"'They can't help themselves. They want to confess....' is the way Tom Engelhardt begins 'Bush's Pentagon Papers,' with the latest Bush administration torture-document revelations in mind. He reframes the torture debate, taking it beyond the 'shocked, shocked' response that goes with repeated revelations of secret administration memoranda that provide pretzeled legalisms justifying acts of torture and abuse."
Indeed, as has been often observed, there has never been an administration that was on the record admitting to so many obviously impeachable, certainly criminal and possibly treasonous acts. Doing these things seems to be not so much the point as getting away with it, with the full knowledge that everyone knows, and for whatever reason, dares not act. It's all about the power to abuse, and control those abused so they cannot or choose not to fight back.
He sums things up this way: "Of course, plumbing the psychology of a single individual while in office -- of a President or a Vice President -- is a nearly impossible task. Plumbing the psychology of an administration? Who can do it? And yet, sometimes officials may essentially do it for you. They may leave bureaucratic clues everywhere and then, as if seized by an impulsion, return again and again to what can only be termed the scene of the crime. Documents they just couldn't not write. Acts they just couldn't not take. Think of these as the Freudian slips of officials under pressure. Think of them as small, repeated confessions granted under the interrogation of reality and history, under the fearful pressure of the future, and granted in the best way possible: willingly, without opposition, and not under torture."
I'd be more blunt. To a bully, the exercise is pointless unless you can brag about it, unless you can savor the fear in your victim's eyes, unless you can revel in the impotent rage of the helpless and dis-empowered. And to the bully, the risk that the worm might just turn simply makes the occasions where the worm is just a worm all that sweeter.
In persisting in the naive belief that there must be something of substance behind Bush's actions beyond the ability to abuse, that there must be some overpowering reason that compels him to act as he does and some horrifying knowledge that justifies all of this is nonsense. Occam's razor and playground experience sums the man up to a point that no more elaborate analysis is needed. He's simply a bully, one given power irresponsibly by those who thought his failings made him controllable.
I take no joy in observing that they were only correct to an extent - and certainly not to the extent they would have reasonably expected, given the investments in capital and credibility Bush represents to all those who hold his debts. They assumed, of course, that he'd feel some sense of obligation, of duty. But the man is clearly incapable of associating cause and effect or of accepting any sort of responsibility, even obvious duties clearly visible to all. If he cannot and will not accept such responsibilities which, like a respectful attendance to someone like Cindy Sheehan, when it would have cost him nothing at all, what gives anyone the reason to presume that he'd accept responsibility when it might involve a check on his actions or a limit on his desires?
Nothing Bush has done has achieved anything that would have been useful even if it had worked as his excuses stated. No matter how noble or venial the ambitions of those supporting him, all evidence suggests that the only return they get is just enough to fully compromise them, at which point the exploitation and degradation begins.
Every single choice he has made has had the effect of some form of humiliation, some loss of dignity, some loss of rights, some trespass - and with nothing to show for it other than the humiliation, the indignity, the trespass itself. It's not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that he's a bully, no different than any other bully, with no great plan and no overriding principle other than enjoying the fruits of his daily trespasses.
He shows no discrimination between enemy and ally, nor is any ideological position explored in principle other than as a means to an end of getting people to do things to other people that ordinary decency would preclude. He has betrayed even his theocon and neocon allies, exploiting their hopes ruthlessly, knowing that they, least of all, were in no position to complain of the results of their particular devil's bargains.
I don't happen to believe in a literal Antichrist - but in the sense that he seems compelled to ask "What Would Jesus Do" so that he can do the complete opposite, while piously citing his Christian Values as the justification for outraging all of them, I cannot help but think that he's as close to a literal Antichrist as I ever wish to see.
But he's certainly not of the Antiheroic stature of Faustian Satanic archetypes, so perhaps it confuses folks who expect a little romantic nobility in their evil. Well, you won't get that from George.
He's a petty, spiteful, cruel and astonishingly banal excretion of evil, the sort that revels in doing bad things and getting away with it, for no greater reason than just that. His entire biography demonstrates it, to the extent that one begins to strongly suspect that all of his "failures" were his direct intent - he'd rather fail, if failure screws over those who relied on him. It's hard to find anyone - other than Dick Cheney - who's not paid a price for granting him favor greater than the favor was ever worth. And the only reason for that is that Dick is twice as vile and understands that Bush is exactly what he is, and understanding that, can rule him completely. It's only those who expect better of him that are disappointed, and my contempt for him is minimal compared to that I extend to those who permit him to continue as he does, knowing full well what a non-biodegradable turd he is.
Of course, his greatest glee must come from watching the the toll on those closest to him, the gradual realization that his promises will never come true, their sacrifices never repaid and their hopes doomed - and that their only hope now is to somehow work around him to escape prosecution and disgrace. That they are only a little better than him, that they still have some vestigial principles to compromise is what leaves them open to such men, for his greatest joy is to crush the last vestige of innocence, cause others to betray their own good opinion of themselves, to lead them to commit atrocities and asininities in his name.
You need no more profound explanation, for it serves very well to predict his actions and explain those actions already committed. You first met this creep on the playground in kindergarten. At some point, most of you realized the only way to reason with such a creature was to clearly communicate to them that you would not give in, you would not go along, and you would rather take your chances in a fight than continue to be abused.
A fair fight, or even a lopsided fight in which he might be personally scuffed is the last thing a bully will ever do. When they understand that you don't much care what happens to you, so long as you have the satisfaction of sinking your teeth in their throat, they suddenly develop other interests.
In my personal experience, that can be true even at four to one odds.
Are you listening, Harry and Nancy? Would it help to know that I don't much care at this point what his wiretaps and files might reveal, even if I thought they were likely to be true? What acts could you have committed in secret more damnable than what you permit in public, wringing your hands in pious impotence?
Redeem yourselves.
Your public acceptance of repeated political sodomy cannot be better in any sense than the alternate. If it's the end of your political career, is that such a bad thing? I certainly would never suffer such a fate as the price for holding on to the illusion of influence - and truly, that's all that's left either of you; a threadbare illusion that fools nobody.
He's not your president. He's not MY president. There are obligations due us from him in accordance with the oath of office, oaths he has publicly bragged he's violated. His duty is to "uphold and defend the constitution." He has not. He's on record on that. He's got Alito's opinions on record as to how he might get away with doing that. It's not even a matter of debate, so the other open question - as to whether his election was ever legitimate - is moot.
Engelhardt concludes:
The urge of any criminal regime -- to ditch, burn, or destroy incriminating documents, or erase emails -- has, in a sense, already been obviated. So much of the Bush/Cheney "record" is on the record. As Karen J. Greenberg wrote, back in December 2006, "What more could a prosecutor want than a trail of implicit confessions, consistent with one another, increasingly brazen over time, and leading right into the Oval Office?"
Looking back on these last years, it turns out that the President, Vice President, their aides, and the other top officials of this administration were always in the confessional booth. There's no exit now.
Justice demands recompense, the blood of the slain cries out for justice, and in her brutal way, Providence will assure it, if we do not take steps ourselves. One way or another, payment will be had, and justice will come out of this in the end.
However, if you think it would be good for this nation to survive in recognizable form with Constitution, borders and dignity intact, bringing these criminals to dock would be a fine start.
Naomi Wolf's Guide to Restoring Liberty in America
"Naomi Wolf: It is open season on all of us. It is time to take to the streets. "Graphictruth: If for no other reason than we must at least establish the moral high-ground before being forced to defend it.
In a stunning move against supporters of a Republican candidate for President of the United States, the powers that be at RedState.com, a magnet site on the conservative end of the political spectrum, has decided to censor those from the party RedState supports.
I had some hopes that I had found a conservative forum I would feel comfortable in at RedState.com, and had gone so far as to create an account there. Alas, it's not so much Conservative as Authoritarian. The two concepts have become much confused over the last few decades. But anyway, the administrators and denizens of RedState have become much exercised over Ron Paul "spammers," to the extent that they have become deeply suspicious of people posting historical background about the US Constitution.
Yes, one would indeed have to be a "MoRon" to state the fundamentals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in order to facilitate debate about conservatism and governance.
You would think that the Constitution would be welcome on a Conservative site, it would seem to me obvious that it's the foundation of the ethos and ethics behind all that is fine and good about these United States, the essentials of our premise for civilized behavior and the responsibilities of individuals.
But such ironies are depressingly commonplace on the tighty-righty end of the blogosphere, where all things that interfere with the imposition of "Right Thought" are reacted to with a positively Stalinist fervor. Or perhaps I should say "Maoist," considering the importance TheoCons place on an ongoing Christian Cultural Revolution. I'm sure they would like to get all us "intellectuals" out into dem cotton fields, to learn the sanctity of work and politically correct thought.
Point is, though, our Constitution doesn't have much respect in evidence for "political correctness."
Nor do I. No matter who's restricting comment in the name of what sacred cow.
Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.
Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.
Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.
You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else.
P.S. Comments to this post are closed. Complaints may be directed to the contact form.
My response at RedState is reproduced here, in case it disappears suddenly.
The next sonofabitch what calls me a Liberal is gonna get it RIGHT in the cojones.
I'm not talking about Ron Paul here. I've got a whole blog of my own to do it, and I do ok there, thanks muchly. However, this fiat policy underlines why a lot of old-fashioned Republicans, not just "libertarians and liberals" are disenchanted with what sorts of policies and mindsets are associated with conservatism these days.
And by "associated with Conservatism," I don't actually mean "Conservative." Nope, of late, I've noted myself in agreement with Pat Buchannon, the shade of Barry Goldwater and even the John Birch Society on the pernicious tendency of those in power - and those who identify themselves with those in power - to act as if they had the Mandate of Heaven and were imbued with the Divine Right of Kings.
And for raising points that each of these folks raised from time to time, I've been called a "liberal" more times than I can recall.
Which tells me that the average conservative wouldn't recognize a genuine liberal if it ran up their pant-leg.
God only knows what would happen if I raised a genuinely liberal point of view. It's never happened, because I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face. But I have a point that the farther "right" the blog is, the more likely I'd get high fives and hosannas, if I clad the idea in the right choice of words. Which tells me that it's the way it's said that matters, and that most people are pretty iffy on the underlying concepts. That's a general observation - I could easily pull the same stunt over at dKos. But now that I'm a grownup, it just doesn't seem all that funny any more.
I'm a Centrist in terms of my view on the economy, just a teense left of dead center according to the online assays of "who you ought to vote for," but I am definitely suspicious of Authority in general and unaccountable Authority in particular.
I consider those questionnaires to be silly at best. They don't generally ask the right questions. I'm a solid fiscal conservative, a solid Constitutionalist and an advocate of every one of the Bill of Rights, in no wise excluding the Second. I've always considered myself to be reflexively conservative, in both the small and large C sense, because I've always felt that prudence is better than panic, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure and that the government that governs least, governs best.
I have a saying: "Question Authority; the answers will be on the quiz."
And indeed, that's what this whole hoopla is about. We are having a two-year long quiz, and the results will determine who the leader of this nation is, and perhaps, whether there will even be a nation by the next election. I can't ever remember the stakes being higher.
And yet, with one or two notable exceptions, getting a straight answer out of any of the candidates with anything short of a trip to Gitmo seems to be impossible. Paul is one exception, Kucinich another - and it may just be that it's due to them having nothing to lose from saying what they believe.
But then, I'm conservative enough to think a man oughtta be able to tell the truth and shame the devil, and maybe having something to lose by telling the blunt truth is, I dunno, an issue we should be concerned with.
I'll agree - the people attracted to Ron Paul can be damn annoying. Hell, a lot of them are half literate, barely capable of using a spell checker and totally unsophisticated in terms of the realities of politics. Or, in other words, people who are completely out of touch with politics, people who may never have supported any political candidate before are becoming excited. And they are very commonly people we'd refer to as "salt of the earth" folks. Not your Hollywood types, not your coastal types; we are talking about folks who own pickups because they really honestly need them, and those pickups are 4x4s because they don't see freeways all that often.
They don't talk like Liberals. I know; I talk at liberals all the time, and I listen when they talk at me, so I can tell that the fundamental assumptions are starkly different. These are practical folks, who know which end of a gun goes bang and know that meat doesn't come from the supermarket.
And whatever else I think of it, it's one of the most interesting things happening right now. It's a genuine, completely unexpected phenomenon. I mean, if I were to have been asked to lay my money down on what sort of person would be catapulted to the forefront in a situation like this, I'd have laid bets on an old-fashioned Populist; some sort of Kingfish figure. I think this may be a genuinely new thing.
I also have a strange sort of idea that acting in an Authoritarian manner tends to prove one is less than properly Authoritative on the topic.
Or in other words - if as site mods, this is the best policy that you can come up with to deal with the supporters of an actual Republican candidate you don't like, it tells me that you are trying to "shelter" your readers from some uncomfortable facts of life.
Well, good luck with that. Me, I'd rather be accused of being "liberal" than finding myself compared with an intellectual condom.
I've been involved with probably hundreds of online communities over the decades, going back to Fidonet, and this pattern always seems to lead to one end. You see, in stating that new posters need to "earn your respect" by posting in a certain way about certain topics, you make it clear that you do not welcome dissent or debate, and "newbies" are on probation.
As you point out, there are thousands of other sites out there, and there is no freer market of ideas anywhere. So what is there about Red State that would make new posters willing to post here, instead of somewhere else? Folks like me, we are of the view that we have been posting long enough, literately enough and intelligently enough that we don't need to prove a damn thing. I used to get all snorty when such authority trips were pulled, now I recognize it for what it is - an inability to deal with real, unfettered free speech and a real, unbiased free market of ideas.
The old hands will stay on for a while, and continue reinforcing each other, until about a year later, nobody is bothering to say anything, because it's all been said, and it's become less and less relevant to the world outside. When you see a plethora of baked bean recipes and dog pictures - it's time to sell the domain, because it's over.
For myself, I'll take my leave now. I find participation in declining fora to be depressing.
...and for some reason, my account was blocked almost immediately after posting, and my post replaced with an adolescent grade of mockery. The irony of the following comment and it's tagline must be seen to be believed.
Seeing as we are used to and support people exercising their property rights to set guidelines and codes of conduct.
Ahh screw it. This must be like water off a duck to you. ______________________________ "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Pretty much, yeah, it is like water off a duck to me.
The thrust of my criticisms being underlined at this sad effort of self correction, wherein the asinine revisions of my blog (and apparently several other dissents of a more or less respectful nature) were collectively replaced with this curt notice, which took it out of the realm of a personal disagreement and into a matter of general affront to all lovers of the underlying principles of liberty, free speech and spirited public debate.
Okay, we (and by "we" I mean the moderators) have had a lot of fun with the whole YouTube thing when it comes to the moRons. But it's time to take our site back for non-Ron Paul purposes. This means not letting moRon diaries overrun legitimate diaries, etc. Effective immediately, pro-Paul diaries and comments from new users will be summarily deleted, no matter how reasonable, crazy, whatever it is that they might be.
It takes us two seconds to hit the delete button on both your diary and your account, moRons. We will be enforcing this policy without exception.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
He's so cute when he's being all stern and manly, ain't he?
I'm so tempted to go register moRon.com, but I'll leave that to someone willing to treat this issue as it deserves, because this "clarification" pretty much underscores the obvious; that they will tolerate NO favorable mention of Ron Paul - or indeed, any mention at all.
That's clearly the RNC policy toward Paul, clearly the RNC-controled MSM strategy. And clearly to everyone BUT RedState, both policies are in the realm of wishful thinking.
You see, these here "internet tubes" are what we refer to as a "commons," even when they lead to privately owned sites like thine and mine. Why? Well, no visitors, no comments, no traffic, no relevance. Or in other words, it may be your property, but the more you treat it as an exclusive domain, the more you will be excluded.
Yes, your property rights are fundamental - but my right to avoid your property and refuse contributing to your income stream is even MORE fundamental. When I pick YOUR site to comment on, rather than someone else's site, I'm doing YOU a favor. Not the other way around. Content is king, and Bob King is content.
But I do indeed support your RIGHT to impose this policy. You have every right to enforce that policy. I encourage you to continue to excercise your absolute constitutional right in this matter.
Of course, it's also (imho) your constitutional right to smash your testicles with a rock. It doesn't mean that people won't point and laugh, because what you are doing is not a lot smarter than smashing your own testicles with a rock. It's pure commercial suicide, political suicide and entertaining as all hell.
I can just hear other influential sites "repositioning" themselves right now. At least some must be bright enough to know that alienating anyone still considering voting for ANYONE with an "R" after their name is just plain dumb, so they will suddenly throw their gates open - for all that lovely traffic, if naught else, and for the chance of turning some toward what they see as The Light.
Tom Paine was indeed correct: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
Let me remind you of another principle: "The proper response to offensive speech is more speech."
RedState is a site that thrives on (and monetizes) free speech. Your free speech. But your liberty is contingent upon the principle of liberty itself, including the inalienable liberty to take issue with your mental, moral and ethical acuity. You can, of course, make sure I'm over the property line before I do it. But that simply serves to underline how accurate my criticisms must be.
And you, Joliphant, being either too intellectually lazy or to fundamentally stupid to understand the point behind the quotation you misuse as a sigline, are in fact cheer-leading the imposition of a small, localized and utterly impotent tyranny. You see, in order for a "sit down and shut up" policy to work, you have to actually keep them sitting down and shutting up. Instead, they walk away and talk more - using you as a talking point!
You may be congratulating yourself on "silencing" Ron Paul supporters - but in fact your only accomplishment is analogous to that of small children sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "Na, na, boo boo, I can't HEAR you!"
This Martin A. Knight tantrum reminds me of some of the more memorable Communist tantrums of my youth, where the only thing they hated more than actual "cryptofacists" were people who agreed with them for the wrong reasons:
Get the %$#@ off our website and stay the %$#@ off ... Boycott this site. Get your loser friends to do so as well. Please have nothing henceforth to do with us or the GOP for that matter.
In fact, if you can pull yourself away from the porn you've been downloading in your mother's basement on Election Day please go and vote for Hillary. Vote for Reid, Kennedy, etc. Vote for sand. I would hate to have any Republican win thanks to the votes of anti-semites, Stormfronters, troofers, Code Pinkers and all the other assorted fools that "support Ron Paul."
Do you understand? Your votes are tainted. We don't want them. Sit at home. Vote for Hillary. Vote for Satan or the joint you just fried your brain dead with.
Javohl, Kamerade! Ein Volk, Ein Reich,Ein Kindergarten!
Whatever you might think you were accomplishing with that remarkable public hissy fit, you made Ron Paul all that more credible, by demonstrating how viscerally you hate and fear the Ron Paul Revolution and all it represents, and undermined the only person on your site who's been trying to explain your position - which seems to be that you don't like Ron Paul because he opposed the war and continues to oppose it.
Well, there are rather a lot - seventy odd percent - of the American People who agree that it was either a stupid idea to begin with, incompetently executed, or an effort utterly compromised by corruption and greed - if not all three. I'm pretty sure that it's a non partisan observation to say that insisting that a super-majority of the American people are foolish, wrong, deluded, traitorous appeasers of terrorism isn't the way to usefully influence the election. Well, not if you identify "useful" with "results you would approve of."
You may be unimpressed with the "average Ron Paul supporter." But then, the Ron Paul Revolution is pretty much a mob of "peasants with pitchforks" headed straight for the doors of folks like you, folks who think they know better than the "ignorant, unwashed masses,"- and are too dim-witted to realize that events have long established that they do not. And That is the Graphic Truth.
BP (British Petroleum) - one of the few energy companies with Petroleum right IN their name - is ironically the single energy conglomerate supporting the Department of Energy's Solar Decathlon, in which teams from all over the world are invited to compete in ten contests that will establish the best overall solar home design.
As you can see, this is not a challenge for just one university department, it's a broad, synergistic, multidisciplinary effort.
As part of their support for the competition, BP has created a blog in which all of the teams as well as an on-site reporter will write posts throughout the competition. Visit the site: www.bpsolardecathlon.com. It's quite good.
I want to throw in something extra here; not because I have to, but because I can and I should. BP is quietly present all over the alternate energy map, putting their money and their name behind all kinds of green tech. And I think we should encourage that with polite applause and interested clicks.
Now, no doubt you scoff; you think they are only in it for the money.
And I'd agree with you. I'm sure they are, because it's a damn poor company that isn't. But they are also in it to get first crack at what will likely be very promising technologies and people. Short term profits are all very well and good, but it seems far too few companies ever have the flexibility and foresight to look beyond the horizon of fundamental technological and social change.
They must be looking ten, twenty or thirty years down the road to what technologies MUST become profitable in order for them to profit, instead of focusing on the quarterly reports to the exclusion of all else. And that means that that much less is going to dividends or executive bonuses. In other words, the Grow Light is on in the Boardroom.
So if I were just out of college, working on my first job, I'd be thinking about tucking away a few shares of BP. It's likely to still be around when you retire.
“They want me to shut up,” Mr. Edwards said to listeners in Creston, Iowa — comments that were recorded by an Edwards’s campaign employee and posted both on YouTube and the admired open-minded Web site MyDD.com. “Let’s distract from people who don’t have health care coverage. Let’s distract from people who can’t feed their children. Let’s talk about this frivolous, nothing stuff.”
“They will never silence me,” he sustained.
“The Internet is the principal way we are communicating with voters right now,” Mrs. Edwards said in an interview.
Indeed it is. It's a nationwide - nay, world-wide forum. And it's free. So there's no MSM - based limitation on what points you can address or how many words you can use. This contest will be about substance - if for no other reason than this campaign will be so long and so grueling that we are going to tune out those who say the same things all the time.
But there's still more to the "Ron Paul Phenomenon," as these YouTube videos clearly demonstrate.
People - just ordinary people - are now reaching out and touching people in the wholesale amounts usually reserved for newspapers and televison.
How much do you think videos like that are worth to a campaign? Not how much they paid - they probably didn't pay a cent. There would be a disclosure if they had. But in terms of dollar value - I'm sure this has as much impact as a thirty second radio spot. Conservatively. If it's compared to a thity
It's not enough to just have some ideas. You have to somehow inspire people. Nerd Arts puts a finger squarely on this point.
Part of my daily routine is that I go to the YouTube news section, and watch the videos I find interesting. Then I skip on over to Digg and see if anything catches my eye. One thing that anyone who frequents either of these sites knows is that Ron Paul dominates the political posts by about 20 to 1. The mainstream media has called them RonPaulaholics, people who live in this mysterious land of the internet, and email networks to have him on their shows, record and then upload not only every Ron Paul appearance on television, but record and then upload anytime anyone mentions Ron Paul’s name. Now, why is this at all important, and why am I currently writing another post about Ron Paul? The answer is that Ron Paul for some reason gets people to do stuff. The idea is so strong that it has changed peoples daily schedules, peoples views on wars, and even got them to use their time uploading, blogging and spreading a political message.
Why is this so important? Currently only about 50 percent of eligible voters get off their asses and vote. One thing we’ve seen already with Ron Paul continuously showing extremely well at straw polls is that Ron Paul supporters will leave their house to attend a straw poll. They will spend 15 cents to send a text message after a debate. They will blog about him. They will take out their credit cards and donate money. They will make their own videos about him and post them on youtube. In short, Ron Paul supporters make the leap from thought into action. It takes very little effort to say who you support during a phone poll (which is how most of these presidential polls are done, not to mention the fact that they also call people who will are “most likely vote” in the upcoming election).
One thing that the mainstream media has forgot time and time again. It is that people who make elections are highly organized groups, these are the people who will actually get out there and vote. The republicans have the Christian Fundies, the democrats have the Unions and minorities. Both sides have a “get out the vote” campaign. Now, with Ron Paul, we see the first internet candidate. We are also seeing an anarchic synergy which has propelled an otherwise unknown candidate into the mainstream. Make no mistake, Ron Paul didn’t find the internet, the internet found Ron Paul.
If our numbers remain strong, we will be a force that will wake up the mainstream media. The idea I would like to spread is that Ron Paul motivates people into action, and that this should become part of the campaign. We are the people on Digg, and YouTube that make stories stick and others languish. We have the power to directly alter and help form a political candidate, let’s not lose this opportunity. Digg this story up, and watch how your participation on the internet can change a presidential campaign. My message is simple. If you agree with it, then start spreading it. Ron Paul makes people do stuff, and people who do stuff, will also get off their asses and vote.
And a lot of people are starting to see profit in motivating and "viralizing" messages - such as this one.
The problem the internet presents for the "old campaigners" of Left and Right is that it's a medium that provokes questions, rather than providing answers. Television does that remarkably well, and the mastery of the "sound bite," the provision of simple answers to complex questions is the explanation - in my humble opinion - for the rise of Neoconservatism - which is all about simple answers for complex questions and of course, emotional, rather than intellectual appeals.
Ron Paul's answers to complex questions are blunt and short - but that's because understanding them requires an understanding where they come from; a solid foundation in the Constitution. If you respect the Constitution, you respect his answers, even if you don't always like them.
For instance - his position on abortion manages to displease everyone about equally. He's anti-abortion - personally, as a physician and from an ethical and libertarian standpoint. But he does not feel that it's the business of the Federal Government; He's come to the conclusion that it's either a state or an individual choice. And it's a conclusion he states with some visible reluctance.
In other words, he's the only candidate out there operating from a solid, verifiable foundation of principle, and who has stuck by those principles in a context where abandoning them would have been both normal and profitable.
That's a clear challenge for the other campaigns. Well, for the Democratic contenders, really, since the only option for candidates is to do what Ron Paul is doing - tell the truth. Given the things he's telling the truth about, he's the only one who won't have to eat a great deal of crow pie to get to that point.
Dr. No is vulnerable on only one front - he doesn't seem to have a "yes" bone in his body. I don't have a problem with that, given the office he's running for, but it's an obvious point Democrats should address - and they had better start addressing it before long.
The other factor in this is that it's becoming increasingly obvious to anyone paying attention that this process is about as random and honest as a game of Three-Card Monte. The MSM have already picked Clinton or Obama as the "front-runners;" and I'm suspicious that's due to them being the most vulnerable to a credible Republican, considering the nature of the people that own and control the major media outlets.
I note that the two "front-runners" are both equivocating on the war in Iraq and the various unconstitutional "necessities" of the War on Terror. That tells me that both are "acceptable" to the Powers That Be. That is a damn good reason to vote against them right there. Image developed from the Ron Paul Flickr Feed; Photomanipulation by Bob King. Yard signs available - speaking of getting people to "do stuff."
"We have this document that defines the shape of our nation. You might have heard of it. It is called the Constitution. It is considered one of the great documents in human freedom ever, along with the Magna Carta. It was radical in its time. In a world ruled by monarchs, where people were either born as a have or have not (and the chance to move up was almost nil), and where religion was commonly dictated by governments, here comes a document guaranteeing everyone has the right to speak his mind, seek his fortune and worship (or not) in whatever kind of church he chooses."
Or in other words, if you don't believe in gay sex, don't have sex with gays. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. If you don't believe in sex before marriage, don't have it. If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it. If you don't believe in evolution - well, I can't help you there.
But there's no constitutional requirement than any belief you hold dearly has to make sense. But there IS a lot in there intended to keep busybodies from imposing their fondly held ideals upon others by force supplied by the State.
I make no distinction between the self-righteous Liberal and the self righteous Conservative. I care not whether your "thing" is gay marriage or smoking, your cause PITA or AFF. To the extent that you are willing to coerce me in order to achieve a "moral good," to that extent you are willing to sodomize the constitution to get your way. And I will have none of it. A pox upon both your houses.
Now, I didn't mean this as just another "go ron" post. It's more of a celebration of citizen participation. You KNOW this thing has gone viral! And whatever it says, it's being said without a "this message approved by" or "this message paid for by" tag line...
In other words, on the internet, there are those candidates that accept the truth that they cannot control their message - and just hope that everyone spells their names right. And then there are those OTHER candidates who, realizing they cannot control the message or the spin that unpaid individuals put on their words in order to promote them, simply ignore the whole thing as being unimportant.
There's a word for those candidates: "Losers."
I keep coming back to Ron Paul, but it's exactly things like this that have been pulling in the big bucks. Ron Paul is the first actual candidate to go viral himself. Now, what that means for the other Republican candidates - indeed, what it means for the other Democratic candidates - remains to be seen. But I think this bodes to be the most interesting campaign in living memory. Of course, there is that tiny, nagging little question as to whether our votes will ever be counted, but we have time to fix that. And fix the bastards what unfixed it.
What has four HUNDRED watts of power, amazing torque, all metal construction and makes biscuits to die for? Well, the short answer is, a really good stand mixer. You know, the all metal kind with the stainless steel bowls, the dough hooks, the whisk and orbital mixing motion like the high end commercial models? The You Know We Can't Afford That, Bob kind that I lust after every time Alton Brown hauls his out?
How does $199 sound? Yep. Two hundred bucks. Not seven, not five, not three - two hundred. Maybe a little more with shipping. It's a Hamilton Beach® Mixer , and I would love one. It's not the kind Alton has but it's a Best Buy according to two separate magazines. And if it's not quite so big and glam as his - I don't have TV cameras in my kitchen - or people to lift it for me.
I'd make biscuits more often, and more of them. You know how a dozen just isn't enough, but it's about all I can stand to make. It's the rheumatiz, you know.
I won't give anyone my family recipe for "beaten biscuits." Actually, I can't give it to anyone; it turns out that my "old family recipe"is identical to the one from the Joy of Cooking!
Seems like one of the biggest "family secrets" is where you got the secret family recipes!
But "Beaten Biscuits" are different than any other kind; unlike most, which are light and fluffy, beaten biscuits have a smooth,firm, fine grained texture that lends itself to a good old Southern tradition - slicing them in half and piling them high with butter, ham sausage, bacon, scrambled eggs, jam, jelly, marmalaide - and combinations of all the above. I've even made them as hamburger buns.
They are a southern culinary tradition, there are even fast food joints centered around them - but here's the rub:
"20 licks for family, 200 for company."
By a "lick", we mean taking a pretty stiff dough and punching it just as hard as you can with a closed fist.
Now you know WHY Aunt Jemima has those broad shoulders. Don't NEVAH honk off Miz J! And now you know why I don't make the original recipe all that often.
I've never even tried using my hand mixer to mix that dough - smoke and flames would ensue!
And then there's carrot cake. I know how you love Carrot Cake... Proper carrot cake batter... well, again, you don't use a wimpy little hand mixer for it, and to keep the texture right, you really don't want a mixer that will chop up the shredded carrot, so even most stand mixers (with the standard dual beaters) are problematic. Come to think of it, I don't think I've EVER made you carrot cake. And the cream cheese icing... well, this would help with that too; it would be all light and fluffy and fresh, a blend of cream cheese and neufchatel with real vanilla extract.
And then there's that braided Easter Bread, and the Michael Cookies. And did I mention meat loaf? My mother taught me all about making meat loaf. (Don't worry, I've unlearned most of the things she taught me, like including beef liver and ground heart.) But the real secret to a good meat loaf, one that can be sliced thin when cool, is mixing it until every particle is coated with whatever binding agents the recipe calls for. Seriously, there must be ten thousand different meat loaf recipes and it's the sort of homestyle comfort food we all love.
Speaking of comfort food... whipped potatoes, with butter, sour cream and chives beaten into it!
And the price of a loaf of bread worth eating is starting to really annoy me, and the tiny loaves my bread machine makes are a cruel tease. If I'm gonna make bread, I want to fill the oven with it!
So this would be the gift that keeps on giving. Back. At least as good a return on investment as that electric grill you-all got me last Christmas.
[Ayup, this was a paid post. But it doesn't change the fact that I really, really want a Hamilton Beach® Eclectrics® Mixer in Licorice (black). Or white. White would be OK too. So either I get it for Christmas - or I buy it myself with proceeds from posts like this.]
Have you ever heard the expression, 'What's wrong is right and what's right is wrong?' " Aitken, the retired art teacher, asks. "We've been doing things that are so wrong for so long that the right thing for some might feel freaky. Sometimes you have to stop and think, 'Okay, this is my conviction.' " (closing paragraph)
This month, the 10-term Texas Republican stunned the GOP field by raising a little more than $5 million in the third quarter, 70 percent of it from online donations; Sen. John McCain, once considered the front-runner for the GOP nomination, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who placed a strong second in the Iowa straw poll in August, raised $6 million and $1 million, respectively. For months now, Paul has been the most popular GOP candidate on the Web, with more supporters on MySpace, Facebook and Meetup than Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, who won the Iowa straw poll and leads in the polls here.
"Everyone -- the staffers in the other campaigns, the bigwig political observers in the state -- is scratching their heads. They don't know what to make of this Ron Paul phenomenon," pollster Smith says. A University of New Hampshire poll last month showed Paul at 4 percent in the state. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News national poll, also from last month, had him at 3 percent. "The other campaigns aren't worried that he'd win the primary. They just don't know who his supporters are and whose support he's taking away," Smith adds. "His poll numbers aren't high now, but it's only October. And they could see him getting 10 percent of the vote here. If you get 10 percent of the vote in a crowded field, well, you might finish third." But the Paulites are aiming for higher than third place.
And it doesn't even occur to them to wonder if it might be that the problem is not that Ron Paul is an exceptional spokesperson for his ideals of small, limited, ethical and constitutional government, but that the other Republican are such a mixed bag of lousy, triangulating, scheming, lying, conniving pandering jokes that a man who might seem unremarkable and even a bit dotty in the company of a Roosevelt, a Kennedy or a Goldwater is seen as a literal giant towering over the mental and moral midgets sharing the stage with him.
By the modern standards of Republicanism, he's not a very good one. But then, that's the problem right there - and a hell of a lot of Republicans are wondering how the hell a Republican administration could get them into debt and into war with so little attention to the inevitable price of such folly.
Yet the current crop compete to compare themselves, not with Barry Goldwater, or even the saner and more centrist Richard Nixon - who'd be a Democrat today - but with that champion of Voodoo Economics and Feelgoodism, Ronald Regan.
Meanwhile there's a really troubling thought going around the nation, largely left unspoken but apparent in all quarters. What will Hillary do if she gets the Democratic nomination - and the Presidency?
She's thought of as being the most liberal - but she's the farthest to the Left. And those are two different concepts entirely. The way she's praised the President's war and his domestic surveillance with faint and perfectly triangulated damnations, I find it difficult to be confident that she will gladly return all the extra executive powers Bush has arrogated unto himself, nor will she see any way toward "healing the nation" other than centralized bureaucracies.
Now, unlike most Libertarians, I actually believe that one can have an efficient, professional and ethical civil service. I have been to Canada, and I know that in some countries, when a man from the government shows up at your door, they probably ARE there to help you.
But ... this is Ahumurika. And it would take an act of God, not merely Congress to change the culture of our civil service to the point where bigger would be anything resembling better.
Just ask anyone who has ever been in personal contact WITH our government, pretty much at any level, with any personal stake in the matter. The best you can expect is to waste an entire day waiting in an office designed with malice aforethought to crush the spirits and steal the souls of all so unfortunate or foolish as to step within them, even in search of a public restroom.
All them "Libruls" who praise, say, Medicare and Medicaid for it's remarkable efficiency and ruthless cost reductions have never been in contact WITH either program - or any competitor. Trust me when I tell you, as a Canadian-American, you do not want universal health care that is based in ANY way upon Medicare or Medicaid.
Some people refer to even those programs as "socialized medicine." I refer to them as "Stalinized Medicine." You see, socialized medicine comes with one assumption, that universal health care is of social benefit.
Medicare and Medicaid presume that all their clients are of little or no social utility, that giving them any medical attention at all (much less than the care they actually medically require) is more than they deserve, and that treating clients (and doctors) with anything other than suspicious contempt and a level of compliance enforcement and auditing that is generally reserved for things like ebola viruses and weapons grade plutonium. Their costs are low because they offload all the costs onto the few doctors that actually accept medicare and medicaid.
These are usually clinics and doctors that you would not want to go to. I mean, you would really, really prefer not to go. You might prefer consulting your local curando than trust your health to the disease incubators they laughingly refer to as "reception areas."
I actually want a universal access system that is free for those who are poor and affordable for everyone. I definitely want the government putting pressure on the costs of the system - many of which are deliberately extortionate. I want it simple and I want it to be easy, because sick people should not have to jump through hoops, nor should physicians be second guessed by bean-counters about appropriate treatments.
Plainly speaking, before we develop a new system of payment to overlay on our current healthcare industry, we should question whether it should be an industry at all. Shouldn't it be a profession, like education? Something seen as an inherent, inarguable social good that is one of a very short list of things government should do and be expected to do well?
Don't we deserve a government that sees every single citizen as being of value, deserving respect? Of course, we would have to ensure that the respect is mutual, and that government service was seen as a calling worthy of respect, not the last resort of idologues, cronies, losers and mental basket cases. CF "Education."
I believe in a small, limited, competant and efficient government, one dedicated to governing and regulating as little as possible, but doing what they actually do very, very well indeed. I want to be happy to pay my taxes because I get my money's worth.
And I don't think it's been possible to say that since... well I don't remember a time in my life where I was conscious of politics and government that I didn't consider it a gigantic waste of time, money, paper, effort and manpower to achieve results that were no better than that which a moderately retarded fifth grader with a decent education could have come up with on their own.
You see, it's not HARD to do that. We have a Constitution that's specifically designed to lead us to that very outcome, designed to strikingly limit the ability of Government to meddle with our private affairs and the public arrangements of the various States. It was intended to be a central FACILITY, not a Central Authority.
And when you start looking at it that way, you see all kinds of things it does badly, many things it should be doing, but doesn't, but above all it's impossible to ignore that it's gotten damned uppity and there are all kinds of folks in it that, while not properly qualified to give you change for a ten-spot, think they understand economic policy better than you or me.
I'm not saying that with the idea that we know better. I'm saying that in thinking they know more, they have actually achieved negative results.
People call Ron Paul dotty for calling for a return to "hard money," but when you start looking into it, you realize that all that means is that he's calling for a medium of exchange that government cannot mess with. He's calling for a return to one of the most fundamental duties of government, setting a standard of value for commercial exchanges that applies to all market activities.
When the dollar is "adjusted" against gold, it doesn't mean that the actual value of the gold has changed. It's worth what it's worth, based on a steady commodity demand. So when your dollar is mysteriously worth less gold than it was last Tuesday, that's what you call "theft."
In fact, our entire central banking system is a necessity that serves as a fig leaf for what must be the most massive fraud in existence; the Federal Reserve essentially pulls money out of the air. It's technically related, vaguely, to the return on government bonds and other indicators - though I darkly suspect that it's a designedly complex system intended to hide within it the essential core truth that a US Dollar is only worth what you believe it's worth - other than it's value as a recyclable material.
Now, nobody likes thinking about it, because we value everything in dollars - including human life and our own self-worth. So the idea that our entire economy is based upon debt and promises you would consider dubious coming from your brother-in-law is troubling, and in general, we prefer to not think about it. Really, Really Hard.
But for saying that real money based on a real commodity with a real, measurable value unaffected by and not bound to debt is a better way, Ron Paul is dismissed as a nut.
But what would you prefer to have in your hand, a silver dollar - Constitutionally set at one troy ounce of coin silver - or a promise that a coupon you hold will be honored at your local merchant according to an arbitrary value assigned to it in the money markets that day?
As it happens, nobody will ever trade you a one ounce silver coin for a one dollar US Federal Reserve note. And that indicates that ever since we went off the gold standard, our medium of exchange has lost touch with economic reality. Of all the Republican candidates, Ron Paul is the only one in close enough touch with reality to offer any sort of credible alternative. And that includes hard, cold, metallic truths such as this.
Money that does not have a real world value allows all kinds of economic shenanigans dear to the hearts of bankers and politicians - and that is precisely why we need to have a medium of exchange that can be independently verified as worth what it is worth.
Ron Paul - like hard money - rings true. That often means he says things you won't like hearing. But that's the test of truth, and we have collectively enjoyed the opposite since 1981.
LED Christmas lights may seem like a trivial step to fight global warming, peak oil and soaring energy prices, but my sources indicate that it could be one small step toward all those things.
A 2003 report conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that the U.S. consumes about 2,220,000 KWh of electricity each year to illuminate miniature holiday lights. (*2,220,000 KWh is enough electricity to run approximately 200 homes for an entire year.) Based on these figures, the EPA report concluded that a 20% market shift to LED holiday or Christmas lights would reduce annual electricity consumption in the U.S. by 400,000KWh.
LED Christmas lights also last for more than 50,000 hours compared to about 2000 for incandescent lights. The lights are also safer because they operate at only 1 degree above ambient temperature unlike incandescent which can get very hot.
What does that mean in practical terms?
Progressive Georgia City Makes the Switch to LED Christmas Lights
October 7, 2007
The city of Monroe, Georgia has become the first city in the state of Georgia to switch to energy-efficient LED holiday lights. In a recent article in the Walton Tribune, city officials announced that the switch will lower their utility bill from $1600 to about $150.
Of course, it might take several years to pay off - but with a life expectancy of 50,000 hours of zero maintenance operation, it won't take that many hours to pay them off.
Indeed, according to LEDsmagazine.com, writing in an article featuring the maker of these particular LED Christmas Lights:
During the 45-day period during which the capital tree is illuminated it will consume approximately 37,800 kilowatt hours of electricity and cost the state over $3,000. After the holiday season is over the state will take the tree down and place the tree, along with its 5000 incandescent lights and wiring in a commercial shredder.
If the State of Michigan replaced its current C9 incandescent lights with energy efficient LED Christmas lights it would consume only 389 kilowatt hours of electricity which would cost only $30.00. This would save the state nearly $3,000.00 each year in electricity costs alone.
Perhaps more importantly, the LED lights could be used for several years so the state would not have to continue its environmentally irresponsible practice of shredding the lights each year. The ability to reuse the lights would also save the state approximately $2200 annually. Based on the state’s current usage, the new LED lights could last for as many as 50 holiday seasons.
The LED lights offered by HolidayLEDs.com are currently used on the national holiday tree on the Capital lawn in Washington, D.C. and Rockefeller Center in New York City.
I found myself fascinated with the whole topic, because this is a rapidly evolving technology and is already starting to appear in home applications. I'm excited by that for a reason that might seem odd to many, because of my Asperger's Autism.
You see, the current available technology available at my price-point is the compact fluorescent bulb. But there are large problems with compact fluorescents from my standpoint - first, they do flicker. Not as badly as the tubes of yore, but they do have a perceptible flicker. To ME, anyway. I find this bothersome, and the light quality muddy, so I don't use them in areas where the light quality is important to me.
Second, they contain mercury, and I really do not think we need to be using another technology dependent upon that particular neurotoxin. While scientists are still arguing about it's effects on people, and whether or not it can be directly attributed to the explosion in autistic births, there is no responsible science touting it as a nerve tonic, either, much less a large-scale food additive.
And yet, it is, unfortunately, a nearly unavoidable food additive. So I'd like to skip right by compact fluorescent lighting and go straight to LED lighting. They use even less power, produce a crisp, clean light and do not create much impact upon the household heat load. And for those of us for whom this is important, they do not pollute the electromagnetic spectrum with nasty buzzy noises we should not be physically able to perceive.
So, why don't we all get our feet wet with a few strings of LED Christmas lights and save some money?
For you holiday display competitors, such as those mad folks up in the Reno Hills, they offer commercial grade strings and all the stuff you need to get extremely creative in many colors - with the ability to connect up to 125 strings in one circuit. Some of you could save thousands a year while executing designs you never thought possible before. For instance, you could create displays from Coroplast sheeting - that cardboard-like plastic that many signs are made from these days.
But there are endless applications for such affordable and flexible lighting. You could actually make your own chandelier from materials from this site and some Coroplast, Styrene, or Acrylic plastic with tools you have or could get from any hobby supply store.
Running at one degree over ambient temperature, you can use LED lights next to materials you'd never consider using in any incandescent application. I doubt that it would even soften hot glue. You could go all Martha Stewart with this stuff and come up with energy-saving replacements for those swag lights you've been meaning to do without for years now.
A constitutional scholar says President Bush and his administration were working to expand their spy powers months before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which provided a "highly convenient" opportunity to dramatically strengthen law enforcement and surveillance authority.
This is why I will not vote for anyone who voted for the Patriot Act or any expansion of presidential powers. This leaves me with Ron Paul for sure, and maybe Kucinich, and rules out anyone who I think to be especially fascinated by the potentials for the ability of a strong central government to "do good" unto me.
Furthermore, anyone opposed to impeaching this president now, before he can start a nuclear war strikes me as being essentially too stupid or opportunistic to hold any political office.
I just sent this off to the publicity people for a new film, opening in theaters now, as they say.
I don't usually do film reviews on graphictruth.com, and I am not wanting to be on your list of "usual suspects," though I'm interested in UNusual films.
The hook for me was that my state senator and majority leader, Harry Reid, handed off a copy to John Kerry - who watched it and sent out a notice to his entire mailing list.
Graphictruth.com is pretty much about what it sounds like, and it sounds like this is a very graphic truth indeed.
For me, the fact that the ball started rolling on this in 2003 is to me the most interesting part of this story. It takes that long for the consequences of some acts to materialize, sometimes even longer.
This seems to be all about unintended, unimagined and unimaginable consequences.
I really, really do not want to see this film. I expect it will give me nightmares.
I can count the number of times I've done something like this on my thumbs. And I'm doing it knowing that it is going to have a certain message, it is going to portray a certain reality that will be unpalatable to those who think that the War in Iraq and the War on Terror are inseparable.But in fact, when you go to war - every time, and for whatever reason, you must pay the Butcher's Bill - and the horrifying truth is that each and every soldier who faces combat is affected forever. This paragraph comes from John Kerry's letter.
The former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a Marine Lieutenant General, once said of Iraq that "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the resu
Seeing as we are used to and support people exercising their property rights to set guidelines and codes of conduct.
Ahh screw it. This must be like water off a duck to you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777