Absolute BS

Bruce Schneier pointed out a couple of interesting posts about national security today, specifically about how politicians (Bush and Obama) exaggerate the threat of terror for their political ends (duh). The first one, at Tom Englehart’s blog, is a very good read. Obviously, the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack is much smaller than the risk of getting in a car wreck, being murdered on the street and even being struck by lightning. But that doesn’t stop the President from using even a failed attack like the Christmas “Underwear Bomber” to spend a bunch of money and increase further the power of the executive office. I suggest you read the whole thing.

Bruce also linked to a newsweek article with similar sentiments. As I started reading this one I was thinking it was quite refreshing to hear the “chill the fuck out” message coming from the mainstream media:

However, if you scroll down just a little bit, you see that Newsweek can’t take it’s own advice as they attempt to generate a little more advertising revenue with a scary picture of a terrorist and an alarmist link:

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised the media can condemn politicians for “tough-guy bluster” and in very the same article advertise a link to the 10 scariest terrorists they can find. What does surprise me is that anybody takes this hypocritical rag seriously enough to pay for a subscription to it.

I’d just like to quickly thank Barack Obama for propping the Dow Jones up today. The talking heads out there who blamed him personally for its recent tumbles are conspicuously silent today.

I have a tendency to argue politics with anyone who will take up the subject. My friend Simmons is one of these people, and we have spirited internet discussions on a regular basis. As a result, we’ve started a political blog you can go read at: 1idiot1genius.blogspot.com. The name comes from the fact that we usually believe the other is an idiot, but I’ll leave it to the readers to decide for yourselves. So if you feel like arguing on the internet, head on over!

My friend emails me links to Neal Boortz’s website where he rants about things like democrats, taxes, democrats, Hillary Clinton, and democrats. And I usually agree with most of what he says, but I don’t understand why he needs to make everything such an “Us vs Them” fight. Just state your opinion and let it go.

Today’s post is a good example.

I agree with almost everything he says, but for some reasons he’s still irritating to read. Since his viewpoint is on solid logical ground, why does he have to cloud it with spin and right-wing jargon.

Re-read his opening sentance:

If there’s anything the Democrat Party just loves to do that would be raising taxes … but only on those people who are not likely to vote Democrat! If you’ve been paying any attention at all, you will know that the Democrats proposed a $400 billion tax increase last week .

He then goes on to complain that the taxes are all on the 20%, and they are reducing taxes on the middle and lower class. I don’t really get his point. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the tax burden carried by people who make more than $265,000 a year?

Also , I’ll bet noone here even read the article that he links to. (you probably aren’t reading this long-wided post right now either). If you had taken the time to click the link that he cites as evidence the Democrats are raising taxes by $400 billion, you would have read this at the very bottom:

The House plan promises a big surplus in five years by allowing tax cuts passed in the president’s first term to expire. It awards spending increases next year to both the Pentagon and domestic programs, but it defers difficult decisions about unsustainable growth in federal benefit programs such as Medicare.

Bush equates letting the cuts expire to a tax increase. He said Saturday the blow would amount to nearly $400 billion over five years –what he said would be “the largest tax increase in our nation’s history.”
So they didn’t really “propose” anything, and these aren’t really “tax increases.” If bush wanted them permanent so badly he should’ve had his congress authorize them permanently while it was republican. But the fact of the matter is that they don’t do any good for 80% of America and they aren’t needed anymore to jump-start the economy like they were in 2001 when they were written. Boortz is just mad because he’s rich enough that he will probably owe more taxes next year whereas none of us will be affected at all.

So explain to me why a guy who has an otherwise very informed and reasonable opinion needs to rely on pre-spun talking points from the mouth of the president himself in order to sensationalize his article?

Round 2 - “The 200 Series”

These are all voter initiated, and there is some confusion, especially on the smoking stuff, so pay attention. Once again, I really urge you to Read the text yourself.

Brian Samson’s Voting Recomendations
Prop 200: Yes
Prop 201: Yes
Prop 202: Yes
Prop 203: Yes
Prop 204: Yes
Prop 205: No
Prop 206: No
Prop 207: Yes

Read the rest of this entry »

In an effort to become more informed on this year’s election, I decided to actually read though all of the propositions that are up for vote in the November election. I encourage you to read the text yourself, but if you don’t want to wade through it all you can just read my short version. Or my really short version:

Brian Samson’s Voting Recomendations:
Prop 100 - Yes
Prop 101 - Yes
Prop 102 - No
Prop 103 - No
Prop 104 - Yes
Prop 105 - No
Prop 106 - No
Prop 107 - No

Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s a great analysis on the medias take on the awful tragedy in Qana, where something like 60 civilians died from an errant Israelli missle.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/qana-directors-cut.html

Between this kind of staged photojournalism, and Reuters’ photographers blatently forging images, how are we supposed to get a decent idea of what’s going on over there?