close to reasonable. In fact, it’s asinine.

Ultimately, for the jury’s acquittal to stick, they had to go beyond reasonable. They had to make the unreasonable as normal. They had to make everyone in the case act against what we all hold as reasonable behavior. It’s the only way “not guilty” could work in their minds.
Their actions now make it reasonable for a mother who’s just lost her child to go party. They made it reasonable to hide the loss of a child, and cover it up. They made it reasonable to groundlessly hurl sexual molestation charges like a drive-by shooter: indiscriminate and unjustified. Yet they justified Casey’s endless lies as normal, reasonable behavior for someone who supposedly just wanted her daughter back. They justified groundless accusations and idiotic theories from a second-rate lawyer as “reasonable” and logical.
They disregarded duct tape over the mouth of a child as reasonable for someone who had been in a tragic accident.
They justified strong evidence of a body in the trunk as nothing more than the presence of trash, and in so doing made Caylee Anthony just that: a piece of trash, a piece of litter, left in a swamp because her mommy thought it was reasonable to be free of responsibility.
I will stand with Marcia Clark, the prosecutor for the infamous O.J. Simpson trial. As with most of the nation, she is shocked and outraged at the jury's ineptness.
I like her closing thought from her article on The Daily Beast: “…because I did follow this case, and I have to be honest: If I’d been in that jury room, the vote would’ve been 11 to 1. Forever.”
She speaks for the rest of us, who would have stayed until thrown out with a hung jury. I could easily live with hanging a jury—because I don’t reasonably believe there’s another jury out there that would let her go free.