Government Shutdown: Political Apathy Leads to Hyper-Partisanship, Leads to Desperate Gambits

How is it that about 80 Republicans can shut a government down, send 800,000 government employees home without pay, and effectively hold an entire country's legislature hostage?

It seems ludicrous. There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. How can just 80 befuddle their 450 colleagues?

Those 80 are elected from hyper-partisan districts that absolutely despise Obamacare and are willing to do just about anything within the law to defeat it. Those 80 are vital to Republican control of the House. And the Democrats don't want to negotiate with those 80. Which is an important fact that's being passed over.

There was very little effort among the Democrats to reach an understanding with the Tea Party wing of the Congressional Republicans. And while this shutdown has been caused by that conservative faction, the Democrats let it happen. Which is a smart political move. As Napoleon is believed to have said "Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself." And that's what the Tea Party and the Republicans are doing.

At the same time, this extreme faction of the Republican party was duly elected by actual voters. For years, there has been a swelling movement of people who believe in strict conservative ideas. The Left has tried to dismiss these people as racist and ignorant. They've been dubbed "tea-baggers" (even a Senate Democrat used that crude term a few days ago). But they are voters, and they have expressed their "extreme" conservative views with their votes and elected many of the 80 Republicans who have shut the government down.

And that's the problem these days. Only people with strong, strict, extreme beliefs actively participate in politics these days. Only people with firm convictions play any role in the political process. When only uncompromising people engage in politics, why are we shocked when there is no compromise?

Even those of us that regularly vote don't follow politics closely. We know more about our fantasy football teams than we do about our Representatives and Senators. We read tabloid websites about celebrity hook-ups. We squabble with friends and strangers about college football rankings, and Manning vs. Brady, and PEDs in baseball.

And that's fine, except when half the country doesn't vote, and most of the people that do vote only take a passing interest in politics. Then we create a vacuum, a breeding ground for hyper-partisanship. Because only the hyper-partisans in our country take an active role in the political process.

Things are so divided in Congress because only the supporters of the extreme wing of each party invest themselves in politics. Most of us don't care. We gripe about our leaders and representatives, then continue to elect them and pay their salaries. Only for a few months every 4 years do we pay attention to what's happening, and who runs our country.

Even though I'm a conservative, I do hope this latest Tea Party gambit fails. This kind of brinkmanship (please, political pundits, stop saying "game of chicken" when there's a perfectly good word to use) is a shallow, unevolved, and unproductive way to accomplish objectives. It's also not in the spirit of a representative democracy. Representatives from a handful of districts shouldn't wield more power than those from the rest of the country. And any political mechanism or ploy that allows them to do so is undemocratic.

I don't like Obamacare. But I want to see it repealed the same way it was passed, fair and square (although it wasn't called a tax when it was moving through Congress, then the Supreme Court upheld it because it was a tax, but that's just typical misleading political labeling). It's law right now. Congress approved it, the President signed it, the Supreme Court upheld it. Conservatives, especially those who claim to love the Constitution, should swallow their pride and live with it, hoping to convince people to repeal it through traditional, Constitutional means.

To Tea Party people, what would John Adams or George Washington say about this government shutdown? What would Jefferson, the ultimate anti-big-government guy, have to say about this strategy?

I don't think many Founding Fathers in tri-corner hats would approve.

No Defined Objectives or Path to Victory in Syria

I honestly don't know what to think about getting militarily involved in Syria's Civil War. I don't know because I don't know what exactly that involvement hopes to achieve. Before going to war, a country should define its ultimate objectives. Then the country should define a path to victory that achieves those objectives. Finally, the country must ask itself if those objectives are worth the use of force and if the defined victory can feasibly be achieved.

In the American Revolution, for example, the British objective was simple: restore British order and control in the American colonies. However, their path to achieving that victory was much more complex and eventually unfeasible. They had to eliminate or scatter all enemy armies, conquer and control cities and vast areas of countryside, and do so without alienating the local population (which they did by allying themselves with Native Americans).

All the Americans had to do was survive as a fighting force.

The Redcoats were rarely beaten on the battlefield. Even after the surrender at Yorktown they still had significant forces available to them. The British weren't driven to the sea, they were recalled by a Parliament that finally tired of the war.

A similar thing happened in Vietnam. All the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong had to do was survive, while America needed to conquer land, as well as hearts and minds. That's pretty much impossible to do.

Then we get to the First Iraq War. Easily defined victory there: Eliminate and eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait, seriously weaken their ability to wage any future offensive wars. A definition of victory that could be achieved, and was.

The Second Iraq War and Afghanistan, not so much. The objectives were complex and the paths to victory was unclear. Remove current governments, install democracy, keep the peace in cities and countryside, oversee the conversion from militaristic dictators to peaceful democracies, rebuild infrastructure, rebuild economies, fight local and foreign terrorism, support national and local government institutions, fight corruption in national and local government institutions, secure a massive borders and isolated hinterlands. That's something you can't draw a battle plan for.

So what's the goal in Syria? Do we want to destroy all the chemical weapons? I'd support that objective, but then ask the tough question "how?" How could we do that without committing ground troops who would search buildings and underground storage dumps? Removing all chemical weapons is a fine goal, but difficult/impossible to achieve.

How about removing Assad? That can be done with an assassination or bombing whatever building he's in. But I'm not sure I like this as an objective. Assad's replacement will likely be just as bad, whether he's from Assad's camp or from the opposition. And there's something especially unsavory about people who assume power in vacuums. At least when power is won, even with brutality, the one holding the power has earned it in some way. People who assume power in vacuums tend to more grotesquely abuse that power.

One objective that might be feasible is to cripple Assad's ability to deliver chemical weapons. This means destroying missile and rocket launchers. I don't think we'd ever be able to eliminate all chemical weapons without a ground campaign (in other words, without getting us intimately involved in their war), and the air campaign would last an indefinite amount of time (perhaps as long as the war). But we can make it difficult and dangerous for Assad's chemical warfare troops and equipment. We can call it Operation Referee.

At the same time, intervention might not be a long term positive for Syria or its people. We intervened in Afghanistan in the 1980s when the Soviets were trying to conquer that country. It was a moral war to get involved in, there was a path to victory, and we prevented the Soviet Union from taking over. Years later some of the men we trained, like Osama bin Laden, turned against us. That was bad for the US and was bad for many people in Afghanistan.

Sometimes even good interventions have bad results.

So what's the objective in Syria? We're not going to try to end the Syrian Civil War. We don't want to support one side or another. So what is it that we want to achieve? NO OTHER QUESTION CAN BE ANSWERED UNTIL THIS ONE IS. We cannot decide whether to engage in Syria until we know what we'll try to do there and how we'll try to get it done.

The Left criticized G.W. Bush for not having an Exit Strategy in Iraq. Rightfully so. Before the exit, though, you need a path to victory. How do you get from the start of involvement towards your goal? We don't know what victory is yet, let alone the route to get there.

I blame Obama for the current cloudy and confused situation we are in with this mess. His stupid Red Line decree put himself against the wall, not Assad. Although now Obama denies setting a Red Line. Even though he did...

One perk to being a Liberal is that you can say what you want, then deny what your words meant because people who aren't as smart as you (which is everyone who criticizes you) misinterpreted what you were trying to convey.

Also, if he doesn't want to activate the military without Congressional assent, perhaps he shouldn't have set a Red Line without first conferring with Congress.

What he did was bluff. And Assad raised. And the proper thing to do after a failed bluff is fold. It'is braver to retreat and be embarrassed than it is to attack and be destroyed with pride. It's also the smart thing to do and it's the only thing to do. Live to fight another day. That's a figure of speech for Obama, but also a reality for the American servicemen who would be risking their lives in and above Syria, trying to attain a victory that can't be attained, and attempting to reach an objective that either isn't worth achieving or cannot be achieved.

Profiling for Racial Profiling

I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, I have seen significant evidence that people have profiled Zimmerman as a racial profiler.

I'm glad in our country the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And not because of this case. Screw George Zimmerman. I probably wouldn't like him if I met him. He seems like a wannabe Charles Bronson mixed with Dirty Harry. And his side of the story so absolves him of any and all blame that I struggle to believe it. It's too pristine. But doubt isn't proof. And our system requires proof. Innocent until proven guilty. That's why he is free. Not because of race, not because our system is broken.

I have a similar philosophy that I wish were applied by more people: Not-racist until proven racist. It would be nice if there were more of a burden of proof on MSNBC pundits, protesters, Ivy League professors, Twitter rabble rousers, and a New York City mayoral candidate, before they blame racism.

Trayvon Martin was killed because he was black. There was no justice done today in Florida.
— Thompson2013 (@BillThompsonNYC) July 14, 2013

I'm struggling to see the racist element in this case. I feel like I'm staring at one of those 3D Art posters and I'm unable to see the hidden image of a spaceship that everyone else seems to see. Where's the racism? I see no smoke. Where's the fire?

Blacks, Hispanics, whites, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, we all have the right to not be treated as criminals. Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon Martin. We can't get into Zimmerman's brain and discover the underlying reasons why.

Zimmerman has been accused of racial profiling, even though in his call to police he's initially not certain Martin is black. Not until Martin walks near his car. And he doesn't mention race until asked. He focuses on Martin's behavior as the reason he's calling. How can anyone presume to know the motivations in Zimmerman's mind as he calls the police?

Where's the proof, or even suggestion of racism? Did Zimmerman racially profile Martin? It's possible. But what evidence supports that? Martin was black. Zimmerman isn't. Zimmerman called the police about a young black kid. Is that all the evidence needed to prove racial profiling? What a light burden of proof.

It seems as though everyone who thinks Zimmerman racially profiled Martin reached their conclusions when the few facts available to us included a deceitfully edited audio clip of Zimmerman describing Martin's race. Immediately, Zimmerman was profiled as a gun-toting, racist vigilante. And those same people who profiled him are the ones now accusing him of doing the same.

The people that jumped to conclusions about Zimmerman have now seen that audio clip debunked, learned he is Hispanic, learned he's a Democrat, seen the media make endless mistakes in their coverage, seen cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head (even though ABC initially reported there were none at all). And despite all this, their opinion of Zimmerman is the same as when they thought he said "fucking coons" in his call to police, not "fucking punks."

I'm not going to victimize Zimmerman as others have, because he's not a victim. It wasn't a crime to get out of his car, but it was good common sense to stay in it, and an unnecessary risk to leave it. It's not a crime for him to carry a gun. But I think he wouldn't have had the stones to walk around that dark sidewalk without his firearm on him. People who carry guns don't become victims. That's one of the reasons gun rights advocates support gun rights. So Zimmerman is no victim.

Zimmerman was, however, profiled. By a media hungry for a story about a white man killing a black man, hungry for a story that involved race and guns. Who cares if it turned out to be an Hispanic man, the race story was already there, just ask the New York Times who called Zimmerman a "white Hispanic," maintaining that white vs. black narrative. NBC aired an edited phone call that made Zimmerman seem like he was racially profiling Martin. ABC used fuzzy, unenhanced images of the back of Zimmerman's head to say he wasn't injured at all, despite police reports that said he was. The Times came up with a completely new race for Zimmerman to be part of.

There's no proof or even suggestion that Zimmerman was worried about Martin because of race. There's been no evidence presented that Zimmerman is prejudiced against black people. He's a registered Democrat. His life has been investigated and turned upside down, and nothing has emerged to suggest his actions on February 26th were in any way motivated by race.

Why is it the people think that Zimmerman following Martin was wrong because it was racist, not wrong because it was stupid/zealous? Why does it have to be racist to be wrong?

People worked themselves up in a frenzy when on The Today Show they heard Zimmerman say "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." Which was proven to be a misleading edit by NBC. The same people incensed by hearing that, were not deterred in their outrage when it became known that the audio had been spliced together, making Zimmerman seem like he was racially profiling Martin. They're still now just as angry at Zimmerman, and at the system, as they were when they thought that's what Zimmerman actually said, and wasn't an editing trick.

In reaction to the verdict, many have said that the justice system failed to do justice for Trayvon Martin. And that this was because he was black.

Where is the exact failure in the justice system? Zimmerman wasn't just taken at his word by police, he was placed in handcuffs the moment an officer arrived. He was detained, brought to the station in the back of a police car, questioned, questioned again. The scene was examined, photographed. Tapes were analyzed, clothing was taken into evidence. The investigating detective admitted that he didn't feel there was enough evidence to accuse Zimmerman of murder. And due to pressure from other officers to do so, that veteran detective requested to be put back on patrol duty. Did the Sanford Police fail Trayvon Martin? If so, where's the evidence of that?

When the media was fed a story by political activists, public outrage eventually motivated Zimmerman be charged with murder. And I think that's a good thing. It's the public's duty to watch the watchers, to keep an eye on what our police do, and make sure they're doing their jobs. For all of us. The people wanted Zimmerman to be put on trial. He was. All the facts became available to the public. And the prosecution couldn't prove he committed murder.

Did the State of Florida fail Trayvon Martin? If so, where's the evidence of that? Was it when the judge berated the defense lawyers? Was it when Martin's disciplinary records at school and his texts were deemed inadmissible?

Was the jury racist? The jury was composed of 6 women: 5 white, 1 black or Hispanic (so that's a non-white Hispanic, New York Times). They were selected from a pool of 40 potential jurors. During jury selection, one eventual juror believed Zimmerman did something wrong by getting out of his car and following Martin. Another believed that it should be harder for people to receive concealed carry permits. Two had been victims of nonviolent crimes. One had been arrested in her life. Two volunteer to rescue animals. One is a nurse. One is a safety officer. One is active in her church and her children's school.

Where's the racism?

These jurors spent weeks as attorneys argued in front of them. They were isolated. Their entire life became State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman. Can you imagine that? And they didn't think the prosecution proved Zimmerman guilty.

One thing that's great about this country is that 6 women decided that a man should be free, even though thousands, even millions of others want him in prison. This country would be a scary place without due process. Look at the South before the Civil Rights movement. Look at people like Che Guevara, who executed 500 people without trial, including a 14-year old boy he shot himself, while running a prison in Cuba. Look at Iran and their lack of self-defense laws for women who are raped.

I like that we have due process here. I like that we have self-defense laws here.

I only wish that the people now crying racism had more than just their gut-feelings (along with the psychological need to feel as though their opinions are being opposed by powerful forces of wrong/evil) to prove that racism. I wish people accusing Zimmerman of profiling had more proof than just possibility. I wish people criticizing the system could point to one moment when Martin's race was a reason the system worked against him.

The people convinced that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin are the same type of people who were equally convinced that a Cambridge cop racially profiled a Harvard professor in 2009, instead of two men just being jerks to each other. This was the Cambridge Police sergeant who "acted stupidly" according to President Obama. Remember the "teachable moment?" The Beer Summit?

Weirdly enough, when talking about that incident, Obama mentioned another ethnic group that has received unfair treatment: "What I think we know separate and apart from this incident - is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact." Zimmerman is a Latino. Until he became accused of racially profiling. Then he became "white Hispanic," or just white.

Why?

Why did a Cambridge cop have to prove he wasn't a racist when he was accused of racial profiling? Why does Zimmerman have to prove he wasn't profiling? Why do the people fighting against profiling profile so much?

Racial profiling is a real problem. It happens all the time. But instead of spreading all the outrage and anger over the entire issue, people have focused it like a laser beam at one man. Why not try to understand and deal with the problem as a whole?

Instead of seeing George Zimmerman as an opportunity to extract justice on someone who may have racially profiled a black child, maybe we should figure out how to identify and eliminate racial profiling in our society. Why do people profile? That's a complex question to answer.

Instead, people just want to see Zimmerman rot in a jail cell.

If Zimmerman were in jail right now, some black kid being frisked in New York might still feel profiled. Some worried homeowner or business owner might be more likely to call the police because black or Hispanic kids are loitering around their home or business. The problem would persist, with just as much horrible strength as it's persisted for years.

Since When Did Criticizing Become Politicizing?

The questions would stop if the answers started.

On September 11, 2012, four Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya, including an Ambassador. That's a fact. There were several requests for added security before the attack, and those requests were denied. Another fact. As the consulate was being attacked, there were pleas for help. Nearby special forces were ordered to not help. As the country reacted to these deaths, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows and repeatedly insisted that the attacks were a spontaneous and unplanned part of a demonstration protesting an anti-Muslim YouTube video that had sparked rage in the Islamic community. This was not a fact. This was not supported or even suggested by any evidence, and it eventually became clear that the deaths of 4 Americans were the result of a planned attack by terrorists.

However, if you criticize the actions of the State Department that didn't help their Ambassador, you are politicizing. If you question the role of the Secretary of State in all of this, you are politicizing. If you ask what Obama was doing as these attacks were taking place, you are politicizing. If you ask why Rice, an appointed voice of the Obama Administration, was talking about YouTube videos, you are politicizing.

You also, apparently, like Chick-fil-A. At least that's what the Washington Post declared...

The Post, which uncovered the Watergate scandal, is actively making fun of and dismissing people who are questioning their government and potential deceptions being issued by government officials. Does anyone else see an historical irony here?

Jonathan Stewart also questions the motives of people talking about and questioning what happened at Benghazi. He pointed out that dozens of diplomatic installations were attacked under George W. Bush, and 13 Americans killed in those attacks. He then asked why such a big deal was being made over Benghazi.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Benghazi Theory
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Benghazi Theory - "If"
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Although Stewart helps make a great point that because Republicans throw a tantrum over everything Obama does, when there is a legitimately major issue, it's the boy crying wolf, and nobody listens.

Because nobody ever blamed a YouTube video for those attacks, Jon. Nobody ducked and dodged questions about those attacks. And no part of the media seemed eager to move on from those attacks.

And Stewart only had Fox News video to use in his clip because the rest of the media doesn't seem to care. CNN barely covered Wednesday's Benghazi hearing. MSNBC didn't cover it AT ALL. CBS was the only network to give it any significant time. One thing The Daily Show and Fox News had in common was that they were among the few shows to lead with the hearing. Most buried it behind the Arias trial and the Cleveland kidnappings.

Back to the issue, if you raise any questions about how the State Department and the White House handled Benghazi, before, during, or after the attacks, you're politicizing. You're not criticizing, you are politicizing.

What's the difference (at this point) between criticizing and politicizing?

We all criticize politicians. Obama criticizes Bush for the deficit, Conservatives criticize Obama for increasing the deficit. And so on. Criticizing policies and politicians is part of politics.

When you politicize, that's when you criticize just because you don't like that person's politics in general. When you politicize, you take an event that has nothing to do with politics, and use it to further your political agenda. Like when Barney Frank said that tax cuts wouldn't have saved anyone from the Boston Marathon bombers (which is now ironic considering how much taxpayer money went to the bombers over the years). Or like how I just pointed out that taxpayer money went to the bombers. Barney and I are both politicizing the Marathon bombings.

So if you question what happened in the State Department around September 11, 2012, you're just politicizing. You're taking advantage of a tragedy and trying to destroy Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

If you ask why Susan Rice's talking points were changed from terrorism to YouTube, 2 months before an election, you're politicizing.

If you ask Hillary Clinton what happened and why Susan Rice's talking points were changed, she'll get mad at you. Because you're politicizing.

I don't blame Obama for Benghazi. That'd be like blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor or Bill Clinton for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. I don't blame Hillary Clinton, either. It seems like requests for additional securities were made, they were denied. This was a mistake. A catastrophic mistake. Made by people and an organization. That happens, unfortunately. I don't see any malevolence or incompetence from Clinton or Obama leading up to the attack. They can't know the future.

What pisses me off is what happened after. The blaming of the YouTube video. An Ambassador, whose job it is to be the voice of the President, firmly and confidently blamed outrage over a video for this attack. And this assertion was based on NOTHING. They didn't get inaccurate information, they didn't get any information. They just went with a talking point that didn't involve a coordinated terrorist attack.

Barack Obama, addressing the UN, criticized the video and its anti-Muslim messages. He has spent far more time criticizing that video than he has explaining why a video was blamed for the attack.

And we still don't know how or why that was the message that Susan Rice was instructed to deliver. That seems like a relatively simple mystery to solve. That is, of course, if the government were trying to solve it.

They're not. They've moved on. And if you have any questions about this incident, you're politicizing. How dare you.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs Was an Equal Partner, Not a Little Brother Led Astray

This is now the narrative of the Marathon bombers: Older brother Tamerlan struggled to adjust in America, didn't make many friends, kept to himself, was a serious person, and eventually became a radicalized jihadist. Younger brother Dzhokhar's personality and experience was the opposite  He was easygoing, described as something of a class clown, captain of the wrestling team, scholarship winner, went to parties, smoked weed. The narrative being built in the media is that socially awkward Tamerlan led friendly Dzhokhar down a path toward evil. Tamerlan led the way and influenced his younger brother to follow.

Fuck that. Even if it were true, that's just as bad, if not worse.

I have an older brother, and I love him, but if he ever hinted at killing innocent people, I wouldn't tag along. I'd do everything I could to convince him to rethink such a crazy idea, and stop him if he didn't. Dzhokhar was either too much of a pussy to do this, or he was an equal partner in the plot.

Back when they were known as Suspect #1 (Black Hat) and Suspect #2 (White Hate), you can see from their body language how different the brothers' personalities were.

Tamerlan is serious, like he's on a mission. He's hidden his face with sunglasses and a hat to make him almost unidentifiable. Dzhokhar is casual, carrying an explosive packed with shrapnel by just one strap of his backpack. His hat backwards, his face visible (why didn't Tamerlan exert that alleged control he had over Dzhokhar and make him cover his face?). Dzhokhar looks nonchalant as he's about to commit murder. He struts. He's quite happy with what he's about to do.

And they both watched the bombs go off. They didn't leave, they stayed to watch what they were doing, watch the carnage, watch the death, and enjoy it. And then they strolled away.

Dzhokhar's behavior after the Marathon doesn't suggest that he's some kind of lackey, just doing what big brother says. He seems relaxed, completely fine with what he had done. Regret free. Guilt free. They didn't try to get out of town. He even attended classes at UMass-Dartmouth during the week. On Thursday, the day before the FBI released pictures of him as a suspect, he tweeted:

I'm a stress free kind of guy
— Jahar (@J_tsar) April 17, 2013

He shows no remorse for what he did or fear he'll be caught for it. They had 72 hours to get out of town, maybe go to Canada, maybe go to Russia. Instead, they hung around Cambridge. Relaxing.

Dzhokhar might have been a friendly, outgoing guy. He apparently brought that carefree attitude to how he viewed human life. He didn't care about it. His carefree demeanor is more like a sociopath than someone with a domineering big brother. He wasn't an innocent young man corrupted by the "influence exerted" (a phrase I'm tired of hearing) on him by his older brother. This was an equal partnership. He was INSPIRED by radicalism. He loved what he was doing and why. Leading up to the Marathon, he was quite proud of what he and his brother were scheming.

Five weeks before the bombing:

Never underestimate the rebel with a cause
— Jahar (@J_tsar) March 11, 2013

Not "rebels," but "rebel." He enjoyed the role of rebel that he was assuming.

A week before the bombing:

If you have the knowledge and the inspiration all that's left is to take action
— Jahar (@J_tsar) April 8, 2013

These are tweets written in the days that these two built their bombs, wired triggering devices, stuffed pressure cookers with nails and ball-bearings. They likely tested them, and decided where/when to drop them, as these tweets went out.

We've heard a great deal about Tamerlan's politics, but none about Dzhokhar's. The portrait being painted of Dzhokhar is that he didn't have any political opinions whatsoever. At least none that are apparent on the surface. When in fact, it seems like he had some very bizarre ones.

Idk why it's hard for many of you to accept that 9/11 was an inside job, I mean I guess fuck the facts y'all are some real #patriots #gethip
— Jahar (@J_tsar) September 2, 2012

That's an interesting political opinion. Doesn't seem easygoing at all.

On his Vkontakte page (Russian version of Facebook), he shared two videos on April 9th, less than a week before the Marathon. Here's one, which on his page had Russian (or possibly Chechen) subtitles instead of English. It's very graphic, very emotional.

The other video is a 4 minute clip from a TV show of a blind boy being interviewed. I can't understand what that videos is actually about (it's in Arabic, with Russian subtitles). At the very least Dzhokhar seems to be very emotionally invested in events in the Islamic world. Six days later he left a bomb on Boylston Street.

What disturbs and perturbs me about that Syrian video of bodies and crying mourners is that he seems so sympathetic to the suffering of these people, then he decides to make other innocent people suffer and go through the same horrible experience. What a hypocrite. What a fraud. This guy is an asshole. He sees no value in human life, particularly non-Muslim human life. He wanted us to die because of his political motives. He was angry and decided to resolve that anger by stuffing a pressure cooker with nails and ball-bearings that would shred flesh, shatter bones, and tear through arteries. How selfish can you get? He was upset, so strangers had to suffer for it.

He wasn't led astray by Tamerlan. Dzhokhar proudly went down that path with his brother, as equals, with his hat backwards, head held high, and a douchey carefree look on his face.

Big Tobacco and Big Government: Both Taking Advantage of Cigarette Addiction

Thanks to a recent spam phone call and a brief monologue delivered by a man who sounded like he'd been smoking two packs an hour since he was 7, I've recently become aware that the Massachusetts State House will soon be voting on a measure that will raise the tax on cigarettes to $3.51 a pack. This is an increase of $1. And it, coupled with a 3 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline, will help generate $500 million in revenue. This money will be used to fund "transportation improvements" such as paying for the MBTA's annual losses.

Health enthusiasts might love this tax increase. These vice taxes are always sold as efforts to improve general health and welfare.

Except they're not. We can argue about the merits and effects of such taxes, but one disturbing, disgusting fact tarnishes them. They are solely an effort to raise revenue. The motivation isn't health, it's dollars. The Government is doing exactly what Big Tobacco does: They're making money by charging people more for an addictive product. Marlboro and Massachusetts, using the same business model.

How is that right?

And the money raised by these taxes doesn't go to reduce tobacco addiction, or to pay for the healthcare of smokers. If tobacco tax increases were balanced with increased tax credits for nicotine patches, gums, and addiction support groups, then the health aspects of tobacco taxes would be valid reasons to support them. But credits don't raise money for the Government.

There would be logic to tobacco taxes if they paid for the increased cost in healthcare that smokers cause. Instead, the extra $1 that John Q. Smoker will pay for his pack of Marb Reds will pay the MBTA's inability to support itself.

Instead of trying to help people quit smoking, let's take their money. And instead of trying to fix the MBTA's problems, let's just have smokers pay for them.

And Governor Patrick doesn't want to stop the taxes there. Taking a cue from the colonial Governors that were in office before the British evacuated Boston, Patrick wants to raise even more money for a number of pet projects. He wants to replace part of I-91. With all apologies to Springfield and Western MA, who cares about I-91? Is it a priority? Is that really where our money needs to go to? And he has an even grander scheme to expand the commuter rail. Railroad expansion drove the economy back in 1850, why not now in 2013? And seeing as the MBTA is already operating at a deficit, maybe we shouldn't add to their costs and responsibilities. Especially since Deval's plan would cost upwards of $3 billion.

We have, in Massachusetts and in the nation, governments that do not spend responsibly. They extract money from us every day, and we painfully give it up. Every hour we work, every gallon of gas we use to get to work, every item we buy. The Government takes what we strive for, study for, work our asses off for, and throws it around like confetti. They spend on everything and anything they want. Governments have the luxury and the power to take what they want from us. Until we don't let them. Until we demand Governments that spend responsibly.

Unfortunately, the politician who promises more services and benefits will always defeat the politician who promises less. And as long as the Government focuses its tax increases on isolated and specialized groups like smokers, gun owners, and the rich, most people won't bat an eye.

Did You Vote Today? Then Thank a Veteran

I cast my vote today. It was an uneventful drive from my house to the Balch School in Norwood. There were no IEDs blowing up along the way. No guerrillas ambushed me from the trees. No Panzers hid themselves behind buildings. No Zeros strafed my car. No distant artillery rained a storm of shellfire upon the school parking lot. No saber wielding cavalrymen charged into the gym as I filled out my ballot.

All I had to deal with was road work on Route 1 and a small line to receive my ballot. Voting is relatively easy in this country because of people who did difficult things, who had to live with and fight through the threats I mentioned above. From SEALs taking out Osama bin Laden in Pakistan to Minutemen fighting the British at Lexington, our Veterans have sacrificed and we've reaped the rewards. So if you voted today, thank a Veteran.

Here's why:
Whoever wins this election, they were elected. They're not Royal Governors appointed by a monarch in Britain. Thanks to our Veterans.

Whatever happens with our economy, we're free to trade with other countries across the world. We don't have British ships commandeering our ships and kidnapping our sailors. Nor do we have to compete in trade-wars with the Spanish Empire, the Japanese Empire (which would have controlled China), or the Nazi Empire (which would have controlled Europe, Russia, and the Middle East). Thanks to our Veterans.

We have a black President, at least for the next few weeks, maybe the next few years. Thanks to Union Veterans, slavery was abolished. Thanks to Soldiers and National Guardsmen, schools were integrated. We have no poll taxes, no literacy tests, no more Jim Crow.

General Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Bastogne in 1944, then President Eisenhower sent them to Little Rock in 1957

We no longer fear nuclear Armaggedon with the Soviets because our Veterans were a strong presence in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, and in the world's oceans.

Thanks to our Veterans, Al-Qaeda's destructive activities have been contained to the Middle East and North Africa. They no longer terrorize us.

Thanks to our Veterans, Osama bin Laden is dead.

Thanks to our Veterans, we live in a peaceful country. And when disaster strikes, men and women in uniform are there to assist us.

New Jersey National Guard, Hoboken, NJ

US Marine Corps, Staten Island, NY

US Air Force, Newburgh, NY

New York Air National Guard, Staten Island, NY

Our rights are written in the Constitution with ink, but the blood of our Veterans is what gives those words life. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Our Veterans have been the vigilant ones, paying the price for our freedoms.

So if you exercised your right to vote today, remember how much hard work, how much sacrifice was made for you to be able to.

Obama Wins Debate #2, on Points, Not a Knockout

Barack Obama apparently pounded a few Red Bulls as he came out swinging last night. I think the town-hall forum suited him. And as has been the formula for this Administration, Joe Biden tested the waters, then Obama dove in. Biden in the VP debate was aggressive, interrupted, and bordered on smugness and arrogance. Obama pulled back the haughtiness a little, but still interrupted, still made smug remarks, was still aggressive. He not only debated Romney, he worked the ref. At the end of the debate he even prompted moderator Candy Crowley to cut Mitt Romney off. He told the moderator how to moderate the debate.

Rude and aggressive wins. Passive and polite doesn't. It's a fact. I'm fine with it. Supporters of either candidate can point out the opposite candidate's lack of politeness, but both are rude, both are pompous, both are somewhat disconnected from us. As much as some would like to think their man is well mannered, neither side supports a polite, respectful angel fighting against a rude bully. They're both bullies.

Candy Crowley didn't do a good job at moderating this debate. And that's how I know Obama won. The loser of a debate frequently blames the moderator, and here I am, a Romney supporter, criticizing the moderator.

She did insert herself far too much into this debate. I wanted to see Obama and Romney in a verbal brawl, and she broke it up far too often. There were times when they needed to be separated  but she frequently didn't allow them to discuss issues. She moved on to new subjects far too often. She seemed to have money on the over/under for the number of questions the audience would get to ask.

The debates are the only chances for candidates to directly address each other and their points, Crowley didn't allow them to do that. They answered a question, insinuated something about their opponent, and Crowley didn't let the opponent respond. We moved on to the next question.

I'm sorry, but I wanted to hear Obama and Romney last night, not Joe Undecided from Islip, NY. And certainly not Candy Crowley, who by the way did not do her job in ensuring the candidates answered the question asked.

So cue the out-of-context talking points. On the Left, I'm already seeing that apparently Mitt Romney thinks women exist in binders (trapper keepers?). Also, Mitt Romney is rude (and Obama is polite and humble? Really?). There was also that stupid question about AK-47s, about which Romney talked about single-parents. Although this study from the University of Chicago points out that gun violence is disproportionately carried out by children of single-parents. But don't let an actual discussion of Romney's points interrupt the Left telling jokes to each other. The memes must go on!

All these debates are entertaining, but I feel like this election boils down to a difference in philosophy not a difference between two men. Do you want Government to take care of you and also guide your life, or do you want an opportunity to take care of yourself and guide your own life? As far as the candidates go, they're both rude, both kind of jerks, both skew the truth, so it's the philosophy that separates them.

Union Fines Members if They Don't Campaign for Elizabeth Warren

I was tempted to use stronger words in this post's title. "Union Forces Members to Campaign for Warren," or even "Mercenary Campaigners: The Unholy Alliance Between Warren and a Carpenter's Union."

Now that's just a guy being filmed. Who knows who he is, where he is, et cetera. Hardly a firm source.

But hidden (and I mean hidden like opening scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark hidden) in a Boston Globe story was confirmation that if union workers don't participate in rallies, they will lose $150.

Mark Erlich, executive secretary treasurer of the New England Regional Council of Carpenters, said the worker was describing an annual assessment that is waived when members do community service, which can include attending a political rally.

"Brown is flat-out wrong," Erlich said. "We have never and never will fine any member for not participating in political activity and have never paid any member to participate. Brown’s voting record is motivation enough."

So it isn't technically a fine. You just lose money if you don't participate in the rally. Which actually sounds very much like a fine.

How is a political rally considered community service?

If that's the case, would going to an Obama or Romney rally count as hours for court ordered community service?

Elizabeth Warren denied knowledge of this policy and I don't doubt it. What does she actually know about what working people do and have done to them? That's probably why Scott Brown has an unusual amount of union support for a GOP candidate (one WHDH poll had Brown supported by 46% of union members, and Warren by 41%). Maybe not from the unions themselves, but from the members who actually work.

All the Left Has Are Memes

After Mitt Romney soundly defeated Barack Obama in the first Presidential Debate, all Obama and his supporters could do was make each other laugh with funny memes about Mitt Romney.

Then again, that's all he and his supporters have done for the past few months. Whether it was making fun of Romney's $10,000 bet offer to Rick Perry, or Romney's comments about 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes, or Bain Capital, or putting a dog in a crate on the roof of his car, or having a car elevator in his garage, or not hugging his garbageman, or giving tax breaks to the wealthy, or the alleged war on women... et cetera.

There haven't been many factual arguments emanating from the Left. And there certainly hasn't been any talk of Barack Obama's illustrious 4 year record as President.

Now it's Big Bird's turn to be a Liberal meme.

Seriously, that's the best the Left has. Funny as it may be, it addresses no issue, and adds nothing to the discussion of this country's problems except snark and dismissiveness.

The day after Mitt Romney pointed out that Barack Obama's record with the economy is questionable, all the Left seemed capable of doing was spreading this meme around. Why is that? Maybe because when actually talking about issues, the Left has nothing but air and fluff. They couldn't really address any of the points Romney adroitly made in the debate. The Left can't stand on Obama's record. All they can do is make jokes that make other Liberals laugh.

One common thread - before the debate and after - for Liberals was that Mitt Romney hasn't been detailed with his proposals.

I think it's hilarious that the same people who screamed ambivalent slogans like "Hope" and "Change" and now "Forward" are demanding details. When did these people become so meticulous? All Obama has to do is say "Yes we can" and they cheer wildly. But with Romney, they demand details.

However specific or nonspecific Romney has been, he has a general plan to alter the course of the economy. All Obama has are jokes about Sesame Street characters. Well to borrow a word from my favorite Sesame Street resident, I think it's time for Obama to scram.

Mitt Takes Gloves Off, Pummels Obama

We all thought Barack Obama was the skilled, smooth-talking debater, and Mitt Romney was the disconnected, awkward robot.

But in delivering their messages, Romney was a concise Power Point presentation. You could see bullet-points on the screen as he spoke. Obama was an unprepared professor without any notes, nursing a hangover, and ad-libbing his early morning lecture.

Even when not talking, Romney was winning. While listening to Obama, Romney maintained a polite but emotionless poker face. When Romney spoke, Obama hardly looked at him. He smirked smugly, and sometimes looked away, as if he didn't want to be there.

I think the endless series of GOP debates helped Romney prepare. The sweaty, white-hot crucible of Newt Gingrich & company seems to have turned Romney into a savvy debater. Obama has spent the last 4 years selling his policies and campaigning. He's accustomed to speaking in monologue, not dialogue. And the media doesn't ask him challenging questions. Last night was something new for Obama.

The substance of the debate also favored Romney. Obama reiterated some of his campaign's rhetoric about tax cuts for the rich, and about the deficit left by George W. Bush. Romney did well to address and dismiss those tactics.

Unfortunately for Obama, he couldn't boast much about his record. He tried boasting about Bill Clinton's then comparing it to his own. Meanwhile, Romney demonstrated an impressive understanding of economics and businesses. Every point Romney made ultimately led to job creation, how he plans to do it, and how Obama has failed to do it.

Last night the real Mitt Romney introduced himself to America, and to Barack Obama. For Obama's sake, he'd better have been paying more attention than it seemed like he was paying.

Forward: Obama's New Slogan

Barack Obama's campaign has come up with a new slogan. It's inspiring, abstract, vague, and includes the letter "O," which means that Obama's logo can be used as a letter.

But all it reminds me of is The Simpsons. Apologies for the low quality of the clip. It was the best I could find.

It's not a bad slogan. Ingenious, actually. It's powerful, but also allows people to envision their own idea of what "Forward" means. Then they think that Obama is for that particular idea. So people think Obama is fighting for their particular idea of what "Forward" is. It's an ambiguous message phrased directly. It's the type of brilliance that has been the cornerstone to Barack's success as a campaigner.

Of course, I doubt that having this "Forward" looking campaign will stop Obama from looking back on the Bush administration and blaming it for our debt. But I digress.

If Obama is re-elected, I'll be hoping to fast-Forward the next four years. HAHA...

I amuse myself so much.

Don't feel silly if you tried to click the above image. I did it too.

Obama University

Obama's background is college. He probably feels more at home at a university than anywhere else in the universe. Four years as an undergrad. Three more getting his JD. Twelve more teaching law at the University of Chicago. And this week he's going back to college campuses to campaign.

I could rant and rave about how he's using your tax money to do so. This trip to the Universities of North Carolina, Colorado, and Iowa is being called "official," and not political. Which means you're paying for it. It's a weird coincidence that all three of these states will be hotly contested in November. I could discourse about such expenditures being paid for by taxpayers being akin to Big Banks using Bailout money to fund "business trips" to Las Vegas. But that would be too easy. It would be an emotionally based tirade. And since Obama is barnstorming college campuses across the country, I'm going to try to keep things intellectual in this post.

Every week, the Obama Campaign Machine mobilizes on a new issue and attacks Mitt Romney and the Right. Remember that Phony War on Women a few weeks ago. How about Romney's car elevator. Last week it was the Buffett Rule. This week it's student loans. It's classic divide and conquer campaigning. Group people together, then point out how much you're on the side of their group, and how much your opponent is against that group.

Recent college grads are finding themselves in a very tough job market. 53.6% of recently graduated bachelor's degree holders are either unemployed or underemployed (Source). And these people are also burdened with massive amounts of student loan debt. The interest on which might increase from 3.4% to 6.8% in a few months.

A college education is less likely to result in a job. Yet the cost of that education has increased dramatically. How is it possible for the value of something to decrease at the same time that its price increases? Well that conversation is for another time. Part of the reason is that the price of college is artificially inflated by how easy it is to get a student loan. Which means it's easier for families to pay for college no matter what the actual price. Which means colleges can spend millions on new buildings and send out thousands of brochures that have pictures of students from 5 different ethnic groups on the cover.

Both Obama and Romney are in favor of legislation that would prevent student loan interest from doubling to 6.8%. And that makes sense. I think raising the rate would only raise the number of defaults. And politically, it's smart for both candidates to support college students that are struggling to pay off their debt. Students were part of Obama's base in 2008. And while Romney will never claim an outright victory in the 18-34 demographic, if he can convert a few of them, and avoid enraging the rest of them with higher interest rates, then he drastically improves his chances of victory in November.

Both Obama and Romney agree that recent college grads are facing enormous challenges. Where Obama and Romney differ is in the philosophy of how those problems should be fixed. Obama is focused on making it easier for them to survive in this harsh economic climate. He wants to give out umbrellas on a rainy day.

Romney, on the other hand, is focused on the climate. He wants a Government that taxes less and spends less. He wants policies that foster economic growth and to remove policies that hinder it, so jobs are created and recent college grads can afford to buy their own umbrellas.

So the question is, do people want a President who will take care of them when it rains. Or a President that will give them a chance to take care of themselves. Do you want to be taken care of, or take care of yourself? Do you want Dependence or Independence?

Rick Santorum Reads the Writing on the Wall, Drops Out... In Other News, Rick Santorum Can Read

As much insane fun as a brokered GOP Convention would have been, it won't happen. Rick Santorum has abruptly dropped out of the race to run against Barack Obama. And the Republican establishment has exhaled a collective sigh of relief, thus raising Greenhouse Gas levels across the continent.

Mitt is the only Republican candidate suitable for the task of removing Obama from office. Santorum was able to excite the passions of GOP voters, but he'd also scare off the moderates who will ultimately determine the winner of November's election.

CNN and other news outlets criticized Romney for being unable to "mobilize the base" of the Republican Party and win in GOP strongholds like Alabama and Georgia. But those electoral votes are now securely in his pocket simply because he is the Republican nominee and is not Barack Obama.

Santorum's bid was an expression of irrational passions. The media look down on such passions when expressed by Conservatives. Then glorify similar passion when expressed by Liberals. What is the difference between abstract slogans like "Hope" compared with "Freedom?" Look at how differently the media treated the Tea Party compared to Occupy Wall Street.

At any rate, Americans have had enough abstractness and slogans. They want concrete plans. And I'm not talking about bloated Stimulus funds to pour concrete on roads nobody travels on.

Americans want a President who will put them in a position to be successful. Not one who will coddle us when we fail, or when we don't even try.

We want results, not rhetoric.

We want a President that leads, not one that attacks those who disagree with him.

I am tired of the Campaigner in Chief. I am tired of his inexperience. I am tired of him inflaming when he should be discussing. I am tired of him turning serious issues that should be debated into opportunities to talk trash and make his opponents look bad.

Obama doesn't listen to the people. He tries to convert them, convince them, but never listens to them. He'll be forced to listen to us in November.

Mitt Romney can't save the economy on his own. He can't save the country on his own. But he can save us from Barack Obama.

Romney 2012.

Breaking News: Mitt Romney Has Money

This was a huge story yesterday afternoon on CNN. Mitt Romney is putting a car elevator in the garage of his beach house. It's yet another example of Mitt Romney's almost cartoonish wealth. He might as well build a vault for all his gold coins and swim around in it Scrooge McDuck style.

While CNN's on-air personalities repeatedly stated that Romney need not "apologize" for his wealth, they repeatedly stated how things like this car elevator make Romney "out of touch" with regular, currently struggling, working class Americans. We don't have car lifts in our garages. Car lifts are for people who have so many cars, that their garage isn't big enough for all of them.

Romney is using the car elevator as part of the $12 million renovation of his beach house in La Jolla. The idea of the car elevator is to allow for multiple cars to be stored in a garage without expanding the ground level footprint of the garage.

I love how CNN, Politico, and most other media outlets feel that because Romney has more money than us "average folk" that he'll have trouble connecting with us. Especially in this harsh economic climate. People are struggling to fill their cars with gasoline and here's Rich Uncle Romney building elevators for his cars.

It's funny how JFK, despite being obscenely rich and coming from a rich old family, isn't seen as "disconnected" from the average masses of America.

FDR came from an extremely wealthy family (two wealthy families, actually), went to Groton, then Harvard, and yet somehow was able to take office in a harsh economic climate and connect with the "average people."

And how connected is Barack Obama to the 99%? His net worth is estimated between $2.8 and $11.8 million dollars.

Is there a feeling of disconnection between the average American and Mitt Romney? Yes! But there's also a feeling of disconnection between many average Americans and Barack Obama. And it has nothing to do with wealth, or background, or race.

It's about ideas. It's about dreams.

Mitt Romney doesn't just have money, he has a shitload of money.

And I want that. Millions of average Americans will be buying MegaMillions tickets this week so we can feel connected to the likes of Mitt Romney. I want an elevator for all my cars. I want to be comfortable. I want to take care of my friends and family. I want to travel. I want money.

I don't want a President to understand me, to feel connected with me. When was the last President that was truly connected with the American people? They're all borderline schizophrenics.

And these Liberal intellectuals on Politico and Huffington Post are so insulting with their "average folk" rhetoric. All the so-called "average" people in this country are different, we're all separate individuals. We all have different dreams, different desires, different ideas. I'm offended at being called "average." I'm offended by the notion that these media folk think that millions of Americans are so simple and function with a simplistic herd mentality.

It's true, Mitt Romney would not understand what your feet feel like and what your brain feels like after working a 12 hour security shift for $9/hour. Neither would Barack Obama. And I don't care.

I don't want a President to sympathize with me and coddle me and make me feel like I'm being understood and acknowledged. I want someone who can Run this country, who can help put me in the best position to help myself, who can give me the opportunity to achieve what I feel like I'm capable of achieving.

I don't care about car elevators, I want a President who can elevate America. And despite his absurd wealth, his stilted awkwardness, and his constant cheerfulness, I feel like that person is Mitt Romney.

The Chevy Volt vs. Common Sense

"It was nice. I’ll bet it drives real good. And five years from now when I’m not president anymore, I’ll buy one and drive it myself."
-Barack Obama, on the Chevrolet Volt

The President made this declaration just a few days before GM halted production of the Volt. It's simply not selling as well as anticipated. Dealers' inventories are backing up as production outstrips demand for Chevy's "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" (PHEV).

Despite the $7,500 tax credit given to Volt buyers (Obama has proposed increasing that to $10,000), only 9,623 of the cars have been sold in North America through February 2012. 3,600 Volts are sitting around dealership lots, waiting like unwanted puppies to be adopted and taken to a good home. GM had once planned to produce 45,000 Volts in 2012. That is no longer their goal. (Source)

Why would you buy a Volt? To save money on gas? Even with the $7,500 tax credit it would take the average driver 9 to 12 years to save enough money on gas to recover the price difference between the Volt and the equivalent Chevy Cruze. 9 years with gas at $5/gallon, 12 years with gas at $4/gallon. (Source) And by then, the battery will have lost 20 to 30 percent of its range. (Source) A new battery costs $14,000. So by the time the Volt "pays for itself," it needs a new battery. And after three years, Kelly Blue Book predicts that used Volts will be worth about $17,000. (Source)

You'll need to buy a $14,000 battery to propel your car worth $17,000.

So you don't save money. Depending on where your house gets electricity from, you might not do much to help the environment (coal=electricity+pollution). And while you'll use less oil from the Middle East, you'll be buying a battery made from Chinese lithium and rare earth elements. You're trading dependency on one foreign market for dependency on another.

The only reason to buy a Volt is so you can call yourself a Volt driver. Which is fine. Plenty of people do that with Corvettes, Ferraris, Porches, BMWs, and so on. They like to make a statement with the vehicle they drive. Cars aren't just functional, they have style and personality. They're like clothes. So if people want to "wear" a Volt as a statement about themselves, good for them. All cars should make a statement. That's why we get to choose what color we want our cars to be.

Unfortunately, the actual people who NEED to save money at the pumps cannot afford a Volt. Not in the short-term with its high upfront cost, not in the long run with its depreciation and need to replace the battery. Right now the tax-credits are only helping the rich people who buy Volts as part of their automotive wardrobe.

And isn't the President against giving tax breaks to the wealthy?

Obama wanted 1 million PHEVs like the Volt on the roads of America by 2015. But common sense is against the Volt. It's a statement-vehicle for wealthy environmentalists, not a fuel-efficient people's car. And if you have to pay people $10,000 to buy a car, doesn't that speak volumes about the lack of demand for it?

PHEV technology is the future. It's not the present. That's why nobody is buying it, nor should they. The technology simply isn't good enough yet for Volts to be a successful consumer good.

The Volt is also an example as to why Government shouldn't guide an Economy. It's one thing to fund research into better battery technology with taxpayer money. It's another thing to hand $7,500 to someone because they want a Volt, or to give UAW-GM workers a job just because they make a Volt.

Instead of investing taxpayer money into encouraging people to buy a product they don't want, the Government should use that money to help the product develop into something that people would want. Spend some money to research military applications of electrically propelled vehicles (they'd be quieter, and you wouldn't need to constantly resupply them with oil-based fuels).

Consumers control markets. Not products. Not Governments. The idea of Government controlling the economy disturbs me. Government struggles to run itself, let alone the automotive industry. But Obama and his ilk think that they know better than the free market.

But they don't. Just look at the money-saving, environmentally friendly car they want us to buy. It's called the Volt and it doesn't save you money or help the environment.

Santorum for Holy Roman Emperor

I'm Conservative, but I've been telling people that if Newt Gingrich won the GOP nomination, I'd not only vote for Obama, but I'd also campaign for him. My fear of Santorum's America is even more extreme than that. If he were to be elected, I'd secede from the Union. I'd drive up the Maine coastline in a pickup truck (a Toyota Hilux of course, unlike All-American Mitt Romney and his poorly built Chevy) pile about 10 big rocks in the bed, drive into the sea, and wherever the waterline crested above the cab of the Toyota, that's where I'd start my new Nation: The Hilux Republic.

New citizens would be welcome, provided they bring their own rocks to live on. And as far as immigration policies go, I think that's better than anyone else's. Our national anthem would be "We Built This City" by Starship.

One fundamental principle of this fledgling Republic/tax haven would be the separation of Church and State.

That's an idea I learned from the ancient history of that legendary lost nation called the USA. That mythical land of Freedom. The USA's Founding Fathers formed a government that incorporated this principle. Or so the legends tell us. They believed that Religious bodies and Government bodies should not be connected. Government shouldn't make laws about religion, and Religion shouldn't govern.

These mythical Founding Fathers, like myself, learned from other nations' histories. England's most tumultuous error was when it violently debated with itself whether to be Protestant or Catholic or Miscellaneous. Think of all the wars that have been waged with religion underpinning the call-to-arms. Think of all the horrible things that have occurred when Religious authority and Government authority were embodied in the same person/organization. The Spanish Inquisition, for instance. The Salem Witch Trials. The Middle East.

The history isn't all ancient. It's current. Look at Iran. The Taliban. These are examples of the great things that can be accomplished when Church and State aren't separated.

Frankly, I do not want to live in a country that doesn't believe in the separation of Church and State. And I don't want to live in a country that has a President who believes stuff like this:

I don't just mean that I'll be upset if he's President. I'm upset that Obama is President. I'd be upset if Gingrich were President. But I still want to live here. If, however, Santorum were President, then I would no longer want to live in this country. I'd establish Hiluxia off the Maine coast.

I don't think he understands what separation of Church and State truly means. It's not that Government needs to be strictly atheistic. Nor does it mean that religion shouldn't be a part of the lives and morals of those who govern. It means that religious institutions shouldn't govern. It also means that government shouldn't govern religious institutions.

Santorum is a shell-shocked veteran of the War on Religion. A bit crazy, very paranoid, and blinded by irrational Fear. He's afraid he'll somehow lose his Religion if gay people get married. And Religion isn't just a faith for Santorum, it's his moral high ground, it's his identity. "I am religious, therefore I'm a good person."

Separation of Church and State is meant to protect religion from the Government. We all have the right to our own religious beliefs. What's holy to one faith might be sinful to another. So keeping religious institutions out of government actually protects all religious institutions. That's why the separation goes both ways and religion cannot govern.

It's easy to state such philosophies likes the ones in the last paragraph, but there's a vast grey area in this issue. Laws are morally phrased, and very similar to religious edicts. For example, it's against the law to steal. It's also against the 8th Commandment. Murder. Rape. Lying under oath. These are all sins and also all crimes.

Then again, the 7th Commandment forbids adultery. But adultery is not a crime (in most states at least, and where it is a crime, it's an antiquated law that is rarely prosecuted). Adultery is wrong, if you ask me, but it's not illegal.

Stealing is an infringement on another person's rights. That's why it's illegal. Not because it's morally wrong.

Legend has it that the US Government was once concerned only with protecting the rights of its citizens. The Kingdom of Hiluxiastan will be established on this principle too.

Some people, like Rick Santorum, seem to think that the purpose of Government is to determine and declare God-given rights, not protect them. He thinks Government should tell people what they should and shouldn't do. He thinks Government should determine what is moral and what isn't moral, based on what he thinks God wants. He is disgusted by the notion of a secular Government.

I want to see his Birth Certificate. He claims to be from Virginia but his ideas sound oddly Iranian.

In the Hilux States of America, we will re-establish the separation of Church and State because making laws based on individual personal morals is unwise. Laws are for protecting rights, not dictating them. These are rights given to us by our Creator. Whether you believe that Creator to be God, or to be random chance. We have rights as sentient creatures. Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness. I know these are odd concepts to establish a country under, but what the hell.

If in a few months you find yourself living in a country under the leadership of a Holy Roman Emperor who believes he is God's Anointed Vessel on Earth, then rent a Toyota, drive up to Maine, grab some rocks, and join us in the H.S.A. We're having lobster for dinner, and you don't have to say Grace if you don't want to.

This blog does not endorse the Toyota Hilux. The Hilux is simply the toughest truck in history and would be ideal to literally build a Nation upon.

GOP Debate

Just some quick thoughts after the GOP Debate last night. This is the point of the campaign that some horses will pull away from the pack, and others will fall out of the race. And after last night, it's become clear to me who the top two candidates for the Republican nomination will be.

Michele Bachmann brought nothing but the word "Obama" and hatred for his policies. And that's fine, but people want solutions not just blame. Besides, she's wrong. I'm anti-Obamacare, but it's ludicrous to blame it for the economic crisis we're in since said crisis began well before Obama was elected.

Bachmann is a polarizing figure that had rallied extreme conservatives, and became a nice joke for the Left. For a few weeks, she was Jon Stewart's 2nd favorite person in the world (behind himself, of course) She's a clown though. She makes Katherine Harris seem well-balanced, and Sarah Palin seem well-read.

Ron Paul is a psycho. How can you want the private sector to run the FDA or FAA? How can you be against the existence of FEMA and blame the victims of natural disasters by saying that they "build where they shouldn't be building." Tell that to the people of Vermont who are currently dealing with hurricane induced flooding. What morons those Vermonters. Don't they know that it's Hurricane Alley up there?

Newt Gingrich is nothing more than an embedded Fox News pundit, covering the campaign from within. Even the questions he was asked were about the campaign itself, and not about what Newt would do if he were President.

Rick Santorum was personable, but not exciting. He's honest and nice. As Chris Matthews said, Santorum doesn't "play games." And we all know that the nice guy who doesn't play games is the guy that goes home alone on Saturday night.

Jon Huntsman tried to be worldly, and I'll give him credit for being the most aggressive candidate that also retained dignity. He tried to emphasize his relatively small amount of economic experience. Unfortunately, this is just the wrong campaign at the wrong time for Huntsman.

Herman Cain was my personal favorite. He was like Steve Forbes, only instead of being creepy, he was charismatic, incisive, and concise. You could tell that he's been the CEO of a large company. He was like a PowerPoint presentation. He had clear plans to fix problems, and wasn't just spitting rhetoric. Unfortunately, he's not a politician. He can conceive great, sweeping ideas like his 9-9-9 plan, but I don't think he'd have the political savvy to get them passed and implemented, let alone get elected in the first place.

The Presidency is not like being a CEO. CEOs need direction, drive, and decisiveness. President's need to be able to compromise and convince. I don't think Cain will make it that far. But I kind of wish he would.

Then there's the top two: Romney and Perry. One of these guys will be running for President in 2012. The other will be running for Vice President. Texas and Massachusetts together again, like in 1960.

Rick Perry was the target of the debate. He was the only one who seemed to be getting criticized by the moderators more than by his fellow candidates. He was attacked on health insurance coverage in Texas, education, his book, minimum wage jobs, HPV vaccinations, Social Security. It was relentless.

Perry is correct. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. But it's stupid to say so in a political campaign. That being said, Perry has the strongest personality among these candidates. If George W. Bush was the candidate that John Q. Voter wanted to have a beer with, Rick Perry is the candidate I'd want to have with me if we were trapped in the desert, or the Arctic. I'd also like to go drinking with him.

Mitt Romney is more electable in a general election. Rick Perry is more likely to energize and appeal to Conservatives. I think it's clear that the Right is excited about Rick Perry. Their hearts may be behind Rick, but their brains are with Mitt. At least they should be.

One thing I find ironic is that this party has 8+ candidates, and doesn't seem to have a single, clear leader, yet the GOP seem much more unified than the Democrats. The Democrats don't have that single-voice, they don't all stand together and yell at the moderator of a debate. Hell, Obama doesn't even speak with a single-voice.

These Republicans are all for reduced spending, reduced taxation, an end to Obamacare, the securing of our border. This debate was not a rabble of screaming voices. How often did one candidate interrupt another? How much more often did they interrupt the moderators? How many times did individual candidates point out how unified they all were as a group?

The Left will focus on Rick Perry being "anti-science," on him calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and nobody in the political Center of the country will care about either issue next November. It's about jobs. It's about the economy. People without jobs want jobs. People with jobs want better jobs. People with good jobs want their kids to get jobs so they move out of their house.

Yet watching MSNBC's post-debate analysis, they focused on how Rick Perry described Social Security. Even going so far as to call it the "key moment" of the debate. Probably because it's their best opportunity to criticize Perry. Then they went on to criticize Ronald Reagan's tax policies, because that's somehow relevant?

In the end, though, America will elect the candidate who they feel will do the best job at getting them jobs. Romney seems to have the brains, Perry seems to engender the confidence. If they could harness and balance those abilities as a team, they'll be a strong challenge to Obama in 2012.

Obama's Afghanistan

On the 6th of August, 30 Americans fighting in Afghanistan died when their Chinook helicopter was shot down by Taliban insurgents. 17 of them were Navy SEALs. 5 were Navy specialists attached to the SEALs. 3 were Air Force forward air controllers. 5 were the Army crew that flew the helicopter. 8 Afghans (7 soldiers and 1 civilian interpreter) were also killed.

Why? For what purpose? These men trained for years to be the best at what they do. Why were their talents being utilized in eastern Afghanistan? All their hard work, all the expertise of the helicopter crew and the Air Force controllers, all the dedication of the SEALs. It was all blown apart by a rocket propelled grenade. And for what?

These men had meaning, they had purpose. But their lives were lost in an endeavor that no longer has meaning, that has an impossible purpose, and which will soon be abandoned in a gradual withdrawal process. It's been 10 years of toil and death in Afghanistan. We destroyed the Taliban, tried propping up a corrupt government in its place, and allowed the Taliban to be born again.

Who's winning this war? We're certainly not winning. It's hard to say if the Taliban is or isn't. Frankly, it's turned into an Afghan civil war, and it needs to be fought and won/lost by Afghans.

Who's losing? The people doing the dying. The SEALs, the Marines, the Soldiers, the Airmen, they are the ones losing. Obama said that the Chinook crash is a reminder of the "extraordinary sacrifices" of our servicemen. Sacrifices to what end?

It's time to leave Afghanistan. Right fucking now. No gradual withdrawing one unit at a time. Everyone out.

It's hard to blame Obama for a 10 year war, especially since he's only been President for a little over 2 of those years. I can't blame him for strategic failures by Generals, for subpar equipment from the Pentagon's "procurement" people. I can't blame him for some insurgent's lucky shot with an RPG. But I can blame him for our continued presence in this war. I can blame him for being too politically savvy. I can blame him for trying to please and appease everyone at all times.

Obama's policies and philosophy in Afghanistan is a perfect example as to how he's conducted himself as President. He's been bending over backwards to compromise with the very vocal Conservatives, who have in turn been bending him over the barrel. He wants to be everyone's President, not just the Left's. That's commendable, in theory. It's disastrous in practice. And this desire to be loved by all, hated by none, has led to even his base to start criticizing him.

Last summer, Obama announced a surge of troops in Afghanistan. But he also effectively declared an unofficial deadline for operations there to be successful. If not, US troops would be pulled out. It apparently appeased everyone. The Cable News Generals on the Right, and the neo-hippie Lennonite pacifists on the Left. We'd have war for a year, then peace. Even I applauded Obama's shrewdness for putting himself in a seemingly no-lose situation.

But that's been the theme of his Presidency. Compromise, and trying to avoid losing. And it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in Afghanistan, where Americans are dying because their timetables for withdrawal haven't been finalized on Microsoft Excel. It hasn't worked with the Stimulus Plan, which was compromised down in size thus preventing it from being effective (I don't think it would have been that effective anyway, but it never had a chance once it was reduced). It hasn't worked on taxing the rich and easing taxes on the middle-class. It hasn't worked to create jobs, or reform healthcare, or save the environment, et cetera.

Say what you will about George W. Bush, but when he believed in something, he tried to get it done until he was physically stopped. He stuck to his principles. He bullied Congress to get what he wanted. And now, the Right is bullying Obama for what they want. Even with control of the Senate, Obama is too unwilling to make enemies. A Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and the Republicans are dictating terms. You can't make compromises with uncompromising people. See: Munich, 1938.

I don't know what Obama's core principles were or are concerning Afghanistan. I know he's compromised his own principles so many times in so many political dogfights that it's hard to call them principles anymore. Principles are strong, and only abandoned as an extreme measure. Obama has platforms and beliefs, not principles.

He's very skilled at not revealing how he truly feels about certain issues. I still have no idea if he smokes cigarettes or not. He's very smooth, very political, and that might be simultaneously his greatest strength and most unfortunate weakness.

Whatever Obama's principles are in Afghanistan, it's time to leave. The argument that a speedy exit would leave that country in chaos suggests that it isn't already a tattered mess over there. The argument that it wouldn't be a dignified exit for our troops makes the absurd suggestion that politicians can do anything to take away dignity from the men and women of our military. Politicians can't steal a Soldier's dignity, only their life.

It is time for that theft of life to stop.

Photo: Reuters

Been Laden

"We got him." We. That 3rd person plural pronoun that encapsulates 300 million people with two letters. We're typically a we only when something tragic occurs.

In this War on Terror, there are no enemy Divisions to annihilate, no capital cities to take. There's no ground to gain, no head of state to surrender, or kill themselves in a bunker. There are no sunken battleships, no captured tanks, no trophies. Only casualties and confusion.

Until May 1st, 2011.

The War on Terror is not over. Just ask the various agencies now on high alert for a terrorist response. This War will never truly end in the way past wars have ended. There are plenty of terrorist sheep and shepherds from Libya to Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to Chechnya. They all hate us even more now. We've killed one of their idols. They'll try to destroy us even without Bin Laden.

But Bin Laden was important, in sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy kind of way. He was important because we felt he was important. And because his followers felt he was important. He was the charismatic leader of legions of would-be murderers. He was a spokesman, a PR guy, a recruitment tool. He was a standard to rally around. The anti-Uncle Sam, personified. And maybe our enemies won't have as much focus and direction now that he's been erased.

The closest thing I'd compare Bin Laden to, ironically, is an 11th century Crusader. He was one of the Saudi Arabian aristocracy that applied his material wealth to a fanatic cause instead of simply living a life of lavish extravagance. He wanted to wipe out all threats to his beliefs and wanted to forcibly change the world. He was very much like a Norman nobleman, spending his vast fortune on a quest to "save" the Holy Land through violence. He has more in common with the Crusading infidels than with the likes of anti-Crusade Islamic leaders such as Saladin.

And now he's dead. And it was the much maligned US intelligence community that incited his death. The same intelligence apparatus that failed to warn us of 9/11, that failed to find Bin Laden for 10 years, and that was duped into believing Iraq had WMDs.

It was human intelligence, partially gathered from Guantanimo Bay, which Obama had once wanted to shut down. It was a military operation executed to perfection. No US casualties. No civilian casualties. One body recovered, in near mint condition.

A cruise missile or drone strike might have yielded the same ultimate result, but without the tactile, visible proof of a corpse.

It was a ballsy attack. Obama certainly deserves a great deal of credit for having the stones to give the order. Everyone from he to the CIA to the planners of the operation to the guys who carried it out to the people who knew about it and kept their mouths shut. They all deserve credit.

The circumstances around Osama's hiding spot are beyond sketchy. While top levels of Pakistan's government profess to be "with us" in this War on Terror, it's difficult to fully believe that. Bin Laden moves into a neighborhood of Pakistani Generals, in the biggest house for miles, and nobody knows he's there? Come on.

I don't know everyone who lives in my neighborhood, and generally we all keep to ourselves, but I do know that Ernie Boch Jr. lives in the biggest house in the area. Everyone knows that. Just like before he lived there, a weird commune/cult of 20 people occupied the house, and before that there was a rich old lady. Everyone knows when someone moves into the biggest house on the block.

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

GW Bush got criticized for that polarizing statement. But it has a breath of truth to it. We can see by the various reactions around the world, who is with us, and who is against us. It's difficult to classify Pakistan as being "with us." Then again, they've registered no official complaint about violating sovereign territory of theirs. So who knows. I think they're split as to which side to be on.

But they're in the wrong geographic spot at the wrong moment in history to be split.

There's a long, long way to go. The War on Terror won't be won with Divisional level ground operations like those in Iraq or Afghanistan. Those can topple governments that support Terror, but installing new ones is next to impossible, and a needless waste of life and material.

Even house-to-house operations, road blocks, checkpoints, and border patrols are too cumbersome, too ineffective, and too easily circumvented.

More operations like this one are needed. War Party Tactics, I call them. Like the Pequots of 1635, or the Wampanoags of 1675, or the Apaches of the 1800s. Small, ultra-mobile bands of elite warriors, on short-term missions against small but highly valuable targets. Imagine if Geronimo had helicopters, machine guns, grenades, and an effective intelligence apparatus.

Think about it. After 10 years in Afghanistan, after nearly 1,500 US deaths, 2,400 coalition deaths, over 7,500 Afghan Security Force deaths, and tens of thousands of civilian deaths; it was a 40 minute, 0 casualty, 0 collateral damage operation that was the biggest victory of this War since the Taliban was ousted.

The lesson here is that human intelligence is integral. The US intelligence community can't just sift through millions of e-mails and phone calls, hoping to harvest a crop of valuable facts. There needs to be real, actionable information. Texture to add depth and dimension to the data.

And the US military needs to focus its monstrous power on supporting smaller but intensely focused, laser-like operations. No need for Shock and Awe. No need for entire Divisions of infantry to be deployed against villages and huts.

As we incorporate the sharp, bittersweet joy of Osama's death into our lives, and it seems to fade away, we'll start to politicize these events. Already, pundits are looking ahead to the 2012 Presidential campaign, giving Obama a huge edge because of this. And they're right. Although, the biggest GOP threats to him were Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, which might be threatening if Obama were trying to launch a reality TV show, as opposed to winning an election.

There are already judgmental uberpacifists whining about their fellow citizens celebrating the death of a mass murderer. And while I understand why many feel uncomfortable about enjoying death, it's my right to enjoy his demise. After all, we didn't kill Osama because he was Muslim. We didn't kill him because he hated us. We killed him because he killed our fellow citizens. He made us live with fear. He would have killed more of us if he had the chance.

People like Kai Wright are moaning that The Ability to Kill Bin Laden Does Not Make America Great. I'm seeing Martin Luther King Jr. quotes everywhere. "Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars." Edmund Burke perfectly expressed my responding thought to that:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

While even the most ardent of the uberpacifists agrees that Bin Laden should be dead, they still don't understand why the rest of us are celebrating death. I for one am not celebrating out of hatred. I'm celebrating the triumph of good over evil. I think that such a triumph is worth a few frathouse antics in front of the White House, a toast of beer to our troops, I'm even praising Barack Obama.

Evil did not triumph on May 1st, 2011. And I'm happy.

I'm only 26 years old. 9/11 was one of the defining moments of my youth. I was sitting in high school physics class when it happened. I had a free period after and went to a study center to listen to the news on the radio. Hearing descriptions like "the tower just collapsed," and being unable to conjure such a surreal image in my brain.

The whole country changed that day. There was a sense of vulnerability we all realized. We're still vulnerable. But we're also a bit prouder today. It was painful to think that somebody could assault us with impunity. So while the War wages on, while we still take off our shoes at the airport, at least that pain of seeing Osama get away with murder can now dissipate.

May 1st was a great day for Americans, and a great day for America.