Candid Opinions

"Worst episode ever."

2011-11-14T13:12:00.004-07:00

I'm just going to come out and say it: I could not care any less about the following geeky/nerdy things (indeed, in most cases there is little room for any more hatred either):

Apple
Steve Jobs
Minecraft
Nintendo anything (esp. Super Mario Brothers)
Anime
PlayStation
Most comic book stuff
Reddit
Twitter
Steampunk
8-bit versions of games
Pixar
Freddie Wong videos (at least in a diminishing capacity, i.e. his videos get less and less entertaining with each installment)
Dr. Who
Leet speak (1337)
Remakes of 80's cartoons
Asian girls

And much, much more!

I know that many people would view my list as heresy, but I maintain that you do not have to like all of something to still feel like you are a part of it. (For example, I like some aspects of Call of Duty and really quite enjoyed Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, even though it felt like a betrayal to do so.)

In an effort to piss off everyone who still reads this blog, I say: I'm pretty sure that in Steve Jobs' personal Hell, everyone blames him when Windows crashes.

"This is Chief Wiggum reporting a 314 - waking a police officer."

2011-08-16T11:24:00.020-07:00

On August 6th, I went shooting with some of my friends. We went up the north side of Farmington Canyon to the same place I went shooting during my last blog entry on the topic. It's sometimes referred to as "the Firebreak Road" or "The Lake Bonneville Shoreline". It's a place I've researched given the applicable restrictions and verified as compliant with all relevant laws. In fact, I have shot there several times before, and all the folks in my party had shot there before, too. However, there had been a fire on the south side of the canyon just a few weeks prior which was started by people shooting in the foothills. Keep that in mind as I recount my harrowing tale of a run-in with "The Man".

I'm pretty sure this is how all people in Farmington
picture people shooting in the foothills.

We met up at around 8:30 and drove up to the park at the base of the trail. We pulled our guns out of the truck and picked up our boxes of targets which consisted of old computer parts and DVD player that had betrayed me after I went to all the effort of hauling it back and forth across the country.

You're dead, traitor.

We brought with us a pump-action .22 Winchester, some Czech WW-II era gun, what I think was a K-98 Mauser (maybe Boy can verify this for me), and a couple of handguns. Nothing too special. Anyway, we began shooting at some boxes and our old electronics which we had placed on the south-facing hill in front of us. Keep in mind that there is a road that runs up the canyon, but it is across the river from where we are and more than the required distance away. It was a lot of fun and I enjoyed taking out my revenge on my traitorous DVD player (although it didn't ping when hit like I had hoped).

After about half an hour of shooting, we heard a woman's voice calling to us from through the trees on the other side of the canyon. Here's roughly how the conversation went:

Woman: You can't shoot here!
Us: We've looked into it and we can!
Woman: No you can't!
Us: Yes we can!
Woman: No you can't!
Us: Thanks, have a nice day!

And we got back to shooting. About ten minutes later, a very irate-looking female Forest Service Ranger and a male Davis County Sheriff's deputy came walking up the trail. The Forest Ranger had drawn her gun, but not pointed it at us (this is apparently called "presenting" - an unfortunate term in her case) and asked if we were unarmed. We had already laid down whatever guns we were holding, and responded that we were.

You have the right to shut up, Timmy.

Here is roughly what followed:

Ranger: Did you know you're not allowed to shoot up here?

Us: No, we've checked it out and we can.

Ranger: No, you can't. Did you not hear me yelling at you earlier?

Us: We did, but you didn't identify yourself so we thought you were just some random person.

Ranger: Well, you can't shoot up here.

Us: We've checked with the Sheriff's office and the US Forest Service website and we can.

[I began looking this up on my phone.]

Ranger: No, you can't. Had you called dispatch today, they would have told you no.

Us: We've called the Sheriff's office before and they said it was okay.

Ranger: When was that?

Us: A couple of months ago.

Ranger: Well, they wouldn't have said that because you can't shoot below 7,000 ft in these hills.

Us: Really, when was that put into place? Because we've been here many times and never had a problem.

Ranger: For a couple of years now. You have ID?

[We handed over our IDs.]

Us: Well, we've never heard of this restriction before.

Ranger: Well, it's been on the books for a couple of years. You know what happened up here last week?

Us: Yeah, a fire was started by some people just over there on the other side of the canyon. But they were shooting at explosive targets.

Ranger: What are you shooting at?

Us: Boxes and old electronics. You can see them right there.

Deputy: Well, I can hear your ricochets going off ping, ping.

Us: We haven't heard any.

Ranger: Well, I'm not going to give you a ticket today, but I'm taking your names down so we know that you know the next time we catch you.

By this point, myself and one of my friends were ready for a fight. We were both fired up and ready to argue with this Ranger until she let us keep shooting. I had looked up the restrictions on the Davis County Sheriff's website and the Forest Service website for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and had not seen any 7,000 ft restriction. In fact, that was the first I had ever heard of it. I was thinking to myself, "Go ahead and give me a ticket. I want to know what specific law I'm violating. Plus, I'd love to see you arrest us because I'll just act as the attorney for these other guys and we'll fight the ticket."

We'd be patriots, like all those people in jail.

However, one of my friends who was obviously very nervous about the whole thing asked if we could just pack up and leave. The Ranger agreed and the Deputy asked us if we were picking up our "brass". We had been and so we combed the area and left.

If there's another way to present information, I'd like to hear it.

On the way back and later that afternoon, I did some research into this alleged 7,000 ft restriction. Here's what I found out:

On August 24, 2010, Davis County passed the 7,000 ft restriction. http://www.co.davis.ut.us/calendar_item.cfm?calendar_item_id=5424

Then, a number of people complained, citing to Utah Code Section 53-5a-102 which states, "Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property." http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53/htm/53_05a010200.htm This means that only the State can limit the use of firearms - counties cannot.

In response to the letters and the obvious problems with the law, Davis County convened two weeks later on September 7, 2010 and repealed the law at the insistence of deputy county attorney Gerald Hess. http://www.co.davis.ut.us/calendar_item.cfm?calendar_item_id=5511

I also checked the Forest Service laws to see if they had passed anything or made any restrictions. Use of Forest Service land is governed by the Code of Federal Regulations, which includes the restrictions we were already familiar with. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/julqtr/36cfr261.10.htm

As the incident unfolded, and upon later reflection, I came to the conclusion that the Ranger and the Deputy knew that they had no authority to stop us from shooting, but rather, wanted to get us off the mountain because of the fire the week before. This makes sense in light of the fact that the Sheriff's Deputy didn't really say anything to corroborate what the Ranger was saying, and because I talked to my neighbor who is a Davis County Sheriff's Deputy and he thinks the same thing, because getting someone to agree with you after only presenting them with your side of the story is the strongest evidence you can have.

Now that I've shared this with you, you idiots better not ruin it for the rest of us. And stay the hug away from my spot.

[Ed. note - I'm performing an experiment with this post. I have inserted a number of labels designed to increase potential traffic. I'm curious to see how it will shake out.]

"Ultrasuede is a miracle. This is just good timing."

2011-03-22T09:42:00.003-07:00

This is why you always maintain a three meter spread:

(I'm the person shooting the rocket.)

"Let's go save some cheerleaders."

2011-02-24T11:59:00.017-07:00

I recently finished playing the single player campaign for Dice's latest masterpiece, Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The game mirrors COD:MW in many ways, but improves upon most of the aspects of the gameplay in its overly self-absorbed cousin.

What, no smiley-faced grenades?

The game is a sequel to the very enjoyable Battlefield Bad Company. Once again, we join our squad of miscreants and follow them as they battle through a brand new story. Where the last game took place in a fictional eastern bloc nation, this one takes place in real places as the US battles against a global Russian offensive. The game centers around Bad Co.'s search for a "scalar device" - essentially a large-scale EMP device a la "Ocean's Eleven", taking you from icy tundra (in Alaska, I think - see my complaint about this below) to jungle to desert (in Chile - yay!) and then ultimately back to Texas (airspace, anyway). (I apologize for the number of parentheticals in that sentence, but I don't get the benefit of Colbert's overlay when he does "the Word".) Oh, and the game starts in WWII-era Japan, because screw you, that's why.

First, the gameplay is awesome. It's fast-paced, much more so than it's predecessor which felt like the enemies were too few and far between. It's also varied, giving you a lot of different things to do including your standard running and gunning, sniping, shooting from a tank, jeep, helicopter, and four-wheeler (or "quad bike", as Sweetwater gayly calls it). Some of these elements worked really well, like the time you have to provide sniper cover to your team as they insert into an enemy base, but with the catch that you time your shots with the thunder that's going on around you. Or the time you run down a snowy mountain but have to periodically stop and warm yourself up. However, some of the gameplay elements fell a little flat, like designating targets with a laser designator or flying a UAV helicopter, which felt an awful lot like the AC-130 level from COD:MW, but not as much fun. On the whole however, these things worked out really well and made the game different and entertaining, with each level giving some surprises. Oh, and the opening level in Japan - hugging awesome.

Not only is the action great, but the engine is awesome. Pretty much everything can be exploded (yes, exploded) and there are plenty of opportunities to do so. You can level entire houses, destroy every bit of cover and otherwise wreak havoc on the countryside. The game does a good job of incorporating opportunities to do this, including a couple of great levels using a helicopter-mounted mini gun.

Yup, exploded.

The story was also pretty good. Nothing earth-shattering, but entertaining in its own right. It moved along quickly enough to keep my attention, but seemed to miss some important stuff, like where the eff you were a lot of the time. (Seriously, where does that first level take place? Alaska? Russia? On top of some mountain?) Oh, and it was a little unclear why you were doing a lot of the stuff you were doing. But I have that same complaint about COD:MW, and just about every other video game I've ever played. I always have a hard time following the plot. Nevertheless, despite the fact that they left it on a cliffhanger, setting it up for a sequel, I still immediately restarted the campaign and played through it again. And again. And again.

Where the game really shined was in its characters, dialogue, direction and voice acting. A lot of people really didn't like the characters and their banter from Bad Company 1. Not me. I loved it. Sure, it was silly that your squadmates would be goofing off right after a firefight in hostile territory while facing court martial, but the entire premise of the game was silly, so it fit within the world they created. I really enjoyed them playing rock-paper-scissors and annoying each other. It was a nice touch. Well, they dropped that for Bad Company 2, but what they did still works. Each character has more personality which comes out both in the cutscenes and in the in-game dialogue, which is better than pretty much any game I've ever played. There's a particularly good moment when Haggard sees a huge explosion and solemnly declares, "That is the greatest thing I have seen in my entire life."

Which brings me to my next point, the voice acting was great. The lines were all very well-delivered and properly timed, there were no annoying accents (Halo:Reach, Rainbow Six Vegas, COD:MW, I'm looking in your direction), and they fit into the scheme of the game and the story perfectly. While I liked Marlowe in the first game, I grew to love him here. He was sympathetic, emotional, and vulnerable, but also funny and skilled.

He's about to mess somebody up. You know, like nice guys do.

The cutscene direction was also very good. While some of the cutscenes were a little dry and expository, they were interspersed with enough interesting and sometimes, very cool stuff to keep my interest. In fact, there were a few points were I actually yelled because I thought they were so cool. One in particular comes to mind, where the squad is riding in a helicopter and they're suddenly barraged with rockets. The pilot (who was a very cool side character and had the best line of the game which can't be republished here due to my moderate self-censorship) takes evasive maneuvers which causes the aforementioned scalar device to fall out the side of the chopper. Marlowe, without even thinking, just jumps out after it. It was very, very cool.

Additionally, I'm not sure how these guys did it, but they managed to make the CG characters look and feel real. So often I find that the more real the animation, the less human the characters seem (see: the uncanny valley). But here, they didn't. It might be a result of the stellar voice acting, but it felt like there was something more that made the characters real and believable and I couldn't quite put my finger on it. However, my praise for this realism ends at the core squad. The other characters, including the character you play in the first level, had that same sort of hollowness that you find in most video game animations.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the game's sound. The sound is just unbelievably cool. From changing sound effects (guns are louder indoors) to engine-linked particle effects (you can hear dust and debris falling around you depending on where you are), the sounds really complete the gaming experience. That, and the gun sounds are very realistic. Having fired a lot of guns in my day, I can say that the gun sound effects in this game are more realistic than they are in any game I have ever played.

That's not to say the game is without its faults.

My main complaint with the campaign is the lack of checkpoints. This isn't really a problem in the early sections of the game, but becomes worse as the game goes on, hitting its obnoxious climax on the level "Sangre Del Toro." Despite the fact that this level takes place in Chile - which is awesome as I used to live there - I found myself shouting at the screen several times during this level and won't play it any more. The level takes place over a very large map and you have to drive to various points, get out of your car, fight off the bad guys, and then perform certain tasks. The problem is that the game checkpoints you immediately after you've performed the tasks, but not in between. What ends up happening, is you drive for minutes at a time to get to the next action and then die, having to start over again, driving for minutes at a time. There's a particularly annoying part where not only do you have to drive a whole bunch, but you have to stop, sit through an annoying and useless cutscene (there isn't even any story-related dialogue), listen to Sweet tell you that the obnoxious thing you just did was "cool", and then drive some more, through the blinding dust into an ambush that you won't survive on your first, second or third try. I think I wasted 20 minutes on that part the first time I played it. Now, I just drive to the point where I know they're waiting and blindly throw grenades into their midst. Not a very fun way to play, Dice. Neither is driving in the dust. I'm glad that your engine can realistically simulate wind and dust. Congratulations. That doesn't mean I want to constantly drive blindly through snow drifts and dust storms at the expense of your otherwise beautiful backdrops.

You will come to hate this place.

Along with this, I was also frustrated by how often you sit through a cutscene, then drive a whole bunch without doing anything, only to get to another point that initiates another cutscene. Why make me drive? It's not fun or interesting, so why can't you just transition to the next scene like they do in movies?

Another big complaint I have is with the cutscene transitions. In COD and sometimes in Reach, the cutscene transitions pretty seamlessly into the gameplay. Here, at the beginning and end of each cutscene, they fade in and out of black, respectively. It's very annoying, especially at the end where there is a series of cutscenes in pretty rapid succession which take place over the course of a few minutes in the story. The fades took me out of the story a bit and were distracting from the gameplay.

Finally, it's only a minor concern, but give me better gunsights, for crying out loud. Only a handful of the guns have acceptable gunsights. More often, you find that you are looking through your scope trying to line up a stupid carat, or worse, series of carats against a backdrop that makes them invisible. Use an effing red dot. Or if you must insist on using the carat, at least light it up on all the guns and not just the one scoped machine gun. And definitely don't use it for the sniper rifle, you jackoffs.

Guess how much time you spend looking at the only white space on the map.

Despite my complaints, which are really not that significant compared to the many, many awesome aspects of the game, I was really happy with the campaign and look forward to replaying it a whole bunch. It's a great game and well worth your time.

P.S. I haven't played much of the multiplayer, which is why most people play this game, but I plan to. The reality is that I don't buy games for the multiplayer as playing online is often an impossibility for me due to the lack of a pause feature.

"I sit on the board of the Pediatric Restless Leg Syndrome Foundation."

2011-01-05T14:33:00.002-07:00

Let me begin by advising you not to take my advice. I'm just some retarded a-hole writing anonymously on the internet. You should really ask a doctor or something about this crap.

Ever since 1999, I have been suffering from restless leg syndrome. It's one of those diseases that sounds made up and even stupid. The kind of disease you reference when talking about diagnoses run amok. I agree, it does sound stupid. "Creepy-crawling"? What kind of symptom is that?

In any event, I experienced it on my religiously-affiliated vacation in Chile, where it got much worse than it had ever been before. It subsided a bit while I was in college, but came back with a vengeance when I started law school and has (had) remained with me, at a pretty debilitating level ever since. There were days in a row where I would not get more than a few hours' sleep because of the jimmy legs.

I tried a number of treatments: neurontin and other anti-seizure drugs, sleeping pills, warming leggings, but to no avail. I even tried multi-vitamins, potassium, iron supplements, and got bupkus. Nothing seemed to help. The only way I could even get some sleep was to take sleeping pills. (By the way, Ambien CR is awesome.)

Well, due to the wonderful free-market healthcare system we currently enjoy, I ended up spending a month without insurance. During that month, I didn't refill my asthma medication, Singulair because it costs $180 to fill. That's $6.00 per pill. That's like three years of XBox live membership. And so what if I got sick every single time I had previously neglected to take my Singulair on a daily basis? Screw that.

Despite my experience, I did not get sick and my restless legs went away. I spent an entire month without the constant pain and lack of sleep they usually bring. Then, I got insurance again, refilled my Singulair and started up again. That same day, I had the worst restless legs I've had in months. Not wanting to make serious medical decisions on a fluke, I took it again the next day with the same result. It sucked balls. So, I stopped taking it. It took about five days to completely wear off, but my restless legs are for the most part gone again. Now, I can return to looking down on people who have crap illnesses. You have depression? There's no such thing, you're just being a pussy. What's that? You're saying I take Lexapro? I take that for my crippling emotional cancer. I see how you would confuse the two.

In summary, Singulair causes restless legs. And since I'm clearly a qualified physician and not just some anonymous idiot blogging on the internet, you can take that to the bank.*

*To repeat: I'm not really a doctor. In fact, I'm just some retarded a-hole writing from my own experience and not a bit of knowledge, education, training, research, or qualification. DO NOT TAKE MY ADVICE! I cannot emphasize this enough.

"I dropped a bomb, do you have it?"

2011-01-05T13:53:00.004-07:00

Last Saturday, I met with my brothers to play Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2 (Yuri's Revenge). We haven't played as a group in probably 5 or more years and we've all upgraded our computers since then. Well, when we sat down to play we ran into three problems: 1) Getting Vista to even install the program, 2) Getting Vista to run the program; and 3) networking. We were eventually able to get a workaround for all three problems, but it took some doing and none of the solutions were all in the same place. So, I'm going to try to consolidate the information I found in a one place so others may overcome the evil Windows Vista and successfully play Red Alert 2, one of the five best RTS games ever created.

1) Installation in Vista.

Windows Vista is all about security... and stupidity. Windows took the things that worked in XP, raped them, and stuck their evil spawn in Vista. This means that every time you try to do anything, you end up facing some absurd wall of security. Well, there is a way to overcome this. It doesn't matter if you are just going to play Red Alert 2, as that program should run just fine without any additional steps (at least, it did for me). The problem arises when you try to install Yuri's Revenge. When the installer runs Yuri's Revenge, it tries to update the existing version of Red Alert 2, but can't unless you take an extra step.

The only way to get it to work is to install the program as an administrator. This means you need to open the CD in Windows Explorer, find the install.exe program, right-click and select "Run as administrator". It's a stupid, stupid extra step, but is absolutely necessary.

2) Running Yuri's Revenge in Vista.

This one was the one that gave us the most trouble. My two brothers had no trouble getting it to run, but it wouldn't run for me. Every time I went to run it, I got this message:

"******Fatal****** String manager failed to initialized properly." (Yes, bad grammar and all.)

I tried running it as an administrator (see step 1, above), and still no luck. You can also change the program's properties to run in "compatibility mode" where Windows Vista will emulate an earlier version, all the way down to good ol' Windows 95. I read in a bunch of places that this would solve the problem, but alas, no luck for me. I even changed it on all the .exe files in the C&C directory (there are six) and still no luck. I tried every compatibility mode available, including the oft-recommended Windows 98 but still got the error. I was finally able to fix it by putting the program into Windows XP compatibility mode and disabling "User Account Control". Microsoft has these handy instructions.

I should mention that I only have one user account on the computer and it is an administrator account. Despite this, I still had to go through all these stupid steps to get the program to run. But, once I did, bingo - I was sniping dudes and sending nuke trucks into the bases of my enemies like nobody's business.

3) Setting up a network game.

This is also a problem. See, Windows Vista decided to abandon the network protocol that Red Alert 2 uses - IPX. So no version of Windows Vista natively comes with IPX, nor is it available from Microsoft. So, you have to use another protocol, which requires a patch. We used UDP and the patch that could be found here: http://www.wikihow.com/Play-Red-Alert-2-over-the-Internet. This worked for us, which means that it will almost certainly not work for you.

Good luck and happy hunting!

Welcome to the Real America

2010-11-12T13:04:00.003-07:00

Congratulations, America, you just survived another election cycle. Take a moment to pat yourself on the back. Done? Good. Let's get down to business.

SARAH PALIN CANNOT BE PRESIDENT.

I just cannot emphasize this enough. Before this election I, along with what I assume is the majority of Americans, never thought that a Palin presidency could be a possibility once McCain lost. She seemed so obviously unqualified that the idea of her being president was laughable. I've talked to many of my Republican friends who seem to agree that Sarah Palin is sort of the Barney Frank of their party - loud, obnoxious and ineffectual, but not a serious contender for real power (and yes, I know that Frank is a Senator). However, the time has come that we can no longer wrap ourselves in that warm blanket of common sense safety.

See, Sarah Palin is all over the place. I had never heard of her before McCain chose her to be his running mate, but I don't think a day has gone by since that I haven't encountered at least one news story about her. I used to think that like all fads, America would grow weary of her banal stupidity and stop paying attention. Then, on election night it hit me: I've been thinking that same thing for more than two years. I've been assuming all along that Sarah Palin was so stupid, so terrible that she could not hold the Nation's attention long enough to matter. Oh, how wrong I was.

Palin has managed to stay politically relevant despite acting like a retarded badger for years. She has drawn a following of loyal activists who love her rhetoric and parrot it all over the place. In fact, her rhetoric, for better or worse, defined the issues during this election. The message moved from, "things are getting better, just let us keep doing what we're doing" to "all Democrats hate the Constitution and want to euthanize your grandparents and make your children into Socialists." Even though that position is so preposterous that only the craziest could believe it, it has gained popularity and now dominates political discourse in this country. It's amazing to me that a half-term governor of one of the nation's smallest states can be so important, but there it is. It's happened. And I am scared to death.

Even though it seems obvious that Palin cannot and should not be President, that is not enough. Candidates don't win elections on the, "Are you kidding me?" platform. No, Sarah Palin is out there talking out of her butt on the issues and her opponents - including Republicans - need to attack her head on. We can no longer rely on the axiom that a Palin Presidency (see, it even rhymes!) would be disaster for everyone. No, we must take the time to address her on the issues and point out to America that her world view is naive and misguided and that her total lack of experience will hurt America. She couldn't even be governor of Alaska for more than two years, how can we expect her to hold the hardest job in the world for four or, heaven forbid, eight years?

But, if you aren't willing to put forth that much effort, then please, follow this simple advice:

Just don't look.

We'll all be better for it.

An open letter to Microsoft

2010-11-04T08:58:00.004-07:00

Dear Microsoft,

Thank you so much for making me update by XBox 360 firmware. It wasn't difficult or glitchy at all. I also want to thank you for making the menus a blinding color of white, instead of the much easier on the eyes gray. Oh, and I'm certain that having less cartoony avatars will make the 360 more popular since introducing them has had such a profound effect on sales. I know I bought my XBox so I could spend time creating an idiotic character rather than playing the awesome games offered on your system.

Keep up the good work, you're clearly spending your time well.

Sincerely,

Everybody

"I want the people to know that they still have two out of three branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad."

2010-10-27T18:58:00.016-07:00

In my home state of Utah, we have been represented for a long time by Jim Matheson. He distinguishes himself from Utah's other representatives by not being crazy or stupid. He also has a pretty good record of supporting Utah and since he's been reelected like a million times, it's pretty clear that he's kept his constituents happy as well. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am a big fan but have never voted for him. Or against him. I don't live in his district.)

This year, he is once again facing reelection and his opponent is once again, an irrational moron. He's being opposed by a former state legislator whose name is also a euphemism for pooping: Morgan Philpot.

I can usually entertain myself pretty well during the election season by looking at the websites of the candidates opposing my preferred candidates and attacking their inconsistent and unworkable arguments, which they usually have in spades. But this year is different. I'm not that interested in attacking Rob Bishop because as long he keeps using campaign signs that only say "Bishop" in big letters, he's going to get elected. That, and he's seriously stupid. It wouldn't be sporting.

Another option is Jason Chaffetz, but even though I disagree with almost every word that comes out of his stupid, BYU-football, self-important, retarded, ugly, stupid, stupid mouth, I feel like I'm just yelling at a wall when I try to point out his stupidity. The people who like him do so not because of how effective he may be at representing their beliefs or the strength of his arguments, but rather because he spews the rhetoric they want to hear. They don't even care that he was completely owned by Stephen Colbert. That's why he'll remain an outsider and pariah in congress, at least until he unseats our resident closeted-homosexual, Orrin Hatch. Screw him, too.

I could talk about Mike Lee, but I just don't care. He's another Tea Party hack and they're all just crazy. It's like trying to debate a homeless person about the merits of cap and trade, but all you get back are conversations he has with the invisible person he hates. I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the show.

Which brings me back to Philpot. I would love to disagree with him and pick apart his beliefs because the doofus is just asking for it. (By the way, "doofus" was not in the dictionary, but "doodahs" was.) The problem is, I can't for the life of me figure out what he actually believes. He's got a bunch of generic "policy statements" on his website, but they don't really get into any substance. I could point out that his statements about immigration don't really meet the issue, or that his generic statement about gun ownership is the same claptrap every Republican uses, but where's the fun in that? It's just the same old rhetoric, from a new, somewhat empty-looking wannabe. (Seriously.)

So, rather than go through the same exercise again, I'll just post the results of my Google search when I went looking for something, anything to say:

That's right, when I searched for "morgan philpot idiot", the first result was that Sarah Palin endorsed him.

I rest my case.

[Editor's note: I changed the title of this post because I later realized that I had previously used it. Besides, I've been looking to use this one for quite some time.]

"Strategery."

2010-09-20T09:39:00.005-07:00

I have spent much of the last month playing the latest in Bungie's panoply of great games, Halo: Reach. This post is not to review the game (although it is amazing), but rather, to point out the many completely idiotic tactical mistakes made by the Covenant.

1. Putting a bright light on your snipers. This makes them easy to spot and easy to kill with a headshot. While this isn't such an issue in Halo 3, it is in Halo 2 and ODST because much of those games are played indoor or at night, when the light makes the snipers very, very easy to spot, rather than insanely difficult. While this makes the game more fun, it's tactically retarded.

2. Trails behind banshees. Again, this makes them easy to follow and easy to kill. I'm sure Bungie did it for the same reason as the sniper thing, to make the game easier and thus more fun.

3. Bright, shiny swords on otherwise invisible dudes. While the invisibility makes them harder to see than without, the swords make them stand out more than a visible, non-sword wielding guy would. But I guess that subtlety is not the Covenant's M.O.

"Is this far enough, Master?" "Until the road dead ends."

2010-08-30T14:25:00.003-07:00

I recently received an email from Microsoft about my XBox Live membership. I always enjoy getting these emails because they start, "Dear Lawjerk..." It reminds me that I am an overgrown man-child. Anyway, Microsoft wrote to inform me that XBox Live is going to include much more awesome stuff, like Hulu Plus, ESPN on demand, and so forth. Because these features are being added, and because it has become so much more than a gaming network, Microsoft states that it must increase the monthly membership fee by about $1.00.

Once again, Microsoft has proven itself very capable at screwing over its customers while simultaneously demanding more. I couldn't care less if XBox Live offered these other services, they suck. I tried Netflix for awhile, but the selection of streaming movies is so bad that I could only find a handful that I even kind of wanted to see. On top of that, all of these other services charge monthly fees above and beyond the XBox Live subscription fee. So, what Microsoft is offering is that we pay more to them so we can pay more to third parties for using their crap. But, because I have to subscribe to be able to play Halo online, I'm stuck paying it. I feel much like Carl under the influence of his own hypno-rims - being self-sodomized by a broomstick while thanking my tormentors for the experience. (See the quote above.)

Despite my anger and objections, I will likely continue to pay the subscription fee (especially since my brother and brother-in-law recently obtained accounts) and thank my lucky stars that I don't have to own a PlayStation, because the PS3 is really, really dumb.

"So, your job is you take things that are working and you fix them."

2010-05-21T14:42:00.003-07:00

I recently came across this post on the official Kaysville City blog:

http://kaysvillecityblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/ponds-park-playground.html

For those of you not familiar with our humble little burg, Ponds Park is a park with soccer fields on one side, a baseball diamond, small playground and big hill on the other. Going from the top of the big hill, which was probably at least 50 feet tall, all the way to the bottom, so maybe 30 total feet, was a long metal slide. It was one of the greatest slides ever built in the history of the world. I remember being little and scared to death of going down it. I even revisited it as an adult and slid down it with my scared kid and really quite enjoyed it. During the winter, you could sled down the other side of the hill, or if you were crazy, down the slide itself. I'm sure many horny teens lost their precious virginity near that hill (in Kaysville, kissing someone is as scandalous as intercourse is in other places).

Well, now, it is no more. The city, in their infinite wisdom, decided to bulldoze a perfectly fine, even great hill, and replace it with something more dangerous that fewer kids can use. Ironically, the author of the city's blog even recognizes this fact:

"The slide was fun for children, but we hope they will enjoy the climbing rock as much as they did the big slide."

So, to the then mayor and the city council, I say with all due respect (none), that you are retarded.

"It's time to use our most powerful weapon - the lawyers."

2010-04-19T16:23:00.004-07:00

Devotees will know that I am a lawyer by trade. I practice primarily in the areas of construction and labor/employment law (yes, labor and employment law are different) in Utah. I haven't been practicing long, but I've learned two important rules to help you avoid legal problems in Utah construction.

1. Don't get into a project for more than you're willing to walk away from.

Most of the cases I'm involved in are being prosecuted by contractors who are trying to get paid. Too often, they don't just want the money - they need it. If they don't get paid, their business will go under and they'll be forced to declare bankruptcy. This is an avoidable situation. If you get to the point on a project that you are owed so much money that you need it, you've gone too far. Pull out of the project before then and demand payment. If they can't pay you now, odds are they won't be able to later.

There are two corollaries to this rule: First, understand that to collect money, you must spend money. All major collection requires attorney intervention and we are not cheap. Usually, the attorneys' fees have triple or quadruple the amount owed if the case goes all the way to trial. Second, follow my huggin' advice. If I tell you to file something, do it. If I tell you to stop paying someone, stop. And so forth. You don't pay me for the sound of my voice, you pay me for my powerful brain.

2. Just because you're a good craftsman, doesn't mean you're a good businessman.

Many, many, many contractors suffer from this problem. They seem to think that just because they're good behind a shovel, they also know about accounting, tax laws, labor laws, corporate filings, and so forth. If you are a contractor, you need to learn the difference between good craftsmanship and good business. Despite what our retarded Republican leaders think, the free market does not always allow the cream to rise to the top. Business is cutthroat, difficult and requires a specific skill set for success. Few people have it which is why so few of these businesses succeed.

In Utah, the state legislature has passed laws that make it very easy for people to start new businesses. They think this encourages innovation. I disagree, but whatever. What really happens is that when these businesses fail (as they usually do), they leave behind them an army of unpaid creditors, employees, suppliers, banks, property owners, etc. who have to clean up their mess. It's dumb.

Therefore, if you are good at something construction-related, make sure you find someone who is good at business. Without both parts, all you have is a one-cheek butt - and it's full of crap.

Le Spam

2010-03-17T14:29:00.002-07:00

Lately, I've been getting a lot of spam comments. It's not an unmanageable number, so I'm not inclined to change my open comment policy. Plus, some of them are funny. One comment, touting the benefits of a "HYIP", or "high-yield investment program", started with the following line:

Hi there!
I would like to burn a theme at this forum.

A lot of people would annoyed by this spam offer, but I'm not. First, the commenter starts with a very peppy introduction. It's informal, personal, and full of energy (note the exclamation point). Second, he uses the awesome phrase "burn a theme". I don't know what that means, but I'm going to start using it. Third, and finally, he calls my blog a "forum". I'm touched. I thought that most forums required some critical mass of participation to be considered a forum, but I guess I was wrong. It's not to say that I'm not grateful to my few, but faithful followers (alliteration, baby!), it's just that only a handful of people in the world see fit to visit the home of my bizarre rants, so I didn't think I had risen to the level of a forum. But this noble spammer has provided independent validation of my blog as a forum, so now I am proud to say that I am a webmaster. (Not to be confused with a Moon Master.)

"The only industry in Hollywood without a soul is the music industry."

2010-03-09T17:47:00.003-07:00

At long last, someone is suing "Avatar" for copyright infringement. It's a British Columbia man who claims he sent his copyrighted script to a bunch of studios, including Cameron's, for production. The lawsuit is pending in America's Hat, so it's not important, but the point is that someone is finally calling out Cameron on his story idea.

To which I say: get over yourself, hugger.

Let me begin by saying that I have not, and likely will not, see Avatar. I hated Titanic and I will never forgive Cameron for it. The coolness of Cameron's pre-Titanic movies comes close to saving him from the public flogging he so richly deserves. Not even his awesome alliance with the Laser Cats can save him. The fact that Titanic outgrossed Star Wars just sickens me and he can choke on his stupid Oscar forever.

Despite my bitterness toward Mr. Cameron and his mind-raping adventure, I have to disagree with Mr. Canadia's claim that he thought up "Avatar" before Cameron did. No sir, many, many people thought up Avatar before Cameron did, and even before you did. See, Mr. Canadia's screenplay was copyrighted in 1998. Let's take a moment and examine just a few examples of media that thought up this idea before then:

Pocahontas - 1995
Fern Gully - 1992
Dances With Wolves - 1990
Speaker for the Dead - 1986
Dune (the movie) - 1984

I'm not saying that Cameron didn't rip off any of these works (he claims the movie is based on a dream he had), but rather, that these people all thought up this movie before you did, Mr. Canadia, so get in line.

Besides, Hollywood has been ripping off previous works since its inception. You're just one of thousands of people screwed by the dirty machinations of Hollywood. That doesn't make it right, but it also means that you're not special.

You're welcome.

2010-02-08T12:23:00.008-07:00

I haven't watched "Lost" since the pilot. And even then, I didn't watch the pilot until it came on in reruns after midnight on Saturday nights after SNL. (Yes, NBC was running reruns of a popular ABC show. They did a lot of this in DC.) However, because I live in America and participate in society, I am vaguely familiar with some of the major plot points, including the "fact" that this is the last season and that all your questions will be answered.

Spoiler alert!

Your questions will not be answered. This show has led you along for years while completely bending your mind in on itself by inserting more and more ridiculous points into this plot and still you follow it. I predict that they will give one final test of your resolve and leave you with an ambiguous ending, shouting "Suckers!" on the way out knowing full well that you'll buy millions of dollars worth of DVDs in a vain attempt to get an explanation. (See: the Sopranos.)

Nope.

I could go into all the reasons why they'll do this, but I won't. Rest assured, they'll treat you with the same level of derision that I treat vegetables. So, I'll do you the favor of fabricating a plausible explanation that will leave you satisfied and not feeling like you wasted 6 long years of plot-driven forcible sodomy.

Yup.

My Theory:

They all died on the plane and this is the afterlife.

Now you may all enjoy the final season without having to spend the whole time guessing what is going on. The best part is that since they won't reveal what they were really thinking, you'll have no way of proving that I'm not right.

You're welcome.

"Hug you, man. Cover me!"

2010-01-18T11:18:00.002-07:00

My little brother is coming home from his mission in a few weeks so we're going through and trying to repair the damage we've done to his stuff while he was gone. We did the most to his XBox 360 because until I bought mine, his was the only one in the family.

We went to look at it a few weeks ago and the disc tray on his XBox 360 wouldn't open. After getting the faceplate off and messing with it for awhile, we still couldn't get it to work. Finally, I broke down and looked up some solutions online. I found this page from the Microsoft support website. I thought I'd try it out and lo and behold, the instructions got the tray open. It even opened and closed a few times...and then stopped working again. After messing with it some more, I discovered that as long as there is a disc in the tray, it works. If I close the tray while empty, it stops working.

I'm mostly posting this because I appreciate it when other people solve their problems and share it with the world. I'm also posting it to create a record that I did not break his XBox. It was his sister.

"Writhing Funzos, in my sack! Makes me happy; makes me hurt my back!"

2009-11-18T19:31:00.001-07:00

Pussies.

"Tell your parents, 'Buy me Bonestorm or go to hell!'"

2009-11-12T13:57:00.000-07:00

I concur.

"Something something something Dark Side. Something something something complete."

2009-08-25T08:55:00.005-07:00

I recently watched much of Star Wars Episode IV with little Jerkface. As I was watching, I was also holding a rather upset little Mrs. Jerkface who is only 10 months old. As she was crying and squirming in my arms fighting off sleep, I realized that so much of what the Emperor says to Luke during Episode VI also applies to children... very grumpy children:

"By now you must know that your father can never be turned from the Dark Side. So will it be with you."

"As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed."

"The alliance... will die. As will your friends. Good, I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete! "

"I'm looking forward to completing your training. In time you will call *me* master. "

"You will find that it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things. "

"Come, boy, see for yourself. From here, you will witness the final destruction of the Alliance and the end of your insignificant rebellion."

"You want this, don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. "

"It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. You, like your father, are now mine."

"Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you."

"Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side."

"Young fool. Only now, at the end, do you understand."

"If you will not be turned, you will be destroyed."

"You have paid the price for your lack of vision."

"Yes, I assure you, we are quite safe from your friends here."

[After Luke says, "Your overconfidence is your weakness."] "Your faith in your friends is yours."

"And now, young Skywalker... you will die. "

Okay, maybe that last one was a stretch... for now.

*The title of this post comes from this video.

"I'm not much on speeches, but it is so gratifying to leave you in the mess you've made. You're screwed. Goodbye."

2009-08-07T10:28:00.007-07:00

I've done some reading this last week on the claim that President Obama is unqualified for the office because he is not an American citizen. I won't take the time to rehash the arguments, but they are being pushed by the unfortunately named Dentist/Lawyer/Crackpot/Possible Alien Orly Taitz. Someone else equally as crazy, but not as hilarious has expressed many of the arguments here. (Note: why is it that all crackpot websites have terrible layouts and designs? How hard is it to take the time to draft a coherent narrative... oh, I said "coherent." My bad.) I've read the arguments and am sufficiently persuaded that they are baseless. But, being the troublemaker that I am, I started to think about the next level.

Let's assume for a moment that everything everyone says about President Obama's ineligibility is true, that he's not an American citizen, that he lied on every public document he's signed since then, that he's had several different names and social security numbers, and that he lied on his FEC filings when running for president. Let's assume that ab inicio, "President" Obama is ineligible for the office.

What now?

This is a question that I have not seen adequately addressed in anything that I've read. I see a couple of scenarios:

1. A lawsuit successfully challenges Obama's FEC filing, making its way to the Supreme Court, who then invalidates the filing, declaring the election invalid.

Outcome: What then? Who becomes President? Biden? His filing/candidacy was necessarily linked to Obama's, so isn't it invalid as well? Do we have another election? How is it conducted? Etc. Also, I don't think the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to reach this decision, but I'll touch on that below.**

2. The House of Representatives initiates impeachment proceedings, which move through the Senate resulting in Obama's removal from office.

Outcome: This is the most Constitutionally appropriate course of action. There are already procedures and precedents in place governing this possibility. Furthermore, the only branch of government which has explicit Constitutional authority to remove elected officials is the Senate. This outcome is highly unlikely given the fact that the Presiden and Congress are of the same party and seem to be getting along. This would also mean that Biden would become president. Is that really what you want, crazy birth-certificate people?

3. Through some government action, Obama is asked to step aside, or be removed, or whatever, but he doesn't. He takes over in a military coup and ushers in a socialist paradise. Hooray, comrades! Once Glenn Beck is working in a labor camp, he'll be able to cry for real.

*Note: I have yet to see a decent argument as to why Obama is not a natural born citizen by virtue of his Mother's citizenship. But that's the sort of "argument" that is accepted without question by the Obamabots who drink the Obama Kool-Aid and are loyal followers of the ObamaNation as reported by the Obamedia. I wish people would just start calling us "Obamaniacs". Like the "Propaniacs."

**Update 10/15/09: In a Georgia case, Attorney Taitz was sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous lawsuit based on Obama's alleged ineligibility for presidency. Toward the end of its opinion, the court addresses the constitutional authority of the judiciary to decide the issue. To sum up: I was right. (Scroll down to page 23 to see the political question analysis, but read the rest for fun!)

"I'm sorry, I think you must have me confused with an adult."

2009-07-29T16:38:00.003-07:00

Wow. Just wow.

"Gun control means using both hands."

2009-07-17T10:14:00.002-07:00

You morons had better not ruin it for the rest of us.

"Larry, what everyone needs to do is to take a deep breath, calm down, and start preparing their bodies for the Thunderdome. That is the new law."

2009-07-15T15:36:00.005-07:00

[Ed. note: The first part of this post was drafted on 7/15, the second half on 7/16.]

Lately, I've been having a crisis of my lawyer faith. Over the last few weeks, I've seen some very bad people get away with taking advantage of good people because their lawyer said, "So what?", or the amount in controversy was just too small to justify the fight, or because the bad guys had more money than the good guys, so the good guys had to stop fighting. This wouldn't be so bad, except that this is happening in just about every case I've seen (not just the ones I've been involved in). The disparity between justice and the outcome has been too great to give me any satisfaction in my job.

I learned very soon after starting my career that our justice system is not actually about justice; it's about dispute resolution. We need to achieve finality in the disputes between our citizens, otherwise disputes will be resolved through other means (Two men enter, one man leaves), and our notion of civilization breaks down. By allowing third parties to resolve our problems, we avoid all of that entertaining violence and bloodshed, and replace it with entertaining shows about lawyers and police.

Rather than rely on third-party dispute resolvers to hand out arbitrary decisions (think "arbiter"), we attempt to bring some order to this system by writing laws and rules about how we address our disputes. We try to fashion those rules such that when properly applied, disputes are resolved and "just" results are reached. Our laws and rules actually only approximate justice.

This common misconception that our justice system is actually about justice has caused me a great deal of problems over my lengthy career as an attorney. (Yes, one year is lengthy.) My clients come to me expecting me to help them obtain justice, but are always disappointed when justice is not reached in their case. Even if they win, they always turn to me and ask, "How can they do that? How can they get away with X injustice?" I have to explain to them that our laws are not about justice, but about finality. They then become upset because they spent a huge amount of money on a fight that ultimately did not get them the result they thought they deserved. Herein lies the problem. Because our system openly claims to be about justice, it creates an expectation in people that justice will be met. People go to court thinking that their plight is one deserving of some redress, when in reality, imperfect lawyers make imperfect arguments to imperfect judges who issue imperfect decisions which are typically more about finality than justice. The unfortunate term "splitting the baby" (referring to wise King Solomon) is thrown around a lot to describe the most common outcome in cases: that each party walk away with equal blame and equal responsibility.

[7/16]

After wrestling with the above question all night last night, I finally pinned it and demanded an epiphany, which it reluctantly provided. This morning, I realized that I don't have to get justice for my clients every time. This is an imperfect system and it's unrealistic to expect it to dole out justice. Rather, it's more realistic to hope that I'll see justice just some of the time. I've arbitrarily picked 10% as a reasonable goal. If I can see justice in 1 out of 10 cases, I'll be happy.

I shared this idea with a wise older lawyer in my office, who explained that not only is the system imperfect, but our clients are as well. (He described them as "dumb".) No client goes into a dispute without having made any mistakes, and it's just for them to have to account for those mistakes. Therefore, if I settle a case where the good guy pays the bad guy some money, then that may be "just" because of the failure of the good guy to adequately protect himself. If I start out every representation explaining to the client that they've made mistakes, I'll lower their expectations and not get yelled at as much when I don't get them the results they want.

Finally, Mrs. Jerkface explained to me that in the end, even if I'm not getting results for my clients, I am paying the bills, and that ought to count for something. She's right; I'd just like to feel like I'm not participating in a farcical system where people are given an expectation of justice, only to have that expectation shattered when they are hit with the harsh reality of finality.

And I'd like to win more.

"Steven Spielberg is unavailable, sir." "Then get me his non-union Mexican equivalent!"

2009-07-09T13:57:00.004-07:00

I used to wonder if Jason Chaffetz was stupid or just insane. I've decided that he's both.

1) Chaffetz is co-sponsoring an unconstitutional bill aimed at illegal immigrants. It's so cute how he thinks he can change the Constitution's citizenship requirements with an act of Congress.

2) On Chaffetz' website, he includes the text of an article talking about criticism he's received for proposing that illegal immigrants be placed in "tent cities" to await deportation. He then goes on to claim that his idea is aimed at all illegal immigrants, not just Latinos. He makes this claim despite the fact that the only ethnicity mentioned on his website talking about illegal immigration is "Mexican".

My hypothesis is further supported by the fact that he sleeps on a cot in his congressional office; lost a leg wrestling match to Stephen Colbert; subsequently whined about losing to the able-bodied Stephen; then was owned by Stephen on national television; and voted against the "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act".

After all, he's got big shoes to fill. (Although, for the record, Neil Cavuto is also a raging lunatic.)

Update 7/10/09: Really big shoes.

"Liberals, intellectuals, peacemongers, idiots!"

2009-07-06T09:52:00.002-07:00

Yesterday, I was blessed with a comment from outside my usual readership. Hopefully, this is a sign of additional comments to come. Provided, however, that I didn't scare him off with my "nievete".

"Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!"

2009-06-23T11:01:00.003-07:00

I recently took this quiz which asks the reader to read a series of quotes and then guess whether they were spoken by Ann Coulter or Adolf Hitler. I don't really think it's fair to compare Coulter to Hilter - Hitler was way smarter.

I got most of them right, missing only three, not because I am familiar with the works of either author, but because Hitler's thoughts, although crazy, were better written and clearer. Don't get me wrong, Hitler was evil and wrong about quite nearly everything (you have to admit, the Blitzkrieg was effective), but Coulter can't put two coherent thoughts together to save her life. Due to this fact, I'm sure Coulter loves being grouped with Hitler - it's a step up for her!

"The internet told us what some nerd thinks about Star Trek."

2009-06-15T09:21:00.004-07:00

At long last, I finally took a break from keeping track of my life in six-minute increments and saw me that new-fangled Star Treks movie. I really enjoyed it. I won't bother to rehash the ground already covered by the many other people who have no doubt written on why it is a great movie. Suffice it to say, I giggled like a little girl through the entire film.

Today, I was confronted many times by the question, "Did you like it better than Star Wars?" What a stupid question. Despite the fact that I have a firm answer, I find that kind of debate meaningless and detrimental. Is it not enough that we have two great movie franchises that we can enjoy? Why must we waste our time in deciding which of two great things is better? Does something have to be "better" or "the best" to be enjoyed? Absolutely not. I repeat, what a stupid question.*

I also think this is a stupid debate because there are 13 other Star Trek movies to compare it to, not to mention the 4 spin-off shows plus the original. If any debate could be had, it would be over which of the movies is the best, but that too, would be a meaningless exercise.

Rather, I am happy enough to say that I very much enjoyed the movie. Was it the best Star Trek movie ever made? I don't know, I've only seen it once. Even were I in a position to have that discussion, the bar has been set very high (Kahn, Undiscovered Country, First Contact).

And yes, I absolutely will see it again.

*Notice that rather than engage in a meaningful analysis of the issues, I resort to petty name-calling and attacking the debate itself. Yes, I am throwing away 15 years of advocacy training. Good times.

"Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies!...Lyndon LaRouche was right!"

2009-06-09T18:06:00.012-07:00

I was recently informed that I am but a shill in a multi-national, multi-species plot to enslave the human race. The source of this life-changing revelation was radical free-thinker and likely Vulcan, David Icke:

I'm still not sure exactly what his theory is, but it scared me into adding another layer to my tin foil hat. As I understand it, federal, state and local governments have given themselves the power to incorporate, thereby sidestepping constitutional law and moving themselves into the realm of maritime and contract law. This allows them to contract directly with citizens in such a way that citizens surrender their natural rights in exchange for certain "privileges" such as driving, practicing in professional trades, etc. As insidious as this sounds, it's only the tip of the iceberg.

This side-stepping of our natural rights is actually part of a far-reaching scheme to enslave the human race. This world is an illusion and every level of government in every country on the Earth has been infiltrated by a reptilian alien race from the constellation Draco:

They have successfully cross-bred with humans and can now change between their human and reptilian forms. All of our leaders are either one of these hybrids or one of their servants. I'm not sure what the Prophet Icke thinks is the aliens' ultimate goal, but I'm sure it's unpleasant. Probably something to do with cattle mutilation or rectal probing. I urge you all to learn more by trying to decipher what he says on his official YouTube channel! Human race - get off your knees!

Looks like Alec Baldwin was right.

"Oh yeah? Well, screw you guys, I'm going home!"

2009-06-04T14:22:00.010-07:00

For a long time now, I've been wrestling with my own views on legalizing gay marriage. I wasn't really interested in posting on it until today, when by chance, I came across a blog written by the author of some of my favorite books, Orson Scott Card. I wouldn't normally give two figs what an author thinks about something, but Card is also known as Brother Card, and I'm moderately interested in his non-fictional ideas. I enjoyed the books of his that I've read, and my own brother seems to enjoy most of his work, including his religious work.

Card's blog delves into a number of topics, and for the most part, was pretty good. He does stray where he spends one post making a sane point, and then in another post, goes on to betray his own argument by buying into this crap. This is a topic that deserves its own post, and may get one, if I can find a logical reason why people need to "apologize" for being a member of our religion". (It's also worth noting that I am professionally familiar with the apologist in question and find him to be an insufferable jerk.) In addition to addressing some fairly innocuous topics in interesting and thoughtful ways, he attempts to justify the LDS Church's support for Proposition 8 in California which monopolizes heterosexual marriage. He addresses these arguments in a series of posts throughout his blog.

Unfortunately, like the vast supermajority of opponents to gay marriage that I'm familiar with, Card falls short of providing a logical, secular reason why gay marriage should not be legally recognized. Card's argument seems to rest on two points: 1) gay marriage is only the result of activist judges and therefore signals the fall of democracy; and 2) gay marriage is contrary to God's law which is the same as natural law. He's only half right, but I don't think he knows it. Rather, I believe that the only argument we can make as opponents to gay marriage is religious.

Activist Judges

Card seems to think that there will be significant democratic and civic consequences to allowing judges to legalize gay marriage. I agree that there will be societal consequences, but so-called "activist" judges are part of the American system and have not yet led to its downfall. "Activist" is a term used by anyone (I'm not just looking at you, social conservatives) who doesn't like the outcome of a case. The same thing was said about New Deal judges, civil rights judges, and now "leftist" judges. It's a crap argument and I'm tired of hearing it. Gay marriage is not the source of "activist" judges, but rather, something ruled for by "activist" judges in at least a handful of states. If "activist" judges are leading to the downfall of democracy, it is not because they are supporting gay marriage, but rather because they are "activist". To say that gay marriage is causing the downfall of society because it's breeding "activist" judges is erroneous. And stupid.

Card's argument further fails because a number of states have enacted laws recognizing gay marriages, either by referendum or through their state legislatures, demonstrating that the "candid debate" has occurred (at least according to the metric he provided), and thus the democratic process has spoken. Indeed, there is nothing more democratic than that. Gay marriage is not destroying democracy, at least not in the way Card says it is.

Contrary to natural law

Card goes on in other posts to explain that homosexuality is contrary to God's law, and that God's laws are not arbitrary, but are based on natural law. I agree with him on this point. However, Card fails to explain why God's law justifies monopolizing recognition of heterosexual marriage. (This is his term and I like it. It's much more accurate than "banning gay marriage".)

Card seems to rest on the idea that marriage, or unions between two individuals, occur for the sole purpose of procreation. As I'm sure you've all heard argued before, if that's the case, then we shouldn't allow sterile people to marry. I don't buy this argument.

There is a difference between opposing gay marriage in principle and opposing its legalization. This is the same difference between an eternal marriage and a civil marriage. One has heavenly meaning, the other has legal meaning. This is a nuanced argument, but is central to the issue. I've yet to see a person make a rational, legal argument as to why we, as a society, should define marriage based on this natural law.

The argument made by most people is that heterosexual marriage leads to continuation of the species/society, and homosexual marriage doesn't. It is because of this continuation principle that we have created incentives to marry, such as successorship, tax breaks, ownership, etc. These incentives are counterproductive when sterile people marry because they cannot reproduce, yet we allow them to marry anyway. Furthermore, homosexuals can reproduce - just not biologically with each other. Card further argues that children that grow up in heterosexual homes are more likely to turn out heterosexual. He's right on this last point, but wrong on the rest of his position.

The problem with this position is that we do allow exceptions to the rule. If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then we should only incentivize relationships that lead to procreation. But we don't - we allow the sterile to marry. Because we don't, equal protection seems to demand that we allow the exceptions for everyone equally - including homosexuals who cannot procreate. Some people say that allowing the sterile to marry is an unfortunate or necessary byproduct of allowing marriage at all, but that's a crap argument as well because of the eternal purpose of marriage, as I explain below. (Card also makes a ridiculous argument that under our current system, homosexuals can seek a member of the opposite sex to enter into the contract with them, thereby gaining the benefits of the incentives. This argument not only ignores the fact that we don't require the sterile to jump through that hoop, but also the fact that the incentivization is usually tied to cohabitation.)**

The Religious Argument

All of the legitimate arguments against gay marriage can be justified by a religious understanding of the purpose of marriage. My understanding (red flag! red flag! warning: false doctrine ahead!) is that the point of marriage is to join two people together in an eternal relationship so they can become like God, thereby producing offspring in the same way God produced us. This post-resurrection procreation requires a man and a woman, and thus, we should unite with a member of the opposite sex as God has commanded so we can become like Him. If we unite with a member of the same sex, we cannot attain exaltation because we will not be like God, i.e. able to produce spiritual offspring. This is why we can allow people who are mortally sterile to marry; when they reach exaltation, they will be able to produce. (Boy, I sure hope I explained that clearly. If you didn't understand it or think I'm nuts, please see this link.) This is why a religious argument against gay marriage is consistent. On the other hand, according to this argument, we shouldn't recognize any marriages that are not eternal, but absent an established religious state, we're never going to get that.

Card also argues that allowing gay marriage necessarily requires that we start to teach that homosexual relationships are acceptable, thereby increasing the likelihood that someone who is teetering on the fence between homosexuality or heterosexuality would choose homosexuality because it is no longer disfavored (Card says that most homosexuals are actually bisexual). This is his strongest secular argument, but still ultimately fails. People are more likely to engage in a behavior because it is condoned or accepted by society - but only to an extent. There will always be people that ignore because they don't care about the punishment or consequences, or because they believe that the probability of the punishment multiplied by the severity of the punishment is less than the benefit of the illegal activity. This also doesn't address the underlying question of why the government has a legitimate interest in discouraging homosexuality. His argument assumes ab inicio that homosexuality is bad for society, which he hasn't proved. I contend that the only viable arguments to be made against homosexuality are religious and can only be justified through LDS doctrine.

After making all of these arguments, Card writes this post wherein he seems to back down from a number of these positions. He moves to the position that:

"We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a "marriage," are personally hurting anybody."

He further states:

"Only those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and express our belief that marriage is only meaningful between heterosexual couples, move into the category of enemies of freedom."

(For the record, it bugs the poop out of me when people say, "We" without authority. Since none of what he's saying is supported by official statements from those with authority, he should start saying, "I", or clarify that he's talking about himself and like-minded individuals.)

Based on his earlier argument, his first statement is incorrect. But he's definitely right about the second statement, because freedom to teach your children whatever crazy crap you want is a fundamental right. As long as we're letting people have kids without a license, parents can teach them whatever crazy nonsense comes into their heads. That's why we let parents home school their kids - because weirdos have the right to raise more weirdos.

Card finally says:

"We do not think that any belief system, whether it calls itself a religion or not, should be imposed on other people by law -- we won't impose ours on them, and we won't let them impose theirs on us or our families."

He's definitely wrong on this point. We impose our belief system every single day. We live in a society where we have adopted through common consent a belief system that is now codified and imposed on others by violence (i.e., police, jails, etc.). I think what he means to say is that we have adopted a belief system that allows people to believe and say whatever they want (with some exceptions), as long as they don't act contrary to the law. In that sense, the government is entirely within its right to recognize gay marriage and force others to recognize it as well (again, to the extent the government can).

The bottom line is that Card's "secular" arguments against gay marriage must fail, leaving only religious arguments. Because the Constitution protects the individual's right to practice his religion, we have to recognize all religions, even those whose teachings are exactly contrary to our own. This leads to an unfortunate paradox: if the only arguments we can make against gay marriage are religious, how can we justify imposing our religious beliefs on other people in a society that protects individual freedom of religion? We can amend the Constitution, but that appears to me to be imposing our religious beliefs on others, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

Now, having said all that, I tend to agree with his ultimate conclusion that gay marriages should not be recognized. But without the understanding of the eternal reasons for marriage, I don't see how we can legally justify denying it to everyone based on a secular argument. That's why I think we should stop trying to. Our reasons are religious and we should stand by that; diluting our religious argument with secular fallacies only serves to weaken the strength of our position. We might lose the religious argument, but at least we won't compromise the strength and logic of our position.

In spite of his failings, he makes a number of good points about the debate itself, the parties, and how we should treat homosexuals. I just wish he wouldn't muddle up the debate by making fallacious and misguided arguments, distracting people from the real reasons why we should oppose legalizing gay marriage.

**I'm intentionally ignoring the slippery slope argument because it is stupid, like your mom. And to his credit, Card doesn't make it.

*** The good Mr. Colbert delivered this timely piece.

"Because I called his pitbull a gaywad at 106th and Park."

2009-06-03T09:42:00.003-07:00

Yesterday, opposing counsel accused me of acting unprofessionally. I responded by referring to him as a dickwad. That showed 'em.

(In my defense, they were acting like dicks.)

"If you get rich off of this stuff, take care of my family for me - I don't want my kids to have to go to college."

2009-06-01T12:13:00.007-07:00

I really hate Glenn Beck. Due to his rampant popularity, I've read a number of his articles, listened to some of his show, and tried to learn a little about him. All I've found out is that he is an ignoramus who substitutes pandering for argument and ignores or shouts down opponents rather than engage in a lively debate. He's not Bill O'Reilly bad, but he's still quite unlikeable.

This week, he was in Utah to raise money for yet another tiny institution of higher learning/fascism indoctrination camp. While here, he was confronted by a reporter who asked him how he felt about Governor Jon Huntsman as a rising star in the Republican Party. Mr. Beck responded by briefly complimenting the Governor on a personal level, and then saying, "But if that's the future of the Republican Party, the Republican Party is over." He goes to explain that the Republican Party needs to be led by a person of conservative conviction who does not appeal to progressives and Democrats. Because if there's one thing the Republican Party needs, it's more polarizing like-it-or-lump-it leaders.

Mr. Beck, could not be more wrong. Right now, the Republican Party is facing serious fallout from eight years of the Rove "50% plus 1" doctrine. This is the idea that to win an election, you only need 50% of the vote plus 1, i.e. this guy:

Under this theory, a party can alienate and ignore moderates and appeal directly to a core constituency of hardcore followers. This doctrine led to the last eight years of "my way or the highway" policies, which American voters seemed to reject during the last election, favoring a Democratic Presidency and majorities in both the House and Senate. Beck seems to be holding on to the idea that this 50% plus 1 approach is the key to Republican survival.

Beck is wrong for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, American political parties are built on consensus, not on alienation. Successful parties choose platforms that encompass the broadest range of people possible, so as to increase the number of voters who feel like they identify with that party. As voters' opinions change and shift, as they always do, successful parties change and shift with them, constantly modifying their platform to encompass a wider cross-section of voters. Unsuccessful parties choose platforms that polarize people and force them to choose between joining the party or not. It is this strategy that led to the defeat of the Republicans in 2008. Because Huntsman falls into the former, "encompassing" group, a party that followed his philosophy would be more likely to be successful because it casts its net wider, bringing in a higher cross-section of voters. If the Republican Party rejects the more inclusive approach, it will die or be transformed into something else.

Second, the Republican Party cannot now afford to become more conservative the way I think Beck understands the word. Beck seems to espouse selective conservatism, i.e. opposing government interference in taxes, guns, etc., but espousing governmental control in areas such as marriage, religion (i.e. creating a de facto state-sponsored religion), speech (including indecent speech), etc. This type of neo-conservatism is what led to the last eight years of increasing governmental control and spending. If the Republican Party wants to survive, it needs to distance itself from the neocons, and adopt a more traditional, pre-Reagan type of conservatism. Otherwise, people are left with choosing between the progressive style of the Democrats or the Fascist style of the Republicans. I can guarantee that Americans will choose socialism over fascism any day.

I suspect that Beck is just doing what he does best: pandering to a small constituency of hardcore neocons who want to be told they they are right and that everyone else is out to get them. He arms them with the ideas and allies they feel like they need and then profits off his imagined war. He lies and distorts facts (to get the good stuff, skip to 3:05) to suit his own purposes. Unfortunately, by playing this game, he is reducing the political debate in this country into a no-compromise zero sum game - the type of atmosphere we had before the Civl War. No, what America really needs right now is people who seek to raise the level of thoughtful debate and who believe in an America that embodies the ideals and philosophies that have made America a world leader.

America also needs Glenn Beck to just shut the crap up.

Update 7-23-09: Yup, he's a nutcase.

"If your Conan lasts more than three hours, consult a doctor."

2009-02-02T17:07:00.003-07:00

This has been a surprisingly big weekend and is promising to be a great week.

1. The Superbowl. I only watched half of the SuperBowl because we had Stake Conference through the first half. I can tell I live in a rich Stake because of two things: 1) the high concentration of luxury sedans/SUV's in the parking lot; 2) the Stake President used the word, "yoke" and explained that he is not referring "to the yellow part of the egg that most of us throw away and don't eat." Stake Conference was also a parade of apocryphal stories about our holiest houses of worship. Good times.

2. Motion Practice. Today, I went to another hearing. I used to say that it was my first of its kind, which it was, but it's not my first hearing. I've been to 3 or 4 now, so now when I say that I'm experienced, it's no longer a lie, just an exaggeration. Anyway, the hearing went pretty well, and the judge indicated that our side would likely win. The official story is that we will win because of my superior advocacy skills. The truth is that the other side's major case in support of their position was overturned by the Supreme Court between the time they wrote their brief and oral argument. Oh, and we were very likely to win anyway. But hey, a win is a win.

3. TV. This week, all my favorite shows restart: Chuck, Heroes, Life, Law and Order, The Office, 30 Rock and Saturday Night Live. The great part is that last night after the SuperBowl, The Office ran an hour-long episode which was great on so many levels. My favorite line of the night: "Oscar, you're gay. Boom, roasted! Andy, Cornell called and said you suck, and you're gayer than Oscar. Boom, roasted!" It was a great episode.

4. Warmth. I hate winter. I hate snow and I hate cold. So, now that it's warmed up a bit, I'm in a much better mood. Now, if only the inversion could lift so I can go outside without risking my life, I'd be golden.

"Say 'hi' to your mother for me."

2009-01-27T16:36:00.001-07:00

I've really enjoyed SNL lately. With the exception of the episode that aired on 11/14, it's been pretty darn good, and here's why:

1. Ridiculous original musical numbers.

2. Unnecessary and excessive violence.

3. Bill Hader, Andy Samberg and Will Forte (not the best Falconer sketch, but you get the idea).

4. Brilliant satires .

5. McGruber.

6. Laser Cats.

and

7. Childish name calling.

**For the record, I don't care much for Bobby Moynaughan or Fred Armisen. I'm also lukewarm toward Kristen Wiig and Keenan Thompson.

[Update 2-4-09] - Laser Cats are back! And McGruber has finally met his equal.

"Thank you for visiting Homer's Museum of Hollywood Jerks."

2009-01-20T10:55:00.005-07:00

The prestigious Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced today their nominations for the best work in movies during 2008, a/k/a the "Oscars". I don't care much for the Oscars. I've never really liked them much anyway, but they lost all credibility in my eyes when "Chicago" beat "The Two Towers" for best picture. What a crock! Another robbery that year was snubbing Andy Serkis for best supporting actor, but I digress. Despite my many disagreements with the Academy's choices, this year I do agree on one thing: Wall-E does not deserve a best picture nomination. I will concede that I have not seen the other best picture nominees (nor will I), but I can say this: there were many other films last year that were much, much better than Wall-E. Don't get me wrong, Wall-E had its moments and was certainly not a bad film. However, I certainly don't think it was among the best movies I've ever seen, either. For example, "Dark Knight" was a much better movie (despite getting long-winded and preachy at the end).

I diverge from the rest of humanity because I don't absolutely love Pixar movies. My kid loves them, especially Wall-E, and that's great. I'm glad that he does. But he's three. He's not going to like a movie because of its plot, editing or stellar acting. See, Wall-E suffers from two of the major problems that accompany most Pixar movies: they are way too long and way too preachy. Wall-E could have benefited from a little more time in the editing room, especially toward the end when it started beating the audience over the head about its waste/laziness message. Come on, I know that your audience is only three years old, but they don't need to be told again and again about how awful it is to pollute the planet! They already know that! Shut up, already!

I have the same problem with "Cars". The first 15 minutes and the last 30 minutes of the movie were great. The 1:15 between them were unbearably long, preachy and annoying. I understand that you lament the loss of the slower lifestyle of the 40's and 50's, and that old things can still be useful, but did you really have to put in some long, boring, sappy and sad James Taylor song to make your point? And did you really have to give us over an hour of movie where virtually nothing happened? They could have skipped the whole storyline about the town being forgotten and just stuck with the Doc Hudson storyline to make the same point without being redundant. Learn to edit, morons!

I also hated "Finding Nemo", "The Incredibles", and "A Bug's Life" for the same reasons. The more watchable Pixar films were "Monsters, Inc.", "Toy Story" (which remains their best work), and "Toy Story 2" (minus the whole lost and abandoned toy storyline surrounding girl Woody). And among that list, even Monsters, Inc. was longer than it should have been.

My point is that for some inexplicable reason, people love Pixar movies and believe that they can do no wrong. People are dumb. Pixar needs an editor and a good kick in the mouth. Then they can start making movies again.

I also hate:

Renée Zellweger - Squinty-eyed spinster;

Chris Columbus - How on earth can you make the first two Harry Potter books boring? Really? And "Christmas with the Kranks"? You should be ashamed to ever show your face in public again.;

Julia Roberts - It's funny that they cast a horse as a hooker.;

Roland Emmerich - Why do people keep throwing money at you when your movies just keep getting worse and worse?; and

Angelina Jolie - Maybe I'm gay, but I don't find her attractive in the slightest. No, even gay people like her. She's a pretentious, snooty, self-important jerk. I also don't think much of her as an actress.

Obviously, this list could be much longer, but I've lost interest.

The final reason why I hate the Oscars is pretty tangential, but it's because people are surprised when actors do stupid stuff. I have news for you: actors are the drama kids from high school! I knew many of the drama kids, and only a few of them turned out normal (the ones that either got out of entertainment or parlayed their skills into real jobs). The rest of them were, and remain, total freaks who make poor life choices and are increasingly messed up as they gain fame and attention. We shouldn't be surprised that the weird behavior they exhibit is only exacerbated by their incredible wealth and attention. Please understand, I'm not complaining that actors behave like teenagers, rather, my complaint is with people having higher expectations of them. Actors are, for the most part, dumb. End of story.

"'Chinaman' is not the preferred nomenclature!"

2008-12-10T14:16:00.002-07:00

I work on the third floor of a 6-story building with separate offices on each floor. In the basement of the building, there are a few business, including a Chinese restaurant. Ever since I lived on the border of Chinatown in our nation's unrepresented capital, I have not been able to tolerate in the least the smell of Chinese food. It would permeate the air and choke all who wafted in its unsavory stench. After I moved, I thought that was over, but alas, I was wrong. Due to some completely incomprehensible reason, the smell of Chinese food from downstairs saturates the hallways outside our office. This is particularly onerous because I have to traverse these halls to get from one side of the office to the other, and to use our seriously wanting facilities. Fortunately, our lease is up in a year, and we're going to move. But until then, I will whine and cry and moan about it.

Update 4-6-10 - the Chinese Restaurant, "Kwans" has finally closed. Good riddance. Now to get rid of the crappy dry cleaning place that ruined my suitpants and the stupid barber who ruined my hair.

"And if you really tick me off, I'm going to run you down with my car."

2008-11-19T08:49:00.003-07:00

Holy crap, I agree with Mitt Romney. . . on the economy!

"In theory. Communism works - in theory."

2008-11-15T04:23:00.000-07:00

I hate Ronald Reagan. I hate him so much. One of the things I hate him for is how much credit he gets for ending the Cold War. Despite the fact that Soviet communism was dying before Reagan even came to office and that George Bush, Sr. was the instrumental figure in bringing down the Berlin Wall and reuniting Germany, it was more the inherent inability of communism to work that killed it - not Ronald Reagan. He was just lucky enough to be in charge when its collapse became imminent in the late 80's.

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the Cold War and I have developed a theory. When Leninism first began to gain popularity in Russia, the United States became openly hostile to the idea of communism. We made arguments that it was godless, deprived people of their freedom, would lead to the downfall of humanity, etc., which all may be legitimate arguments. Nevertheless, we didn't do much about it on the international stage until after the Soviet Revolution. Even then, we didn't do that much until after WWII when Stalin took the spoils of war and built an empire.

That's what I think the Cold War was about - not communism, but empire. The United States had just won its second world war and was set to become the global power of the next century. After the defeat of Germany and Japan, the only thing that stood in the way of our total world domination was the Soviet Union - the only country left with the military resources to challenge us.

This is even more true in light of how world hegemony has developed since the 1980's. Think of the remaining communist nations in the world and how the U.S. deals with them. The big glaring omission from our "anti-communist" history is China. (We have continued our embargo on Cuba, but Cuba is insignificant. We don't lose all that much from the embargo and now it's taken on a more symbolic meaning than anything else.) China is the largest country on the earth, possesses the largest military, is close to developing the largest economy, and is openly Communist. Despite that fact, we still trade heavily with them (they have MFN status), ignore their horribly repressive government, and are increasing relations with them every day.

There are a lot of reasons for our continued love/hate relationship with China, but the point is that if the U.S. were really anti-communist, we would be fighting against Chinese expansion tooth and nail. My point is that we were not anti-communist, but anti-Soviet. Nowhere is this difference more clear than in the doctrine of Containment. (Containment is basically the idea that Soviet Russia wanted to expand and enact xenophobic policies and we should do everything we could to stop them.) Containment was about stopping Soviet power, not communism. If the Soviets had been monarchs, we still would have opposed their expansion into other countries because they spread xenophobia and believed in empire. Obviously, that's bad for business.

Clearly, I am making this argument as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to change America into a communist nation. We achieved a major victory in electing that socialist, Obama, and now it's only a matter of time before America finally becomes the worker's paradise we've always wanted. However, I am willing to abandon this pinko plot in exchange for a solemn oath never to name anything else after Ronald Reagan. Except maybe the border fence, which I suggest you style, "The Ronald Reagan Useless Barrier for American Xenophobia and Racism."

"And Maggie is having fun in her swing-a-majig."

2008-11-11T16:44:00.003-07:00

I am sometimes surprised by how badly things are designed. Mrs. Jerkface and I recently had our second child, and naturally, we had to buy all new stuff for her. Among the items we bought was a playpen that has a spinning mobile. The mobile is like all other mobiles, you wind it up and it spins around while playing a song. However, I have found at least three defects in the mobile that I think are serious enough that I will never use it.

First and foremost: it winds up. It's my understanding that a mobile is installed with the purpose of soothing the baby to sleep. It's also my understanding that babies are often startled awake by loud, grinding noises. So why for pete's sake would a mobile have a loud, grinding wind-up system as its only method of activation? In order to start it up, I have to wind it up, waking up the baby. This foolishness is grounds for public flogging.

Not only is the loudness of the windup feature an absolute bar to its use, the mobile only functions independently for about a minute and a half. Now, my experience with babies is very limited (I have a no-exceptions policy of not interacting with babies that aren't my own), but it seems to me that there are few, if any, babies that are soothed in a minute and a half, especially if mom or dad is looking for some baby down-time.

A simple solution to both of these problems would be to make the toy battery operated. Then, it can start without that irritating loud grinding and it can run continuously until baby is asleep. Again, more proof that I am smarter than everyone else.

My second problem with the mobile is that the bears that are hanging from it are attached at the neck. This gives the impression that the bears are all being hung...by the neck. It's more than a little creepy. (I'll include a picture if I remember.)

My final quarrel with the mobile applies to pretty much every toy I've encountered since the births of my children: it's too loud. The sound is nearly deafening to me, and I don't have sensitive baby ears. The same goes for all of Little Jerkface One's toys. I've had to open up several and muffle the speakers, or simply remove the batteries for me to feel comfortable with him playing with them. I understand that toy companies feel that when a child is looking at two toys side by side, they'll probably pick the louder one, but for crying out loud, does it have to be that loud?

I propose that the readers of this blog write a petition to Graco and Carter's asking them to. . . oh, I don't care enough to do anything about it. I'll just keep circumventing the design of the toys as part of my quest to slowly undermine society and turn my kids into weird anti-social outcasts.

"He prefers the company of men." "Who doesn't?"

2008-11-10T16:14:00.003-07:00

I love me a good protest. When I lived in D.C., I used to see them all the time. But now that I live in the nation's most complacent state, I just don't get to see them that often anymore. However, last Friday I was treated to a great protest right outside my office. A group of upset opponents of California's Proposition 8 gathered on the corner opposite the LDS Church Office Building to protest the LDS Church's involvement in supporting Prop. 8. It was a pretty impressive protest (please take the time to ignore the almost 1,500 comments left on that story). As always, I have a few observations.

First, their initial chant was terrible! It was, "The people have voted - you are intolerant." I'm not sure who came up with it, but they made a couple of mistakes. First, it's not catchy nor memorable. Second, it's way too long - twelve syllables, for crying out loud! Finally, it doesn't make much sense. Yes, the people voted, however, the majority voted in line with the position the LDS Church took, so I don't see how the people's vote shows that the LDS Church is intolerant. I guess the Church could be labeled as intolerant, but it's not because the people voted.

Fortunately, by the time they started marching around Temple Square, they picked a new chant, "Se-pa-rate church and state!" Now, that's a good chant! It's on message, short, rhyming and memorable.

Second, I was pretty proud of the people who showed up in support of Prop. 8. They didn't have the usual signs reflecting the bigotry and intolerance usually espoused by religious folks who oppose gay marriage. Rather, the signs included phrases such as, "God loves you" and "Proud to be Mormon". It was much less charged than I expected. It goes to show that people can be good and reasonable. It was a real breath of fresh air.

Third, I was also pretty happy with the LDS Church's response to the passing of Prop. 8. I think it did a good job of stating why the Church supported the amendment and the extent of its position. I'm glad that the Church came out and stated what I believe to be the correct position: that we should not discriminate against homosexuals, but we must not back down when it comes to protecting male/female marriage.

Finally, I take issue with the Church's official statement on the protests (both in Utah and California). The relevant portion reads as follows:

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to
make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred
places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

I will concede that it's possible that this is just poor word choice. Their intent might have been to say, "it is wrong to target the Church's sacred places of worship." However, given the amount of thought that must of have been put into this, I presume that the wording is intentional. Therefore, I disagree with the first part of the statement. I believe that if a party ('party' in the legal sense of the word - meaning 'entity') decides to enter the public debate in this country, they must also live with the consequences. If you come out in support of a position, you must be ready to deal with democratic backlash, including the right of your opponents to exercise their freedoms of speech and assembly. The Church shouldn't feel as though it is being unfairly targeted for becoming involved in the debate. While the backlash they have received might be disproportionate to their invovlement, that doesn't change the fact that they opened themselves up to receive it.

On the other hand, I agree with the second part of the statement which condemns protests outside places of worship. Places of worship are sacred, no matter the religion, and I don't feel that it's appropriate to protest outside them. I'm glad that the Utah organizers chose to do it was after business hours so it didn't disrupt the normal operations there and in the surrounding buildings downtown.

In the end, I'm glad that I live in a country where these kinds of debates and protests can take place and I'm willing to take the bad with the good. Look at me, ending on an upbeat, philosophical note and stating an opinion that people couldn't possibly disagree with. Maybe I should write sitcoms.

"I'm sorry, but all of the animals have been reserved for celebrities. But there are still rocks...thousand and thousands of rocks."

2008-11-07T18:32:00.010-07:00

Two things:

First, I was searching for a quote to use as a title to this post, when I had quite a nice surprise. I ran a Google search for the quote, and my blog came up as the second hit! Look at me!:

I have to admit, I was very excited.

Second, I saw an hilarious take on the societal significance of Obama winning the presidency. Once again, Larry Wilmore hits the spot!

"I'm Ralph Wiggum, and I've been a good boy."

2008-11-05T11:27:00.003-07:00

Good morning, Comrades!

I have a few thoughts about the election.

First, I am very happy with the results. I believe that Barack Obama will be a great president and that he will work to inspire Americans to become better and work harder so that we can once again become a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.

Second, John McCain was a real class act. His concession speech was well-written, centrist, inspiring, and sincere. He even quieted the boos and catcalls against his opponents. If he had given more speeches like that during the campaign, he might have won. Also, I think it's funny that while Obama had a huge outdoor public gathering that anyone could attend, McCain, in true Republican fashion, had a small gathering of invite-only guests at a fancy hotel.

Third, KSL is the second-worst news station in Utah. Not only did their break-aways add nothing to the coverage being provided, they also spent a half-hour interviewing nobodies and wasting time with meaningless reporter mumbo-jumbo while NBC national was calling the election for Obama. It took 10 minutes before we even heard which state pushed him over the top. I would have liked to have watched another station, but since I live in a dank cave, KSL is the only station I can get with a clear signal. Hey, KSL, if you're Utah's number one news source, then maybe you can afford some producers that have a clue!

Fourth, I was disappointed with the coverage provided by all the news outlets (that I could see) after they called the election. Once they called Virginia for Obama, they stopped reporting on the election and went straight into "perspective" mode, analyzing how "historic" and "ground-breaking" this election was. The election wasn't over! As of the time I'm posting this entry, it's still not over! Missouri and North Carolina are still reporting. Plus, I think it's fair to say that history will be the judge of what is historical.

Fifth, I have mixed feelings over whether or not this is a victory for African-Americans. Obama is only half black ("Tina, it's not half-black history month.") and in either event, his race didn't affect my vote at all. On the other hand, it does show that racism is dying in our country - especially since it appears that the polls were correct in showing him in the lead. My only worry is that people might attribute his victory to "white guilt" or some other phenomenon that forced people to vote for a black person over any other candidate. I believe that Obama's appeal came not from his race, but from his personality and party affiliation (Thanks to W., it's a tough time to be Republican). As far as I am concerned, Obama won it on his credentials as a politician and a person, despite anything Justice Thomas says or does to the contrary.

Sixth, I thought that Obama's acceptance speech was great. It ran about two minutes too long, but otherwise it was very well done. It was inspiring, energizing, reassuring, and showed us what Obama can really do. I'm looking forward to the next eight years. (That's right, EIGHT!)

Finally, I hope that SNL gets someone else to play Obama. There's a lot of comedy to be had there, and it's going untapped with Fred Armisen doing the character.

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"

2008-11-04T14:16:00.000-07:00

Don't forget to vote (Obama) today!

"Quoth the Raven, "Eat my shorts!"

2008-10-30T17:30:00.003-07:00

This is still the absolute best interpretation of this classic work.

"I am so dang Totally Awesome that satan encourages his angles to fight me every where he can as I am one of his greatest enemies."

2008-10-05T18:04:00.007-07:00

Utah seems to be a haven for crazy politicians. We've got folks like Chris Buttars, Greg Hughes, and many more. Therefore, I shouldn't be surprised that we can produce what is quite possibly, the best candidate for governor ever seen in the history of our great state: Dell Schanze. This man has taken Utah politics to a new level, and I for one, invite his candidacy. His positions put into stark relief how utterly normal our current Governor is. Here are a few quotes from his website:

1.

The vast majority of media in Utah is controlled by satan.

I'm SUPERDELL; don't even allow the dark side to put a spark of doubt as to my
intentions and goodness.

The vast majority of Utah wants lower energy costs; running cars on water is
legit and proven, I'm the candidate that will pull Huntsman out of our gas holes
and I believe I can lower energy costs by at least 90%. You have no choice but
to vote for me.

I also took the title of this post from his website - verbatim. There are a number of errors, including capitalization, grammar, and word juxtaposition, all of which I left in place for your benefit!

I also encourage you to read his official statement from the voter information pamphlet because apparently, even according to SuperDell, I would be a better governor than him. Is there anything he isn't right about?

"Wayne Jarvis, Attorney at Law. I have a responsibility to tell you there is no candy in this room."

2008-09-26T17:21:00.002-07:00

Like all pundits and commentators, I make mistakes. However, unlike most pundits and commentators, I admit them. Here are two examples of times where I made a claim that came back to bite me in the butt:

1. Insignificant? Really?

In October 2007, I wrote a post about my favorite and least favorite Republican candidates, and I made the following statement:

However, the middle candidates (McCain, Huckabee, Brownstreak, I mean Brownback,
Paul, etc.) are really too insignificant to make a difference, so screw 'em.

So....I'm a moron.

2. Experience...who needs that?

In December 2007, I wrote this post about Ron Paul. No, I haven't decided that I like Ron Paul - he's still a raving lunatic. Rather, I made this criticism:

Dr. Paul believes a lot of other crazy things like ending
natural birth citizenship, withdrawing from the WTO, lifting all limits on the Second Amendment, that only a few years of mediocre congressional service qualifies you to be president...

Oh, 2007 Daniel, if only could have seen into the...past. In November 2007 (3 weeks prior to my Ron Paul post), I wrote the following:

The candidate that I've started to get behind is Barack Obama. Man, I love that
guy.

Crapnuts. I'm a moron and a hypocrite. I guess I could say in my defense that Obama's four years in the Senate have been more productive than Paul's, and I would sound like a weasel.

It looks like I not only missed the mark with Republican primary, but I also screwed myself over with the Democratic nomination. But, like all pundits, I will stubbornly stand by my choice despite all of the hypocritical statements I make to the contrary [cough Glenn Beck cough].

"Let's hear that dirty word again: Socialism!"

2008-09-24T16:51:00.002-07:00

Well, it's finally happened. No, I misspoke, it's happened again. President Bush has once again completely turned away from everything he promised in his campaign, rhetoric, platform, and doctrine.

I wonder if many Republicans feel awkward about supporting the President. How do you support the Party without supporting the President that has done such a good job of gutting it?

The real irony? That Republicans called John Kerry a flip-flopper.

"This time we're taking you to Disneyland for real."

2008-09-21T18:58:00.001-07:00

This is where I'm taking my family on our next big vacation:

http://libertylandfuncenter.com/

"And now, kicking ass and taking minds, it's Mentok, the Mind-taker!"

2008-08-27T17:45:00.003-07:00

I had my first trial today. I was only a little nervous, but it faded away completely when I walked into the courtroom. I was arguing and objecting and cross-examining just like always. It was a load of fun.

I love this job. I love suing people, I love sending threatening letters, I love arguing with other attorneys, I love picking apart pleadings, and I especially love going to court. The only thing that would make it more rewarding is more money.

The irony of today's hearing is that while I feel that I did a good job defending my client, my professional judgment is that he'll probably still have to pay the fine. Unfortunately, I don't find out for at least 3 months. Nuts.

[Editor's note: I won.]

"I'm sure they're very nice boys, but they're clearly nerds."

2008-08-19T18:43:00.004-07:00

I am a self-proclaimed dork. I pride myself on my nerdiness and will often pit myself against other nerds in a nerd-off. I have rarely been beaten. Nevertheless, I find my nerdiness being challenged from all sides and by many unlikely people.

For my seventh grade class panoramic picture, I held my calculator (an HP 48G) up to my chest so it could be in the picture. When the picture was released to the student body, I was amazed at how many threats, including death threats, were made against me for my outrageous display of nerdiness. Of course, this only made me feel better about displaying my captivating mistress, Isabel.

Now, everyone from doctors and lawyers to real estate agents, construction workers and self-important mid-level nobodies in lame dead-end jobs carry a host of incredibly nerdy devices on themselves in ways that even I have to laugh at. I see people carrying giant pocket PCs in hip holsters. Holsters! Before, if I saw someone wearing their palm pilot or calculator in a holster, I had to suppress the urge to give them a wedgie. (I assume the holster is necessary to be competitive when facing off against other nerds-in-denial in quickdraw contests.) Even worse than the holster is the wireless headset. I'm not opposed to the idea of a wireless headset per se. However, I am opposed to people wearing them all of the time. I can think of nothing nerdier than walking around in public with a big ear/mouthpiece awkwardly sticking out of your head. Even I want to punch people like that, and not just for the rudeness factor. I wonder how many people would stop doing it if they realized that it is the realization of technology from Star Trek.

I suppose that I'm just bitter because my societal niche is being coopted. I define myself by my nerdiness and now I'm being surpassed by the same people that I resented for getting ahead in life by making fun of my nerdiness. Alas, being a nerd, I should have seen it coming. After taking away my joy, my security, my interests, and my self-esteem, it is only fitting that they should take away my identity. But I will press on, because in the end, my calculator is still way, way, way, way, better than my BlackBerry. Way better.

Tuesday night bar review

2008-08-10T18:09:00.003-07:00

A few weeks ago, I had my first-ever court appearance. In spite of a whole host of things that went wrong, it was pretty educational. The most educational part was when I stepped into the hall to set up a schedule with opposing counsel. As we walked out, I smelled the distinct sifter of alcohol. I thought it might have been one of the non-bar individuals in the courtroom (who were a shady bunch since this was a criminal hearing), but realized I was mistaken when I sat down on a bench with no one else in the vicinity but my government counterpart. I have rarely smelled such a strong scent of alcohol as I smelled from Mr. Assistant Attorney General. I guess that’s why they call it the bar association. (Ha ha ha ha ha. I kill me.)

Note: The original title of this post wouldn't fit in the space alotted, so I am republishing it here:

“Honey, all this power of deduction stuff is cute, but I’ve got two lives in my hands here. Two souls depending on me giving the performance of my life in that courtroom tomorrow.” “Scotch?” “Hell, ya! Let’s get stinko!”

"And I knew that you wouldn't take the bus because you always say that public transportation is for losers."

2008-07-10T17:06:00.003-07:00

I have been commuting to work lately which requires me to take an hour and ten minute bus ride every day. This isn't the first time I've regularly taken the bus, but it has brought to light several things that I would change about public transportation.

First, all riders must be required to have taken a shower within 36 hours prior to boarding. Apparently, if you take public transportation you are less likely to have showered than not. Along this same line, I would also change the way the bus recirculates air. Currently, it sucks in the air near the front and blows it out the back. This causes the stinky air to be blown throughout the entire bus. There has to be a better way.

Second, there must be no talking. I don't know what it is about public transportation users that makes them think that they can talk to you, but they ignore the fact that I'm wearing headphones and looking out the window or reading when they start to tell me about where they're going and why. It's very annoying, especially when coupled with my first complaint. This rule also applies to conversations between people who are riding together and people on cell phones. Because buses are noisy, people tend to raise their voices when talking and it makes an already irritating behavior even worse.

Third, Utah needs more bus routes. I have to ride for over an hour one way and nearly an hour the other to make a trip that takes me 20 minutes each way by car. I wouldn't complain except that my car route goes from one major road, over another major road, to another major road, yet the only way for me to get from my stop to my work is to take an incredibly long back route.

Despite these complaints, I am still grateful for the public transportation system that exists. While I would like it to be more comprehensive and commuter-friendly, I really enjoy some parts of it. I love Frontrunner because there are few things in life more entertaining than riding along the Wasatch front looking out a second story window into the backyards of trailer parks and low-income housing tracts.

"Somebody please give me a job. I play nerd. I do nude scene. Don't make me punch your throat!"

2008-06-03T21:40:00.004-07:00

Today's post is going to follow a less traditional format. That is, it won't be following a format. I have a few thoughts about some random subjects.

First, Hallelujah, Obama's clinched the win! Oh wait, that was premature. Now he's won. No wait, it's still unclear. Aw crap, let's just call it and make it a reality. The press coverage on today's primaries has been terrible. They should just wait until Clinton concedes because until she does, it's not over. Party hardliners, including most party leaders, would rather see her as the candidate than Obama so in my mind, it's not over until she says it is. If she does eventually concede, I hope Obama tells her where to stick her stinking, party-splitting, overlong and over-boring sorry sack. Obama should give the VP nod to Edwards who bowed out of the race early and with class. Besides, Edwards will help sway Southern voters, a crowd Obama will not win with Clinton as his running mate.

Second, Congratulations to my brother who just birthed his second spawn. He labored for a long time and it was a very difficult and physically demanding process for him. And I think his wife might have helped a bit.

Third, I love the Simpsons. I love the old stuff, the new stuff and the movie. I love most of the commentary and I love owning the DVD's. I just wish there were some technology that would allow me to watch the episodes I have in random order. I could, but there are a number of digital intellectual rights restrictions, a lack of available technology and generalized laziness (one of my more common maladies). As an aside, I really liked this season's, "Apocalypse Cow" and "Any Given Sundance".

Finally, if there were someone whose throat I could punch to get a job, I'd do it. I wouldn't even have to worry about the repercussions because I know a good lawyer who can represent me for free!

"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem!"

2008-05-14T21:40:00.003-07:00

My state is home to a minor league baseball team, the Bees. They're pushing their season through a series of television ads naming the teams they will be playing against. I didn't pay much attention to the ads until I heard the name of one of the teams they'll be playing against: the Albuquerque Isotopes. Sound familiar? It should. Some of you may remember that Homer Simpson staged a week-long hunger strike protesting the relocation of his beloved Springfield Isotopes to Albuquerque! For a second I thought it might just be the result of poor research or keen irony on the part of the 'Topes owners. However, the Simpson's episode featuring Hungry, Hungry Homer (which is, coincidentally, the title of the episode) first aired on March 4, 2001, almost three years before Albuquerque acquired and named their team. (I apologize for the Wikipedia link, I couldn't find anything better.) I think that the Albuquerque team should show some class and change the name of their team to something more original! It just goes to show what kind of morons actually like minor league baseball.

Oh, wait. I just finished reading the Wikipedia article. I guess the team name was chosen by fans through a television poll. Okay, that actually makes it pretty cool. That, and I recently attended a Bees game and it was great fun.

Crap.

"Jerkface killed YourMom"

2008-05-07T18:53:00.004-07:00

Star Wars Battlefront II: Great game or greatest game?

I love Battlefront II. I just can't express enough how much I love it and here's why:

First, Battlefront I was great. It was fun to get into full-scale combat in the Star Wars universe. In Battlefront II, they took the great things about I and expanded them. They added more maps, more characters, more units, and more options. A lot of people were disappointed that it was so much like the first version, but I disagree; I think it was great that they stayed so true to the original. My only complaint is that they left out the Rhen Var and Bespin levels. Let us pray they either release an expansion or include them in BF III.

Second, I love the frenzy of battle. I love how crazy battles can be, with grenades going off all around you, people falling to the left and the right, troops running frantically around the map, and the sheer volume of units on the ground - especially during the campaign. The game's ability to simulate battle is, in my opinion, unparalleled in the video game world.

Third, I love the heroes. I know that I might be alone here, but I love running around as Anakin or Obi-Wan or even Yoda or Boba Fett (but not Leia. What a loser!) and just blasting or slicing the heck out of everyone. Just today I got a 61 killing spree as Darth Maul. 61! It was awesome.

Fourth, I love the campaign. Not only is the gameplay just awesome, but the story is also way above par for a video game. Granted, it's coming from pretty good source material, but they did a very good job of finding a new and unique way of exploring the Star Wars universe. Plus there are no irritating accents to deal with (R6V, when will you learn?).

Fifth, I love killing Jawas. It's one of the most difficult scenarios in the game, but hunting Jawas is almost the most gratifying thing I can do in any video game.

Sixth, I love the control. I love that you can play all of the maps in different ways with different eras. I love that you can change the scores, who gets the hero, etc. I also love how much you can customize your controls (Infantry, Hero, Vehicle, Starfighter, etc.). It's unheard of!

I don't care what other people say, releasing a sequel that is very similar to an already near-perfect original is not a mistake - it's smart. Let's just hope that if they do decide to wide release another sequel that it will be at least as good as this one.

In conclusion, I love Battlefront so much, I want to take it out behind the middle school and get it pregnant. Maybe our love child will be a great third installment that includes the missing maps from I and hero starships to boot.

"Charlton Heston Is My President"

2008-05-01T16:53:00.005-07:00

No, he's not. I did however have another great shooting experience. This time I took my little sister and my wife shooting in the foothills behind my house. We started by shooting the .22 rifle which was an old pump action Winchester rifle (I can't even find a picture of it) and it was super good fun. I really enjoy shooting the .22 because it's like shooting a high-power pellet gun - it's all about precision rather than power. We had a little marksman contest and my little sister beat me but I feel no shame. If you knew my little sister, you wouldn't be surprised nor would you feel that I had been humiliated. She's actually quite good. While we were shooting the .22, my little sister said to me, "I don't see where the power trip comes from." I told her to wait.

We next fired the AR-15. It is so choice. While the actual bullet is little bigger than the .22 (it's only a .223 caliber, so 3/1000ths of a millimeter bigger - I think), there is about 5 times the powder behind it. That's a gun that lets you feel the power trip. It feels so sleek in your hands and its firing mechanism is just a work of art. We shot at an international law textbook that I couldn't sell back and we confirmed one of my theories: that if someone were to shoot at me with a handgun, the textbooks in my backpack would probably be able to stop a bullet. From about 50 feet, the bullet didn't even make it through the table of contents. On the other hand, it obliterated the pink lady apples we brought along. At one point, I was demonstrating how to fire it and I thought, "I'm only shooting one round, I'm not going to need ear protection." Nope. I felt like my ears had been punched, hard. It's a very loud gun.

After that, we shot a 12 gauge shotgun. Both of my chromosonally uniform companions had the same problem - it almost knocked them over. It also obliterated the pink lady apples, as well as the small bottles, the big can, and it blew this hole in Carter's International Law:

It would have blown out the entire back of the book had it not been on the ground. Clearly, my book would not have done much against a shotgun at close range.

Once again, this experience taught me some valuable lessons. First, the killing power of the AR-15 is incredible. On the marquee at the gun store they had the following two phrases:

Barak says you don't need high capacity mags - get some quick

(I know, they spelled 'Barack' wrong); and

Hillary says you don't need an AR - get one while you still can

They're right. We shot an AR-15 with 30 round magazines. The AR has an incredible range, is very accurate, and firing off 30 rounds in rapid succession wouldn't do too much to decrease your accuracy. If I wanted to kill a whole bunch of people really fast, that would be a pretty effective way of doing it. Unless you're hunting one of nature's super animals like the flying squirrel or the electric eel, you don't need one and you probably shouldn't have one. The potential for violent, illegitimate use is too great to justify allowing everyday people to own such a powerful weapon.

Second, shotguns are much more deadly than I previously gave them credit for. If you're buying a gun to stop intruders in your house, I recommend getting a shotgun. You can both stop the intruder and repaint your walls at the same time! Win-win! It's no surprise that it's so effective against the Flood, but I digress. My point is that if you're worried about home intruders or the government taking your food, a shotgun is a pretty good way of stopping them. It's not as kill-y as the AR because of it's limited ammo capacity and range, but it's still a very effective close range weapon capable of protecting you and your loved ones from the bloated socialist government that so greedily wants to take away your guns and rights. But mostly your guns.

Rest in peace, Moses.

"Soy un perdador. I'm a loser, baby..."

2008-04-04T21:21:00.004-07:00

I hate Glenn Beck. I hate him so much. I hate him for the same reason I hate most pundits: they spew ideas that rile people up just so they can keep a job. Mr. Beck is just the latest incarnation of Rush Limbaugh and he doesn't provide any new ideas or real insight. Here's the example that got me so riled up.

Today on CNN.com, Mr. Beck authored the following comment:

Yes, times are tough for many. Sure, oil companies make a lot of cash. But, for that money, they get us to work, get ambulances to the hospital, keep our homes warm, and employ thousands of our friends and neighbors while financing their retirement, paying their health care, and providing energy to millions. Because of capitalism, they have the incentive to do that. I've yet to see what our government does for us with their rather large chunk of each gallon of gas we buy, and I've yet to see them offer to return it or suggest a gas-tax-windfall-tax-tax.

1. Sure, but your argument is still bogus.

Mr. Beck falls into one of the common rhetorical traps: use the word 'sure' and people will dismiss the negative statement that is to follow. A more correct rendering of the offending sentence would be:

Oil companies make a lot of cash.

Yes they do, Mr. Beck. Mr. Beck here is making the argument that it's okay that oil companies make huge profits because they are providing the country with an essential service. I disagree. I feel that it is precisely because they provide and essential service that their profits should be regulated. They have the ability to hold the country hostage and demand more profits. Because they essentially have a monopoly, the only thing standing between them and milking Americans for every penny they can get is governmental regulation.

2. Tax and spend, baby!

Beck's second argument is that the government makes a huge amount of money with gas taxes and doesn't do anything with it. With some due respect, Mr. Beck, you are wrong. Gas taxes are reinvested by the state (including Feds) in roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects. I think that Mr. Beck should also note that while gas prices have gone up, the tax has remained relatively constant. Gas taxes are a fixed dollar amount per gallon rather than a percentage of the total cost. When gas prices go up, the government still gets the same amount of money - oil companies get the rest. Check your facts, jerk!

If Mr. Beck wants to start making real arguments instead of mere pandering, he's welcome to visit this website which provides some rather intelligent (and almost persuasive) arguments as to why the system is the way it is and why it should stay that way. There is an interesting article on the history of the gas tax. They also argue that oil companies are not mere profit machines. I disagree, but I'll save that for another day.

"Increase my killing power, eh?"

2008-01-30T18:37:00.001-07:00

Today I had the most fun I've ever had shooting guns. My little brother and I went to Impact Guns in Ogden and took advantage of their in-store shooting range and inventory of guns for rent - including machine guns. We rented the MP5 - a submachine gun (fully auto, just with smaller ammo). The clerk kindly explained how to use it. He explained that it fires up and to the left (to hit your target, aim down and to the right of it). He also showed us the three settings - "safe, single fire, rock and roll".

It was incredible. There are few things in life quite as much fun as holding a sleek, comfortable gun in your hands, butting it up against your shoulder, gently squeezing the trigger and then having bullet after bullet fly out of the barrel in rapid sequence. On auto, one quick squeeze of the trigger releases around 3 shots. Holding it down releases oh so many more. It is so choice.

The cost isn't bad. You can call them to get their current rates, but for about $50, you can fire about 100 rounds, but I recommend getting more. I really enjoyed the staff, the facility was nice, and if you pay to rent one machine gun, you can trade it for any other machine gun or pistol for free. (You can always trade a pistol for another without additional cost.) In addition to the MP5, we shot a Sig Sauer, a Beretta, and a Glock. The Glock has a laser sight which was incredibly fun.

That being said, I have a number of other observations about my experience.

The Store
The first thing I noticed about the store even as I pulled into the parking lot was that every store employee was armed. Not only were they armed, but their weapons were all ready to fire (i.e. there was a round in the chamber and the hammer was cocked). This struck me as both a sensible precaution (I mean, they do let people rent machine guns inside the store) and crazy. It might just be all the liberal brainwashing I've been through, but it doesn't seem to me that there are any places outside a war zone where such a precaution is necessary. Even if they wanted to remain armed, keeping their weapons in ready-fire mode seems excessive.

Gun Control
Now that I have fired an automatic weapon, I am even more certain of my belief that they should be absolutely illegal. No private citizen should ever own an automatic weapon. Ever. They are deadly, dangerous, and powerful. The amount of damage that such a weapon can do in the hands of a skilled user is staggering. My little brother and I - amateurs at best - were more accurate with the machine gun than with any of the pistols. I cannot imagine how the VTech or any of the recent mall shootings would have been had the shooter been wielding the gun I held today. Even on single shot, the ability to quickly squeeze off rounds makes this class of weapon frighteningly deadly.

I also believe that handguns should be much harder to get and much less prolific. I fired three different handguns today (all of the same caliber - 9mm) and was in awe of the power of each one in my hands. We were shooting at a paper target and just left little holes. That makes it hard to imagine what it would do to flesh and bone, but the kick, the heat and the weight of each one made them intimidating weapons. I don't trust most people to be able to use that power responsibly.

Today's experience also cemented something that I've believed for a long time about gun control legislation. I believe that before people take a stand on the Second Amendment, they should either fire a gun or be in the immediate presence of a gun while it is being fired. Some of the guns the other patrons were shooting today were frighteningly powerful. Not only were they loud, but we could feel the compression of the shot (the air moved by the bullet) from several feet away. People should heft the weapon in their hands, hear the blast from the cartridge, and
feel its kick as the shot is fired before they decide whether it should or should not be in the hands of citizens.

Not only should people fire a gun, but members of Congress should have to fire the guns that they are trying to legalize or outlaw. I imagine that many of them would have a different opinion if they saw the weapons in action.

Silencers
The store sold silencers for a wide variety of pistols. Although they were expensive (ranging between $300 and $2000), they were nevertheless available for public purchase because the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 is no longer in effect. I have said it before and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no legitimate reason for a private citizen (or even many law enforcement officers) to own a silencer. None whatsoever.

Rainbow Six Vegas
Readers of my blog should know that I love this game. Love, love, love it. It was this game that inspired me to plan this little outing since the MP5 is one of the weapons available in the game. So also are the Beretta and Glock pistols that we fired. I really enjoyed seeing these weapons in action. I also know why the MP5 is not more prolific [in the game]. While it does have a high rate of fire, it is a wussy, wussy gun. It fires a 9mm round that has the same stopping power as a marshmallow. Maybe next time we'll fire the G36.

"Hey, you guys!"

2008-01-17T19:28:00.000-07:00

The first time I saw this, I found it mildly amusing. Then, I couldn't stop thinking about it. Now, I'm laughing my head off just thinking about it. I love it.

Leeroy Jenkins!

(Warning: some of the language is not work appropriate - use headphones.)

"Why are we doing it?" "Liberal guilt!"

2008-01-16T18:25:00.000-07:00

If no one has attempted to give you liberal guilt today, have a look at one of the more heavy-handed guilt trips I've seen in awhile:

Miniature Earth

Even though it is true, the facts alone are staggering. They didn't need to be dressed up.

"We let a cripple be president? A cripple?"

2008-01-03T23:57:00.000-07:00

Yay!

Crap. Here are a few thoughts:

Notice the prominent placement of Chuckzilla. Also, want to know my favorite nickname for Huckabee? I start by replacing the 'H' with an 'F'. . . and the rest is pretty much the same.

"Fear me, if you dare!"

2008-01-02T17:37:00.000-07:00

This is what a Huckabee presidency will look like:

Who says the Washington Post doesn't have a liberal bent? (As you can see from the source caption, that is Mike Huckabee and his lovely wife. I wonder if he landed her before or after he lost all that weight.)

"Ron Paul, at your cervix!"

2007-12-14T20:36:00.000-07:00

"Doctor" Ron Paul is a frighteningly stupid man. His myopic and simplistic world view demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of economics and politics. He prides himself on his unique voting record, but it's more a sign of his incompetence than his bravery.

Here are just two examples of his wacky platform.

Tax Cuts

Dr. Paul claims to have never voted for a tax increase. That's all well and good, but his logic is based on a faulty philosophy. Here's how he explains it:

“Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.”

Oh, Ronny, if only the world really worked that way. Along with cutting taxes, Dr. Paul would also cut the programs funded by those taxes. That means that while the mom saves $40/month, she has to now pay for her children's health care (CHIP), her own health care (Medicaid), more money on food (food stamps, WIC) and more for rent (Section 8 housing). So the $40 that she saves doesn't really do her much good. On the other hand, it can save upper bracket payers $10,000/month - now that's savings!

Additionally, it is unclear whether the saved money will be "reinvested" as Dr. Paul claims. History has shown that it is the tendency of corporate directors to pocket saved money rather than reinvest.

I also encourage you to read his take on tips. It's precious how he further demonstrates his total lack of understanding of how the world really works (in this case, how basic economics and the tax code are tied together.)

International Relations

If it were up to the good doctor, we'd build a 90-foot wall around our great land and paint a giant upraised middle finger on it. He is particularly afraid of the North American Union. Don't be surprised if you haven't heard of it because it doesn't exist. . .yet. Even if it were real, I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing.

Right now, the three largest economies in the world are the US, Europe and Japan. But that's changing. We simply don't have the population or resources (both labor and material) to compete with the emerging markets in Asia. Without changing something, it's only a matter of time before China completely overtakes us making us just one more failed empire that will pass into the history books. We will not be able to enjoy the same standard of living that we currently do. However, Europe has showed us the way - join or die. Europe was facing economic extinction when it saw the light and banded together into the EEC and eventually the EU. We could do the same with Canada and Latin America, but only if we abandon our 18th century protectionist ways. (We could also take the only slightly less likely alternative of making me the supreme ruler of the country.)

Dr. Paul believes a lot of other crazy things like ending natural birth citizenship, withdrawing from the WTO, lifting all limits on the Second Amendment, that only a few years of mediocre congressional service qualifies you to be president, and that anybody gives a rat's anus about what some no-name group thinks about him. But, to end on a positive note, I do strongly agree with him on one point: the United States should never again go to war without express congressional approval.

In summary, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for an America that neither does nor should exist.

* Dr. Paul has also delivered more than 4,000 babies. In case you haven't already figured it out, that means that he has seen up close more than 4,000 open, bleeding vaginas. That's enough to make anyone crazy.

"Something d-o-o economics...."

2007-12-10T18:17:00.000-07:00

This is yet another post in my continued analysis of the various contenders for the US Presidency. Today's victim: Mike Huckabee. There are a lot of things about him that I like. Things going for him are his take on faith and politics, education, globalization, and bits of his take on health care. I really liked his take on energy independence - being the first candidate I've seen to publicly state that our oil dependence is hurting us in the 'War on Terror'. Strikes against him include a ludicrously unworkable immigration plan and, among other things, generalized crazy.

His crazy is primarily centered in his Fair Tax agenda. Fair tax is for conservatives what socialized medicine is for liberals: a magical solution that works only in the land where unicorns prance around a benign Ronald Reagan and an unimpeached Bill Clinton.

(Style note: I use the term 'Fair tax' instead of the trademarked term 'FairTax'. I think the term 'FairTax' is a little fruity.)

Huckabee's Fair Tax - which is not his own idea - seems pretty straightforward. It has two major components:

1. A 23% sales tax on all new consumer goods and services. Notice that used goods would be exempted. This takes the place of all payroll taxes plus corporate income and capital gain taxes.

2. A monthly rebate check is issued to all taxpayers for the amount of tax paid up to the poverty line. As I understand it, the government would calculate the amount of money spent on taxes by a family living at the poverty line (which includes families making less than $22,000 year) per month and then issue a check to every family for that amount. (I haven't encountered anything that explains how that would play out for individuals.)

Huckabee argues that this plan will provide a number of benefits including: 1. reducing our lifetime tax burden, 2. making American products more competitive internationally, and 3. correcting the injustice of taxing the wealthy.

If I weren't a pinko Clintonista, I might buy this crap. Since I don't, here goes:

I have a few complaints with the idea of a fair tax generally. First, income tax deductions are a vital tool in encouraging good behavior. People do a lot of stuff because of the tax advantages involved such as: buying hybrid cars, buying houses rather than renting (which helps the overall economy dramatically), getting married, having children, etc. The sales tax will eliminate all of those incentives. In fact, it will actually decrease many of those incentives, most notably, having children.

Second, it will not simplify the tax code nor remove the need for bureaucracy. Someone will have to determine who gets the "prebates", enforce the honest reporting of taxes, and knock down the doors of non-payers.

A 'fair' tax will not reduce our lifetime tax burden. This plan simply exchanges one form of taxation for another. Even when coupled with the Huckster's plan to "not exactly" "shut down the federal government", people will still have to pay for the services currently funded through the government. Under his plan, all payroll taxes - Soc. Security, Medicare, Income tax, etc. will be eliminated. This means that consumers will need to pay for these services without the benefit of government assistance. Furthermore, under his plan consumers will have to pay for these things at a 23% sales tax premium. When you go to the hospital, you'll have to pay 23% for medical services that would have been provided tax-free under the current Medicare plan. The same goes for retirement planning, higher education and other government services that are funded by the income tax. We'll end up paying the same amount (or more) for those services but without the benefits of itemized deductions.

It will also fail to make our products more competitive internationally. The only way to make this happen is to lower labor standards here in the US, something which is entirely unrelated to taxes. Frankly, I don't want to live in Huckawannabee's sweatshop America.

Finally, he errs by making the argument that under our current system, we punish the rich for getting rich by making them pay higher taxes. It is true that in our progressive tax system, the more you make, the more you pay. That seems fair to me. The richer you are the more you benefit from the system that allowed you to get rich and stay that way. I don't care if you're paying 50% of your income in taxes if you still have millions of dollars left over - it's a simple matter of marginal value, something Huckabee and his friends from the hive don't understand. (Get it, "bee...hive"? I kill me!)

As Chuck Norris' favorite candidate gains support, it is important that voters remember that he is either pandering or downright stupid. Either way, that's not what I want from my president. Even though Chuck Norris can run so fast that he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head, I'm still not voting for his candidate.

"This book belonged to my wife. I keep it for sentimental value."

2007-12-10T16:27:00.001-07:00

As the election season starts up (or at least as I start paying attention to it), I have noticed that one perennial issue has remained on the agenda, but as always, near the bottom: Israel. Israel is a hot-button topic for many people, one which polarizes and invokes strong feelings on both sides.

Personally, I don't care much for Israel's policies. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to support her that I must acknowledge as legitimate. I do sympathize with her position as one of (if not THE) only nations on the Earth whose destruction is called for in the charters of most of her neighbors. Unfortunately, in my experience, this is not the most commonly-cited reason to support Israel. That honor belongs to the following misguided position (this one taken from Mike Huckabee's Campaign Website):

I am a steadfast supporter of Israel, our staunch ally in the War on Terror, the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East, and our greatest friend in that region. (emphasis added)

I have an number of problems with this argument, the greatest coming from the italicized text. I will concede for the sake of argument that Israel is "the only fully-functioning democracy" in the Middle Eastern region (even though 'democracy' has been in the 'Middle East' to varying degrees for some time now). Even so, the idea that Israel's democracy will have any positive effect on the region is preposterous. As I stated above, Israel's neighbors generally hate it and it is for precisely that reason that Israel's democracy will have absolutely no effect on the governments that surround it. If the United States really wants to spread democracy in the region, we should actually lessen our relationship with Israel and bolster up other embryonic traces of democracy (Turkey, Egypt, etc.). By continuing this intimate relationship with Israel, we are hurting our credibility in the region.

I do acknowledge the more subtle argument inherent in the offending statement, which is that America has a responsibility to support democracy wherever it may be. While I do agree with that idea, I do not believe that it necessarily follows that we must support democracy above all other interests. There are interests of international peace and security that we must acknowledge which may take precedence over the value of democracy. We cannot practically support Israel alone in the hope that the rest of the Middle East will eventually settle down by itself.

Despite all my feelings against it, I hope that Huckabee and the like are supporting Israel for the valid political reasons I've stated and not in the hope that they will end up on the right side in Megiddo.

"It's called Gold Case. It's a cross between Deal or No Deal and Millionare with a charming celebrity host, to be determined!"

2007-11-28T19:48:00.001-07:00

I really hope that the Hollywood writer's strike can be resolved soon. If it doesn't, the television that I love so much could die. In a worst-case scenario, Hollywood will tell the writers to screw off replacing the quality programming they produce with reality television that doesn't require people with brains to run. We could see an all-reality television line-up.

If that ever happens, watch for my obituary.

"Let's not get bogged down in semantics. I think what Lisa was trying to say is..."

2007-11-27T13:27:00.000-07:00

Two years ago, I heard a lot of hubbub about the "War on Christmas." Apparently, this "war" is a concerted effort by secularists and anti-Christians who want to make our country less Christian or something like that. They argue that by not referencing Christmas in advertising material or being asked to not put up public displays of the religious roots of the season that Christmas and by extension, Christianity, is being driven from public dialogue.

I don't buy it. While there are no doubt some people who really would like Christianity wiped off the face of the Earth, I do not believe that they are going to win this war by simply taking the word "Christmas" out of the weekly junk mail. Rather, if there is a war on Christmas, it began a long time ago and hasn't made much ground.

I'm referring to the advent of Santa Claus as part of Christmas culture. If there is any more secular figure, I can't think of it. Santa Claus lives on the North Pole, dresses in commie red, and has nothing at all to do with the birth of the Savior. Among other things, he supplants the role of the wise men in the Christmas story by bringing gifts not to the Baby Jesus, but only to children that obeyed their parents. This is a damaging lie that gives kids one more thing to think about other than religion. In fact, I feel that the perpetuation of this lie has done more to distract from the true meaning of Christmas than any other single idea or movement in the last 2,000 years.

St. Nicholas might have been acting in the "true spirit of Christmas" but his many incarnations since then have separated themselves from it (i.e. Annual Gift Man who lives on the moon). I say it is time to put an end to all this Santa Claus business. I will not teach my child that Santa Claus is real, but rather that he is just a story told by parents who have no way of controlling their children.

Along with Santa Claus is perpetuated the most unchristian aspect of Christmas: consumer spending. Focusing not on the message of love and forgiveness taught by Christ, we focus on spending boatloads of money so that we can get the earthly things that we want. I'm not sure that He would be very happy about this, having taught, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor..." I am not arguing with the spirit of giving on Christmas. It is the overindulgence that has so pervaded the holiday that bothers me.

I hope that we can take the time in our own lives to focus on the true meaning of Christmas: the gift of eternal life. If we focused on that in our own lives and those of our families, this holiday season will be far more meaningful than any greeter at Wal-Mart can make it.

So, in the spirit of the season, let me say: What you talkin' 'bout, everyone!

"Obama? What is he, Hispanic?" "No, he's black." "And he's running for President? Good luck."

2007-11-22T18:19:00.000-07:00

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a political junkie. I get riled up about every election, I try to goad my friends and acquaintances into talking politics. I'm optimistic and idealistic. I believe that voting does matter and that things can change for the better.

Over the last few elections, I've tried to get behind candidates but have been disappointed. This year I'm starting down that same path. The candidate that I've started to get behind is Barack Obama. Man, I love that guy.

To prove that I like him not just with puppy love but as a candidate, here are a few highlights from his platform:

1. Foreign Policy. Obama is the first candidate I've heard take a progressive foreign policy position. He abandons the antiquated notion of pulling back from hostile foreign powers and argues that we should actually increase our ties and dialogue with our enemies. It was ties and dialogue that prevented the Cold War from becoming a hot war.

I believe in democracy (and the republicanism that we practice as Americans) and capitalism. They are good doctrines that generally work. I also believe that they are infectious. As people begin to taste freedom, they become addicted to it and will ultimately fight to the death to attain it. If we increase ties with our enemies, democratic and capitalist ideas will inevitably infiltrate their culture and real change will begin. I also believe that countries with intertwined economies will be less likely to go to war with each other. If we really want to protect our troops, let's do what we can to prevent wars from happening. The best way to do that is to open up dialogue with our enemies.

2. Poverty. Unlike all the other candidates (except Edwards, whom I also really like), Obama is a champion of the poor, not the middle class. Our society will be judged not on how we treated the privileged, but how we treated the poor. This is a running thread throughout Christianity (which many claim as the foundation of our nation) as well as every other religion. We should work to create a society where there is no poverty, not a society where the rich can ignore the impoverished. Our country is suffering from a spreading gap between the rich and poor and unless we work to reverse that trend, we will all be left poor.

I am however cautious. I liked Bush in 2000. He talked about humble foreign policy, centrist politics and uniting the country. Every promise he made, every reason I voted for him was reversed within the first year he was in office - mostly before 9/11. I hope that my faith here is not misplaced. But he seems like a man of values - someone with vision and integrity. Someone who believes in something and is willing to make a stand for what's right. I've lived through too many years of subterfuge of the principles of the Constitution and it's time for a change.

I'll provide more detailed analysis of his other positions in future posts.

Check out his website for yourself. I hope that you'll take the two minutes to watch this video. It's really good.

And yes, I am aware that he purportedly doesn't salute the flag. I'll address that as well.

"And that's why I'm voting for Osama in '08. What no comeback? Ya burnt!"

"What are you doing? You better not hurt that little bat." "Animals can't feel pain."

2007-11-20T08:13:00.000-07:00

Two nights ago, we discovered that we have mice in our apartment. We had just moved out of a place that had a huge mouse problem, and we were hoping never to face it again. However, after only a few weeks in our place, we had our hopes crushed.

Yesterday, Mrs. Debator set some sticky traps around the house. We used traps designed for mice, as well as some designed for rats. (The rat ones are bigger and stickier.) After a night of listening to the pitter-patter of disease-ridden feet, I woke up to check the traps and lo and behold, we had caught a mouse on one of the rat traps. Its tail and back feet were stuck to the trap and it had been using its front feet to try to free itself. Apparently it had been at this quite awhile because the mouse had successfully moved the trap several inches. Despite his efforts, he had been unable to free himself.

I was now faced with the task of disposing of it. Being the humane person that I like to hide from people, I wanted to put it out of its misery so it wouldn't spend the last hours or days of its life stuck to a plastic trap, alone in the dark, and starving until it finally died surrounded by the stench of human waste. In our last apartment when we had caught a mouse on a sticky trap, I wanted to put it out of its misery in a human way so I trapped it under a tupperware and put cotton balls doused with various chemicals inside. I tried ammonia, ammonia mixed with bleach cleaner, and rubbing alcohol with no success. So, I just turned the tupperware upside down with the mouse still in it, put it in a bag, and dropped it down the trash chute that went directly to mouse hell. Once something goes down that chute, it's gone. (This was very nice for poopy diapers.) Unfortunately, living in a house with a garbage can that I have to take out once a week, I don't have that luxury.

Not seeing any other options, I decided to shoot the poor guy with my pellet gun. I picked up the trap and took it outside where I set it on the lawn. It was a chilly morning and the sun had not yet come up over the mountains. That's right, I was going to shoot this mouse at dawn. I retrieved my gun from inside and loaded it. I saw that the mouse was still desperately trying to get off the trap and had in the process gotten his front two feet and left side stuck as well. I could see his chest rapidly heaving up and down as he struggled to get free. He was obviously scared. I said, "It will all be over soon, little guy." I pumped my gun 10 times and aimed. I couldn't see him very clearly through the scope because I was so close, but I could see his brown shape in the sight. I centered the crosshair on his head, hesitated and fired.

I lowered the gun and looked. He was still there, wiggling and trying to get free. I had missed. Crap. I loaded again, took aim and fired. Miss. Again. Miss. So I went and inspected the trap. There were several holes immediately beneath the mouse. I was missing, but not by much. I knew that if I aimed just a little higher, I would kill him. I reloaded, pumped up the gun and aimed. I still couldn't see clearly through the scope, but I could clearly see his outline. I found his thrashing head in the scope and took aim just above the head. I hesitated. Before, when I was missing, it was easy to keep taking shots because each time I fired I felt that there was less and less of a chance of me hitting him. But now, I knew that I would hit him - I had done it hundreds of times before on inanimate targets. I looked at his dim outline through my scope, held my breath and fired.

It was a hit. And it was gruesome. I saw the mouse on the trap, bewildered and struggling to get free - to just run away from this torment and hide where no predator could find him. I saw him there, bleeding from his neck. At first it was just a drop, then more and more. It was forming a dark red puddle on the trap. I was sick. I had set out to give this animal a humane end to his life, but instead I forced him to spend his last moments trapped, confused, and bleeding to death. I couldn't bear it. I reloaded, took careful aim and fired. When I lowered the gun, he was still. There was no visible wound from the second shot but I didn't want to inspect further. I had chills going down my back and I was weak with sickness from what I had seen. I had killed a living thing whose only crime was to seek refuge and food in my warm home.

I found a grocery bag and placed the trap inside. Blood stained the grass as I moved the trap into the bag. I quickly placed the bag in the garbage can hoping that my feelings could go with it. But I don't have an emotional trash shoot where I can send my anguish. I can only deal with it as best I can and that's by playing Rainbow Six Vegas. Rainbow Six, you ease the pain.

"Immigants! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!"

2007-11-15T04:46:00.001-07:00

I hate Rudy Giuliani. I think that he is the worst candidate for president from either party. I would rather live in Ron Paul's magical America that doesn't exist than live under the oppressive hand of that self-important prick. To prove that my feelings about him are justified, I will post a series of posts concerning various aspects of his platform. While I do not disagree with him on everything (gun control and federal spending are possible areas of agreement), I differ with him so much on the other points that can't say his name without giving away my great contempt for him.

I will begin by addressing the most idiotic of his policies - those regarding immigration. Like the rest of his platform, he attempts to tie the immigration issue to the War on Terror (and by extension, 9/11 - an event for which if any good credit is deserved, he feels it should be directed at him). Giuliani opens the immigration section of his website with the bold claim that:

I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

I was skeptical. I went on to read his explanation:

Real immigration reform must put security first because border security and homeland security are inseparable in the Terrorists' War on Us.

Aside from the bad grammar and confusing syntax ("the Terrorists' War on Us"? What happened to the "War on Terror"?), his claim is not surprising - he has always tried to link every issue to the War on Terror. However, I do find his plan to be a bit surprising - surprisingly naive!

He proposes a four prong solution. The first prong is to "Bring order to the border" by building a high-tech security fence along the US-Mexico border. No doubt this will end terrorism because no terrorists will come into the country through Canada or legally.

The second prong of his plan is to "Identify all non-citizens entering and exiting America." This includes issuing "biometric ID cards" or SAFE cards to all non-citizen workers and students. This program leaves the gaping hole of recreational visitors and ignores the fact that we already do this using the passport/visa program. Aside from being almost impossibly difficult to administer, issuing a second form of ID will do no more to help track those who are still in the country and it will be impossible to issue SAFE cards to illegal immigrants. In addition to the SAFE card, he wants to create a national database of foreigners because all foreigners are likely terrorists. I'm sure this is because he doesn't think that our country's xenophobic mob mentality has yet risen to a healthy level of violence. We need to get back to the good old days of beating the Irish and locking up the Japanese. Besides, it's clear that no American would ever resort to terrorism to promote their agenda.

The third prong of his plan is to deport all illegal aliens who commit a felony. I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that this is already the stated policy and existing law of every government in the United States, both state and federal. If he proposes enforcing the law with more vigor, that's fine, but he leaves a glaring omission in his policy: what to do with the illegal immigrants that are already here. Nowhere on his website does he state what should be done about them. Maybe he's thinking that if he turns America into a police state, they'll hate living here and move back to Mexico or wherever they are from.

The final prong of his plan is to "Americanize immigrants" by expecting them to learn English to gain citizenship. Again, this is already policy (they have to pass the test in English) and it ignores what's to be done with the millions of illegal immigrants who already live like shadows in our society.

At the end of the day, Rudy Giuliani provides no real solutions to the immigration problem facing our nation. At best, he proposes greater enforcement of already existing laws and shows no leadership or insight into how to deal with the far greater problems that our laws seem incapable of handling. Maybe he believes that if you don't do anything about a problem, it will just go away. After all, millions of people praise him for his handling of 9/11 even though he didn't do anything.

Maybe he'll get the answer during a spontaneous phone call while giving a speech to the politicians and celebrities that have endorsed him:

"Hi honey, I'm giving a speech to a convention of people who don't have a clue. Want to say hi?"

The Constipation Party, Part II - "Only if you acknowledge the irony."

2007-11-14T06:09:00.003-07:00

This is the second post on one of my favorite topics: why the Constitution Party has it wrong. Please understand, I'm glad that they've formed a party and are engaging the country in a dialogue about how the government should operate. I just think that the way they want it to work is. . . stupid.

The Constitution Party includes in its platform the following statements under the heading, "Sanctity of Life":

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born....

Aside from the lack of scientific evidence to support the presumption that, "life begins at fertilization", my own religious beliefs do not support this claim. Assuming, however that their claim is true, the position they take based on that claim is inconsistent. They go on to state:

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

This language states that there are no circumstances under which an abortion may be legally performed. In a case where the life of the mother is at risk, the CP has already made the decision that the mother must die and the child must live - that the innocent blood of the mother must be shed to allow the innocent child to be born. This position ignores the inherent conflict in choosing which of two innocent people will live, thereby depriving mothers and fathers of the right to make the most personal decision they will ever be faced with. It is an example of the worst kind of state intrusion and is inconsistent with CP principles of keeping government out of people's lives.

Furthermore, their original statement regarding the protection of life states that:

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born;

They implicitly make the argument that no justification can be provided for abortion. This position is not only far out of the mainstream, but denies the legitimate arguments to be made for commonly followed exceptions. Is it not 'unconscionable' to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist, or a teenager to bear the inbred child of her father? The CP provides no answer to these arguments.

The CP position of valuing the life of the unborn child above all also invites another level of government intrusion: what to do in the case of miscarriage? If a mother miscarries due to her own poor choices (like poor nutrition, excess physical activity, etc.), does the government have the right to prosecute the 'shedding of innocent blood'? Would the CP support prosecuting the mother for negligent homicide or manslaughter? I would hope not.

The CP lays out its practical application of their sanctity of life doctrine by stating:

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body. . . .We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. (emphasis added)

Ironically, the CP wants to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases involving abortion, which would essentially deprive the Federal Government of any real power to prevent states from decriminalizing abortion - completely frustrating their purpose. (In a second level of irony, the CP says that the right to life should not depend on a majority vote, but they support the death penalty, which is enacted by legislatures casting a majority vote.)

Personally, I follow a more nuanced position (read under the "Additional Information" link) and believe that we should let the experiment of democracy work on this difficult issue by leaving it up to the states to decide how best to deal with abortion.

"Who is the biggest loser in this room?" "Raise your hand, Ed!"

2007-11-13T00:51:00.000-07:00

I am not an attractive person. I think the celebrity I look most like is Rimmer from "Red Dwarf":
Nevertheless, through the use of guile and flattery, I convinced an attractive woman to marry me. I assume that the reason we're still married is because she hasn't figured out how ugly I really am.

Whenever anyone meets my wife or sees a picture of her, their first comment is, "She's very beautiful" or something to that effect. Normally, I would appreciate such a comment because in my opinion, she is very beautiful. However, when most people say that, they say it with an air of surprise. It's as if they were saying, "Wow, she's a lot more beautiful than I expected for someone as hideously ugly as you." Well, you may be right, but for the love of pete don't tell her! I don't have a job yet, so at least wait until I can buy her love. Then tell her whatever you want.

"I know I shouldn't judge, but..."

2007-11-11T23:35:00.001-07:00

Today in GD, I was sitting in an overly cramped room listening to a very boring lesson delivered by an at best average teacher. I was making a mental list of mistakes that she was making, both in teaching style and doctrine (like hurrying through the material, asking rhetorical questions, failing to ask class members to read, etc.). My opinion of her was only further trashed when she gave as an introduction to an anecdote the quote titling this post. I tried to help with comments, but was only faced by comments from other class members that demonstrated their own ignorance and bigotry. And then I realized something: I am really hard on GD teachers that aren't me. For someone who touts the importance of non-judgment, I felt pretty hypocritical.

I began to think of why I was being so hard on her. I think that it's probably because in a church that gives its members so much help in learning how to teach, there is no excuse for shoddy teaching. We have many resources available ("Teaching - no greater call", suggestions at the beginning of each lesson in the manual, good examples, training meetings, etc.) and as such, members who don't take advantage of these resources are, "lazy and slothful servants."

However, after a bit of soul-searching, I realized that I should not judge them so harshly. I don't know her background, I don't know if she's shown improvement from the first lesson she ever taught and I don't know if she's nervous or intimidated by the class. So, I should just be understanding and do my best to get what I can out of the lesson. If I don't, karma (or whatever you want to call it) will come and get me and I'll be a crappy teacher.

Then I came to and the lesson was over. Crap.

"This is the part of the job I hate."

2007-11-08T06:29:00.000-07:00

I hate Ronald Reagan. I hate his politics, I hate his personality, I hate his memory and I hate that Republicans won't rest until everything in the entire world is named after him. (I know it's a Wikipedia site, but it's the best list I could find so only count 50% of it as accurate.)

In case you don't remember, Ronald Reagan was either directly or indirectly responsible for one of the most atrocious violations of the law committed by the executive branch - the Iran-Contra affair. In 1985, President Reagan authorized members of the CIA to continue to support rebels in the Central American nation of Nicaragua in direct violation of the law. To fund their evil plan, the CIA sold weapons to sworn enemy of the US and current 'Axis of Evil' member, Iran. (It's worth noting that at the time Iran was at war with sworn enemy and 'Axis of Evil' member, Iraq, to whom we also sold weapons, many of which were later used against US troops and Iraq's own citizens.)

President Reagan was also at the helm when the nation went through a series of economic crises, at least one of which was brought on by his "Reaganomics", immortalized by Ben Stein (who was quoting someone else) who called them, "Something -doo economics. Voo-doo economics."

President Reagan broke the law, sold weapons to our enemies and hurt the economy, but our leaders want to rename the entire world after him. Now I know what to do to fulfill my goal of having Congress rename the Florida the "Daniel National Memorial Wang."

It's worth noting that I am also sick that we built a memorial to FDR without a single mention of his order to round up American citizens based on their race, take their property and forcibly remove them to internment camps.

"It's hard not to listen to TV. It's spent so much more time raising us than you."

2007-11-07T00:17:00.000-07:00

I have occasionally imagined a world in which forced sterilization is commonplace. Where the powers that be tell certain people that they are entirely unfit to have and raise children. I imagine this world with fewer social ills, fewer mullets, and fewer little girls named "McCambren" (meaning son of Cambren). Of course, in my fantasy the process by which people are chosen for sterilization is perfectly just and perfectly administered - by me. Unfortunately, as ruler of the world, my busy schedule of smacking morons upside the head and watching the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa perform the hit song, "Na na na na na na na na Leader!" will preclude me from evaluating the fitness of every single person on the planet. Alas, it must remain a dream.

However, that doesn't mean that I can't do my best to help the current stock of should-be-steriles to not totally screw up the rising generation (after all, they will be responsible for paying my Social Security). So turn off "Junior" and pay attention for 2 minutes.

Parents should not abdicate their responsibility for raising their children. They should not expect grandparents, schools, prisons, the state, the Feds, or anyone else to adequately teach their children what they need to know to be functioning members of society. Since you had sex without taking the necessary precautions, you have the responsibility to ensure that your kid doesn't grow up to be the next Hitler, or worse, the SOB that abuses their power in a low-level customer service position.

This abdication is becoming widespread. The latest example that I've seen was a hot topic this Halloween: risque costumes. Pundits and blowhards everywhere were making a big deal of so-called "prosti-tot" costumes, or slutty costumes for young girls. I'm guessing that the logic of their complaint is that because stores sell these costumes, they have to buy them. They want the stores or the government or somebody to tell Target, Wal-Mart, et al. to pull the costumes from their shelves. I have a much better solution that will also help you to be a better parent: Don't buy those costumes! Nowhere does it say that you have to buy something simply because it is offered to you. If you don't want your child wearing those awful costumes, don't buy them. This will have a two-pronged effect. First, the costume will not be available for your child to wear, so they can wear something better. Second, as consumers (you) stop buying products, retailers (stores) stop selling them. This is an example of supply and demand - the first law of economics. (K - correct me if I am wrong.)

Parents, please, please, please don't expect other people to raise your children. Other people are dumber than you. You are the big person and big people are in charge. If you don't want your child doing something, if all else fails, you can physically pick them up and prevent them from doing it. Remember that. You don't need to abuse them, but you are in charge. Not the government, not your parents, not the teacher at school - you. Parenting is the most important thing you can do in your life and you are robbing yourself and your child if you don't do it.

Just to reiterate: Other people are stupid, don't expect them to raise your children. You do it.

(If you're having trouble understanding this concept, please follow this helpful link.)

"Thanks for playing, Jerkface!"

2007-11-06T23:32:00.001-07:00

Victory! Choke on that, you rich whores!

"All hail President Kang!"

2007-11-06T01:24:00.000-07:00

This is just a friendly reminder to vote tomorrow! Please vote your conscience (but only if your conscience tells you to vote against Referendum 1 and the entire Kaysville City council).

"And remember to be a compassionate conservative - step over the homeless, not on them."

2007-10-27T12:59:00.000-07:00

This is the second part in a series of posts on Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act or comprehensive school voucher program.

I recently received a mailer from the pro-voucher lobby entitled, "VoteFOR1" in seasonal orange and black. The mailer is two pages, front and back, and includes a number of arguments as to why the state's voucher program should be approved. It makes a number of arguments which I will address - and destroy - in turn.

1. "Facts: Referendum 1 is targeted to benefit low - and middle-income families."

At first I accepted this argument. The voucher bill does give money on a graduated basis - the less you make, the more you get. I believed this argument based on the mailer sent out by the State Elections Office which included a graph showing several income levels, ending in $150,000. Since there was nothing in the pamphlet to the contrary, I assumed that if a family made more than $150,000 then they would not qualify for a voucher. I was wrong. Section 806 of the bill states that if you make, "Greater than 250% of the income eligibility guideline" you will receive a minimum of $500/per student. That means that even if you make $10,000,000/year, you will qualify for at least one $500 voucher per student. This is not a program designed to benefit "low and middle income families".

If the program really were aimed at the less fortunate, it would have an income cap - something like $150,000, as I had assumed. If the program has a cap, then the money that would have gone to those making more than that (which is actually a substantial number of families) could be used to supplement the already too-meager proposed vouchers to be given to Utah's poorest families. The State Legislature isn't interested in helping poor Utahns get a choice. If they were, they would have designed a better program.

The Pro-voucher lobby also states in their pamphlet that, "average K-8 private school tuition in Utah is about $4,000 per year", citing the study found here. Being the huge nerd that I am, I read the study. On p. 29 of the .pdf (table 5), the researchers listed the "mean" cost of private schools in Utah as $6,246. I may be wrong, but I believe that 'mean' is the same as 'average', leading me to the conclusion that the pro-voucher lobby has misrepresented the research they cite. The meager $3,000 voucher will not even cover half of the cost of the average private school in Utah. In fact, according to the same study, it will only barely cover the cost of the state's cheapest private schools.

2. "Referendum 1 provides better accountability for both private and public schools by holding schools accountable directly to parents instead of bureaucrats."

This claim is just precious. The pro-voucher lobby provides the following justification for this fiction:

Parents in Utah care about their kids and are capable of choosing good schools with good teachers that meet the needs of their own children.

Aside from the condescending tone, this argument has three major flaws. First, it assumes that even if private schools proliferate, parents will be able to find and enroll their children in a school that meets their needs better than a public school. Enrollment in private schools is (and almost certainly will not be) guaranteed by a voucher.

Second, it assumes that as parents enroll or remove their students from schools that schools will be responsive. This idea of marketplace correction has never been proven to work in a school setting (see the report listed above, as well as the other sources from the mailer). In fact, it seems more likely to fail because if schools can choose between a privately or a publicly funded student, they will choose the private one to avoid having to jump through regulatory hoops.

Finally, it assumes that Utah needs a voucher program to make public and private schools accountable to parents. If they are relying on market theory, private schools are already accountable to parents (with no state oversight) and allowing easier transfer between public schools will create the same accountability.

The mailer goes on to state that:

Local principals and administrators [of public schools] will answer to parents, instead of just bureaucrats.

The support they provide for this claim is that "Wisconsin's scholarship program led to increased local control and parental involvement." This will only happen in Utah if the State Legislature and local school boards change their policies - there is no requirement that they do. Furthermore, this is the only example they provide of increased local control out of the five other voucher programs they cite.

In reality, the "oversight" established by Referendum 1 (HB 148) is nothing beyond the accountability already built into the market and the requirement that a CPA certify every four years that voucher funds are being tracked separately. (See Sec. 807.) There is actually far less oversight over private schools than public schools and there is no accountability.

3. "Scholarship programs like Referendum 1 already exist in several states across the country."

This is patently false. No scholarship program of this magnitude or breadth exists anywhere in the country. That's why it has drawn so much national attention. That is also why it faces such serious Constitutional issues. The major hurdle it faces is a challenge based on the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The controlling Supreme Court case is Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 US 639 (2002). In that case, the Supreme Court asked the question of whether this type of voucher program, which allowed money to go to private religious schools, constituted an impermissible establishment of religion. The Court addressed the question of whether the program was enacted for the primary purpose of establishing religion and whether or not such establishment was its primary effect.

The Court decided that it was not enacted for the primary purpose of establishing religion, relying on the state of the school system:

There is no dispute that the program challenged here was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system. Thus, the question presented is whether the Ohio program nonetheless has the forbidden "effect" of advancing or inhibiting religion.

The Court thus relied upon the "failing" state of the school system as a non-religious justification for the program - Utah's situation is much different. Utah's schools are among the best in the nation and the pro-voucher lobby will have a hard time showing that Utah's schools are "demonstrably failing." Rather, this program will likely appear to be little more than a thinly veiled attempt to subsidize private religious schools - especially in light of the conclusions reached by the study cited above (finding that Utah's religious climate will be the driving force behind private school enrollment). Cleveland's program provided up to 90% of the funding for any private school - giving greater weight to the justification that it is aimed at giving choice to poor families. Because Utah's program provides such a low level of funding, it is unlikely that this defense will hold water here.

Utah's voucher program is ill-conceived and poorly executed. The pro-voucher lobby has misrepresented the facts and ignore glaring problems in the program. Hopefully, Utahns will demonstrate how great our public school system is and vote against Referendum 1.

"Ringy-dingy"

2007-10-26T18:17:00.000-07:00

In case you can't tell by the content of my many ramblings, I am generally in favor of the government getting involved in regulating private industry. However, because of the crazy rantings of an Alzheimer's sufferer who is now the undeserving namesake of countless government buildings, people think that I'm stupid for tolerating the large government bureacracy. What they don't understand is that for every overweight lazy bureaucrat suckling at the teat of the American taxpayer, there are many overweight lazy private employees suckling at the teat of the American consumer. Fortunately for both groups, Americans generally have two or more teats.

Many people seem to think that the government would function better if it were run more like a business. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say, "If I ran my business like the government, I'd go out of business!" I've got news for you: you do.

The government is not one single entity. It is actually many different entities that usually operate completely independent of each other. Rather than think of the government as one huge entity, think of it more like GE - America's largest corporation. GE has many divisions that operate in many varied industries from jet engines to NBC. No doubt, GE also wastes millions of dollars a year because of inefficiency, has many indifferent or even corrupt employees, and has difficulty keeping their stockholders happy.

A more personal example of this happened a few years ago when I needed to get prior authorization from my insurance company for some medications. Through the course of more than a week, I made countless phone calls, was on hold for many hours and almost didn't get the medicine I need to stay healthy. And this wasn't even that large of an insurance company!

In fact, at this very moment, I am listening to a story of someone who needed to get a car insurance claim processed by State Farm and had a very hard time getting it done.

Really, it doesn't matter if the organization is private or public, the result is the same - the larger it gets, the more inefficient it gets. That's just the way of things.

So, to all of you Reaganites that long for smaller government and less regulation of private industry (especially deregulation and loosening of antitrust laws), I ask you to imagine a world in which all private industry is consolidated in one bloated whole. Imagine trying to get your money back then.

"I'm afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer."

2007-10-18T10:28:00.000-07:00

The presidential primaries are now getting into full swing several months before the primaries even begin. The candidates are well on their way to leaving Lady Liberty quite unsatisfied. I've decided it's time I said something about it.

I have little to say about the Democratic side of things. I like Hillary, Barack, and John (Edwards, that is). Any one of them would make a fine candidate and they all have policy positions that I can respect even though we may disagree a bit.

However, the Republican horserace seems to be disproportionately filled with asses. I don't hate all the candidates equally, but I do have a favorite and a most hated. However, the middle candidates (McCain, Huckabee, Brownstreak, I mean Brownback, Paul, etc.) are really too insignificant to make a difference, so screw 'em.

I happen to agree with the polls on who should be the frontrunner for the nomination (from a Republican point of view): Romney. He's smart, charismatic, relatively experienced (historically, governors make better presidents), white and rich. He just has one problem: he's a Mormon.

Mormons have historically been discriminated against by members of other Christian faiths because of their unique beliefs. Countless media have been produced on this subject, so I won't belabor the point here. This discrimination and stigma still exists today. Romney's presidential run has brought over a century's worth of feelings about Mormons to the forefront of public discourse. In both an effort to combat this stigma and seizing a great opportunity to increase dialogue about their faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) is going to release a number of ads aimed at calming others' worries about the religion.

Having a personal stake in how the LDS Church is perceived in the media, I actually look forward to opportunities to change other's negative stereotypes about Mormons. However, this must be done carefully in order to avoid a negative impact on the LDS Church.

The stated position of the LDS Church is one of political neutrality. It does not endorse candidates or parties, and as much as possible tries to stay out of government activities, while encouraging members to participate on an individual basis. In my opinion (look out!), this position is both prudent (to avoid losing tax-exempt status) and doctrinally sound (there is more than one way to promote Christianity and obeying the commandments). My concern is that unless the Church is careful about how and where it strikes at ignorance, it may appear that the LDS Church is endorsing the candidacy of Mitt Romney. If the Church only runs ads in states or areas where Romney needs a little boost, that could be perceived as an endorsement. Or, if he wins the primary and the Church steps up its ad campaign it could also appear that the LDS Church is implicitly endorsing Romney.

I hope that during this election and, [ugh] the possible Romney presidency to follow, the Church can handle its public relations in such a way that it can avoid such negative perceptions. Failure to do so could cause serious damage to the reputation of the Church, and call into question the individuality of its members. Reasonable people can differ about how to apply their beliefs in their own lives, and I don't want other people thinking that I only think what my church tells me to think.

I said that I had both a favorite and a least favorite candidate for the Republican nomination. It's clear that my favorite is Romney (heaven forbid we should live in the days of the Brownback Crusades), but my least favorite is Giuliani.

Do I want to live in Rudy Giuliani's America? I'd rather be raped by an entire herd of buffalo than endure one second of listening to that horse's ass.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir?" "Indeed I do, only I seem to have left it on your mother's nightstand."

2007-10-17T09:08:00.000-07:00

This will be the first of many posts in the next two weeks about how totally retarded Utah's proposed voucher law is. My main quarrel with the voucher law is that it reflects an attitude of either defeat or contempt for public schools. On the one hand, legislators and some citizens might feel that public schools are no longer functioning and must be supplanted by the private sector. On the other hand, another group (possibly consisting of the same people as the first) feel that public schools are indoctrinating our children in evil ways, teaching them to be godless, hateful, and liberal.

Both of the above attitudes reflect bigotry and blindness about public schools. While it may be true that in other places (cough, Mississippi, cough) their school systems aren't as good and that drastic changes are necessary. However, in Utah, our school systems are doing pretty darn good (in spite of being grossly underfunded). We have many high schools that rank in the top 500 in the country. I am the third of six children to graduate from Davis High School (in Kaysville) and 5 of the 6 have attended or graduated from college or graduate school (the sixth isn't old enough yet). Our public schools are doing just fine, and if anything, need additional funding, not less funding.

As for the other group, those who hate what is being taught, I say, screw off. Public schools teach the curriculae given to them by the school district and state legislature. Both of those bodies consist of publicly elected officials who are responsible to the people. If you don't like what is being taught, either elect new officials, or get a religious exemption to certain teachings. If that isn't enough, home school them or send them to a bigotry, I mean, private school but don't expect the state to foot the bill. It's your problem, you find a solution.

So choke on that.

The Constipation Party, Part I

2007-10-12T21:52:00.000-07:00

I'm going to be honest: I really hate the Constitution Party. I hate what they stand for, I hate their logic and ironically, I hate their bigotry. However, rather than just make those blanket statements and go on to raise ire against them without actually making any arguments (cough cough, Sean Hannity), I am going to take the key points of their platform and refute them using actual logic, reason and evidence! Let's get to it.
The Mission Statement of the Constitution Party reads as follows:

The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

My first quarrel with this statement is that they believe that creating a one-party system is advantageous. I categorically disagree with this idea. The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances so that power could not be consolidated to the detriment of the people. That worked for about 10 minutes. Not long after the Constitution was ratified, the Founders (no, not shapeshifters bent on dominion of the galaxy) formed political parties to gain support for their respective views of government. While that is a natural progression of politics, it unfortunately allows for circumvention of checks and balances (if you don't believe me, please look at how well the system worked from 2001-2004) . No matter what, I like to see some give and take in politics which doesn't seem to happen in a one-party system. (I do acknowledge that this criticism would probably extend to the "mission statements" of almost every political party.)

My second quarrel with this statement comes from this line:

and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

First, "American" jurisprudence came (and still comes) largely from British jurisprudence, not the Bible. If you doubt me, just Google, "Blackacre." (The "Bible" has really only existed since King James and British jurisprudence goes back much further than that.)

Second, I'm not sure if they understand what "common law" is. Common law is the concept of looking back at similar cases when deciding current ones. For example, if historically courts have treated the house as property of both spouses independent of who pays for it, then modern courts will use that rule in deciding cases.

This is completely different from statutory law. Statutory law is based on laws, or "statutes" passed by a legislative body. Statutes supersede common law. The Constitution is a statute. So, if they are using the traditional definition of common law, they are saying that the Bible should supersede the Constitution. While that may not sound like such a bad idea to some people, I believe that it is. It is very difficult to turn the principles of the Bible into viable jurisprudence. How do you codify, "turn the other cheek" or "love thy neighbor as thyself"?

Additionally, the United States is not a theocracy. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids the creation of a theocracy ("Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."). Maybe the Constitution Party thinks that the Amendments weren't supposed to be part of the Constitution. Or maybe they're just stupid.

We live in a religiously diverse society in a country founded on the rule of both statutory and common law. I believe that this is what the Framers sought to create and I'm proud of the many great Americans who have helped keep it that way. The Constitution Party seems to have made it their mission to undo all of that. Fortunately, they are too small and insignificant to be effective in their mission. Thank heaven for the FEC.

(I admit that this post is a little more juvenile than my usual fare. However, it is still a step up from what I was thinking of doing, starting with the title, "The Constant-pooption Party." Now that would be quite a party!)

"You can't fool us. We're from the 'Learn to Fart' state. "

2007-10-07T08:16:00.000-07:00

I have long been bothered by so-called "patriots" who display the American flag in disrespectful ways. Since (the) September 11th, Americans have been showing their solidarity and patriotism by more prominently displaying the American flag. I am not opposed to this; quite the contrary. I like to see people develop a sense of solidarity and unity. America is great because great and everyday people have worked hard to make it that way. Our flag is a symbol of that.

However, there are some people who don't appear to fully understand the significance of the flag as a symbol. These people allow their flags to be dirtied, faded, mutilated and destroyed, yet continue to display them. I'm talking about people who display flags from their cars. We've all seen them, the small plastic versions flying from a plastic pole attached to the top of a window. Flying flags from your car subjects them to the elements and winds exceeding 60 mph, causing them tear and fade. If you really want to show your support for our country, don't do it by mindlessly destroying the flag. Give it the proper respect that it deserves. Display it on the inside of your car or find some other way of showing your patriotism.

Or maybe you could vote once in awhile. Either way.

For the record, I support our Constitutional right to burn flags, which I see as an entirely different issue.

"Where did you get that statistic?" "Your mother!"

2007-04-30T17:05:00.000-07:00

I recently watched the movie entitled, “America: Freedom to Fascism” (http://www.freedomtofascism.com/) by Aaron Russo. (You can watch it here.) It is a documentary wherein the director sets out on a quest to find the law that says that people have to pay income taxes. He discovers that there is no such law as well as many other dark and disturbing things.

Or so he would have you think.

This “documentary” really is a work of propaganda in the style of Michael Moore which does little more than highlight cherry-picked “facts” while literally ignoring the context and explanations around them. It mischaracterizes the information that it finds and stops its search once it has found “experts” that agree with it.

I have a few general thoughts about the movie:

First, Aaron Russo is the far right’s answer to Michael Moore. They both make obvious propaganda, they both demonstrate a flagrant disregard for the truth, and they’re both overweight jerks. The only difference I can see is that Michael Moore’s movies have better production quality and have made a lot more money. Ironic.

Second, his editor must have taken tips from the Daily Show. He conducts a number of interviews with people on both sides of the issue (although predominantly from the anti-tax side). However, rather than including full sentences and leaving quotes in context, he shows snippets of sentences, partial phrases, and even cuts off the scene when it sounds like context and explanation are going to be given. This is what you see every day on the Daily Show, only they know they’re doing it.

Third, he does not listen. Throughout his movie, he asks a number of people to, “Show me the law that says that [I have to pay taxes; I can’t walk into the IRS building; pompous filmmakers should be publicly flogged].” However, even when he is shown the law, or given an explanation, or told the answer, he either doesn’t listen or flat out rejects it. The best example of this is when the former IRS Commissioner is trying to explain what “voluntary compliance” means and the director cuts him off, and then takes one line from his whole explanation and plays it over and over.

As to the substance of the movie, let me succinctly say: He’s wrong. Flat wrong. He says that the purpose of his movie is to find the law that says that we have to pay taxes. For some reason, he asks a bunch of morons rather than real experts. I say this because I set out with the same quest and it took me 30 seconds. I quote from Title 26 of the United States Code, section 1:

Tax imposed.
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses. There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of--
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table...:

He makes a number of other arguments, all of which are nicely refuted here, here and here.

At the end of the day, it is a poorly-made work of banal propaganda not really worth your time. If you want to hear some real arguments against the tax system, go somewhere else. (I’d post a link to some, but I haven’t heard any.)

You’re welcome.

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

2007-04-19T14:37:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I think people should need licenses to have children. I am reminded of this each time I hear someone’s terrible name for their child. I’m not talking about celebrity names like Apple or George IV, nor am I talking about hippie names like Sunrise or Happy or Coconut. I’m talking about names – and these are real names – like Braia, Keyerrah and Dayamere Qwest (I don’t really know how it’s spelled, but that’s how it’s said). This isn’t unique to one culture, religion or ethinicity - All are guilty. My brother lives in a town that is probably 99% white and 95% the same Christian religion. He recently had a child and when I looked at the pictures on the hospital website, I could see the names of the other children. With the exception of my brother’s child (whose first and middle names are common with multiple English kings), the page was splattered with the vomit that other people chose as names. If you doubt me, see for yourself. I could write for days about the types of things that bug me about the names people choose for their children, but I’m lazy, so I’ll just skip to the end.

The queen mother of all the terrible names I’ve come across is:

Dorcas Coker-Appiah

This name is terrible for the obvious reason that it resembles some demeaning words, but it wins the crown for another reason. This lady had one of the worst names ever, but when she got married, she had a chance to change it – and she didn’t. Rather than dump her crappy last name, she chose to keep it and slap her married name on the end.*

For the record, I have a bias against her maiden name. Mrs. Daniel’s last boyfriend before me had the last name of “Coker” and was once said to resemble a turtle. You don’t need much imagination to see the potential in that.
I end with a plea: Please, for the love of your children, their descendants, and humanity at large, name your children good names. Stupid names are a curse – a curse that does not have to be. We can all work together to rid the world of this foul plague. Please don't be afraid to share your opinions of other people's names and don't be offended when others offer theirs. But your friends will probably continue to just be nice and tell you they like the name you’ve chosen, so if you have any doubt, put the name in the comments and I will give you a frank opinion. (My child’s first name comes from the Bible – it’s very prominent and also historically very popular; the middle name is also popular and is common with a revolutionary Scottish lord and someone who once threw me in a garbage can.)

* She’s actually a tremendous human being who has done great work to make better the lives of women in an incredibly oppressive environment. We should all be more like here, and I say that seriously.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”

2007-04-12T09:08:00.000-07:00

There are many people in this country who believe that it is good public policy to place a copy of the 10 Commandments on the walls of our public buildings. I believe that they are wrong.

Proponents of these initiatives make many arguments about why the 10 Commandments should be posted, all of which are based on the proponent’s own religious belief. (I have never heard an atheist argue that they should be posted.) One of the principal arguments made by proponents is that they are good laws to live by.

My initial reaction to this argument is that they’re right – in part. We don’t want people to murder (6th), steal (8th), or commit adultery (7th). Even some of the other Commandments are things that we would like to see in society but are harder to enact into law, such as no coveting (10th) and honoring your parents (5th). However, those are not the only commandments. The first four Commandments deal with man’s relation to God and read in part:

1. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
2. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image....Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them...”
3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain...”
4. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
Exodus 20:2-11

These seem like “good rules to live by” only if you are a Christian who believes in the Bible (or are at least afraid of the Christian God). Otherwise, people have reason to keep the Sabbath holy, or to refrain from taking the name of the Lord in vain. For example, a Hindu would most likely be hesitant to worship the Christian God over say, Vishnu. Not only that, but different religions believe in different translations of the Bible. Posting one translation instead of another could send the wrong message.

My second response to the argument that they are good laws to live by is that there are also many other religious creeds that “are good laws to live by.” For example, the 5 (or 7, depending on the sect) Pillars of Islam which call for adherents to fast, pray, give to the needy, etc. are also good practices that people should engage in. In fact, one of the first steps of Alcoholics Anonymous is to acknowledge a higher power, similar to the first Pillar of Islam and the first Commandment. Nevertheless, I feel confident in predicting that if any county wanted to post the Pillars on the courthouse wall, there would be a broad national outcry against it. The same outcry would probably result from an attempt to post them next to the 10 Commandments in the same display.

The 10 Commandments are religious edicts, not public policy and as such do not belong in our public buildings, except in a religiously and philosophically diverse display outlining historical facts, rather than religious beliefs.

“Once the Sun burns out, this planet is doomed. You're just making sure we spend our last days using inferior products.”

2007-04-09T12:26:00.000-07:00

I’m not a big fan of most of the Libertarian Party’s positions. To me, government is all about balancing values: freedom v. security, right to choose v. right to life, etc., and it’s not always easy. The Libertarians (and most third parties) usually ignore these problems or assume that private action will solve them. I think that they are wrong on both counts.

One position that I find particularly odious, is how Libertarian Party deals with the environment. Their party platform states, “Public Policy instruments including eminent domain, zoning laws, building codes, rent control, regional planning, property taxes, resource management and public health legislation remove property rights from owners and transfer them to the State, while raising costs of property ownership.... [A]nd regulation of property shall be limited to that which secures the rights of individuals.” (To see the full quote so that you can tell that I’m not taking it out of context, check out the Libertarian Party Platform.)

If I am reading this correctly, the government cannot exercise any control over what an individual does with his own property except to ensure that he can own property. A typical argument goes something like, “The government shouldn’t tell me how to use my land. If I want to build ____ structure on my land, and do _____ activity on my land, I should be able to. The government has no business telling me what I can do with my own property.” This position is very problematic because it ignores externalities. (An externality is a cost of an activity that is born by someone other than the actor engaging in the activity. For more, read, "The Tragedy of the Commons.") To illustrate the problems with the Libertarian position, consider the following hypothetical:

A stream runs through the properties of two different farmers. In his spare time, Farmer Upstream repairs old cars. Rather than throwing away the old fluids drained from these cars, he simply dumps them into the stream at the bottom end of his property, letting the water carry them away. Farmer Downstream relies on the stream water to irrigate his crops. When the chemicals dumped by Farmer Upstream get into the irrigation water, it kills Farmer Downstream’s crops.

The Libertarian position doesn’t seem to acknowledge these externalities. Using their philosophy, Farmer Upstream can dump his chemicals on his own land, but then he doesn’t have to bear the cost of that activity. The cost is born by Farmer Downstream as his crops die. Farmer Upstream has no incentive to stop dumping except his own conscience – Farmer Downstream has no power to force a bargain in the Libertarian’s hypothetical free market.

If my farmer hypothetical is too abstract for you, let me give you a real scenario. The Colorado River flows through four dry western states. All four states rely on the river for water, hydropower, recreation, and tourism. If Arizona decides to build a dam, it will lower the amount of water available in California and cause a lake to form in Utah, destroying many archeological and natural sites while Arizona gets all the power from the dam. If we strictly follow the Libertarian position, then the states have to negotiate between themselves how to resolve this problem. I can see Utah and Arizona striking some kind of deal where they split the power – Utah will leverage the threat of building another dam upstream to force a bargain – but California is left in the dust (pun intended). And how are Utah and Arizona to keep Colorado from building another upstream dam, rendering theirs useless? If you don’t like that example, think about factories in California that dump pollution into the air that then comes down on Nevada and Utah as acid rain. What can Utah and Nevada do about that?

The typical response to these questions was laid out in the comments to a recent news story from KSL. The story reported that the air pollution problem in Utah is causing kids with asthma to have an increased number of episodes. In the comments, many people expressed the following sentiment: “If air quality causes problems, look for a different place to live.” What happens when even children who are born healthy develop asthma because of air pollution and every city in the world has adopted that commenter’s view? Where will they move then?

My point is that absent federal regulation, there is no guarantee that property owners will use their land in a way that is fair to everyone or “which secures the rights of individuals”. The Libertarians are wrong when it comes to the environment and we need legislation like the Clean Air Act to ensure that all people can enjoy the use of their private property.

p.s. On their site, they have a link to a test that you can take to determine if you are a Libertarian. Apparently, I am not.

“I’m telling you, Liz is a grade A... Runt!”

2007-04-06T14:19:00.000-07:00

I hate Oprah. This probably doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone as I am prone to random, baseless hatreds against people I’ve never met. But I have long hated Oprah. I don’t really know when it started, but it gets worse each time I’m exposed to her.

My latest run-in with her has helped to somewhat crystallize my disdain. A few weeks ago, Mrs. Daniel took control of the remote and insisted on watching a special about Oprah’s school for girls in South Africa. Apparently, Oprah has spent something around $50 million to open a school in Africa where disadvantaged but ambitious, capable girls can learn how to be leaders and hopefully use their skills to improve the lives of their fellow citizens.

The school and the special about it bothered me in so very many ways. First, the whole thing centered on how Oprah has helped these girls rather than on how these girls are advancing and how they’ll benefit their communities. This type of narcissistic focus is typical of this self-important demagogue. (For instance, when “she” gave away cars to her audience, I doubt that she or her show actually paid for them but the media focus has been on how she gave them away.)

Second, there was a sequence in the special where Oprah interviewed several of the girls individually. The girls would walk up to the door of a room where Oprah was waiting. Then, with magnificent flair, Oprah would open the door and the girls would scream with delight as they met their “hero”. Oprah would then interview the girls while the camera spent most of its time focused on Oprah’s reactions to what they were saying. I guess we can see who is important in her life.

Third, the school cost something like $43 million. I have an acquaintance who is starting a foundation that will give micro loans to starting companies in Africa and south east Asia. These loans will allow entrepreneurs to provide jobs and stability to areas that are in great need. He is currently looking for donations so that they can provide loans to thousands of people. Oprah’s school serves something like 100 girls. Not only that, but as Mrs. Daniel pointed out during this conversation, she’s (actually, the teachers hired by her underlings) training these girls to be Americans. The expectation is that many of them, if not all, will attend college in America. What guarantee do we have that they’ll go back to their home countries to make a difference? Not only that, but will little Americans be able to wield influence in a culture vastly different from our own?

To support my claims that she is an egotistical narcissistic megalomaniac, check out this quote from the website for the "Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy":

"When Oprah's chef cooked the girls Christmas dinner, one traditional sweet treat became an instant hit! Invite friends and family over to watch the special and serve them a taste of South African culture."

I just hate her self-important elitism. I also think that it’s funny that so many people, including many from the religious right just love her so much despite the fact that she’s been with her boyfriend for 20 years but refuses to marry him because she thinks that marriage is a silly societal construct.

I really hate Oprah. I just can’t say this enough.

"Special Delivery!"

2007-03-20T13:31:00.000-07:00

I used to think that suicide bombers were gutsy. It would take a lot of guts to strap a bomb to your chest and blow yourself up. I can't even bring myself to put broccoli in my mouth because I think it tastes bad. Recently however, I've changed my mind.

It seems to me that being a suicide bomber is actually very cowardly. See, when a person kills another, they have to live with the guilt that comes from taking another life. They have to live with all the moral, religious, and criminal consequences of that action. They have to live knowing that they can make no restitution for their crime. They may see grieving families and friends. On the other hand, a suicide bomber conveniently gets out from under all of that. By killing themselves at the same time as their victims, they dodge the need to face the consequences of their own actions. I'm no hero - to quote Maverick, "He who fights and runs away, lives to run away another day", but even to me, killing yourself is the coward's way out. The same thing applies to murder-suicides and people who count on the police killing them (like the Trolley Square shooter). Wusses and cowards all.

"You gotta nuke somethin'."

2007-03-17T20:58:00.000-07:00

I used to think that folks like N. Korea, Iran, et al. were only developing nuclear weapons to join the big boys on the world stage (or at least extort them). Because they weren’t really interested in blowing us up, we didn’t have as much to worry about. I still think we shouldn’t let them go nuclear, but that doesn’t mean we have to invade. Before 2002, an airstrike against their nuclear facilities would have seemed appropriate and probably been enough because of the threat of invasion as a last resort.

Now, I think that the Iraq war has changed everything. Since we can’t seem to win in Iraq, we either face:

a) a country that builds a nuclear weapon and thinks that we won’t do anything about it because we don’t have the guts or the strength to get involved in another Iraq

b) a country that uses a nuclear weapon because they think that America won’t have the guts or the strength to get involved in another Iraq

In the second situation, we could probably rally enough world involvement to win the war. (Provided we don’t invade Cuba because N. Korea nuked us.) But the question is, have we created a world where other countries might bet on our unwillingness to invade?

"And I will remain The Falconer!"

2007-03-16T08:45:00.000-07:00

An acquaintance of mine has long made the argument that many government programs are unconstitutional (or at least unjust) because they take money from one person and give it to another. His argument is that we can only give the government rights that we ourselves possess. He argues that since I cannot rightfully take someone else’s property and give it to a third party, I cannot give the government the right to do that either. This argument misses the point.

What my acquaintance does not understand is the contractual nature of the Constitution. I can justly enter into a contract where a breach on my part gives the other party a right to my property. I can also enter into a contract where I agree to give my property to another person for their own personal use which allows collection by a third party. I think my acquaintance makes his mistake by assuming that the contract is between the government and the people. This is not true – the government is not an entity with the right to enter into a contract. Rather, the contract is between the individual members of the society. It is “We the People of the United States”, not “The government and the people contract as follows...”. The government was created as a part of that contract and was given powers that are derived from the collective rights of the people.

In exchange for my allegiance and tax dollars, the government agrees to “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare” among other things. I also agree that my interests will be represented by agents chosen by a plurality (sometimes a majority) of people within the district where I live. Most fundamentally, I agree that I will live in a democratic society and be subject to the will of the majority of the people around me. I also agree that my failure to comply with these terms will result in deprivation of property, liberty or even life. If I am unhappy with any of those terms, I can do my best to change them by electing new officials or changing the contract by passing an amendment to the Constitution or by moving to another area with a different contract. (To get out of the US Constitution, it would have to be a different country. Also, for those who don’t want to live under any contract, there are plenty of lawless places in the world.) By remaining in society and taking advantage of the benefits government provides, I am tacitly agreeing to the terms of the contract.

As part of that contract, we agreed that the government could take from some of us and give to others – a tax system. When the government takes my tax dollars and gives them to other people through public education, welfare, road building, and defense, it is not arbitrarily stealing my money, but it is acting pursuant to the terms of the contract. The government is taking money from parties to the contract and giving it out pursuant to the terms of the contract (this allows things like paying UN dues and foreign aid). It is not forcibly taking money from a third party who is not a party to the contract. Under this theory, any action taken by the government pursuant to the terms of the contract is permissible. Only those actions which are unconstitutional are impermissible.

So to my acquaintance and all of his kind, I say stop whining about how unconstitutional the system is because you are wrong. If the Constitution says we can do something, we can do it – end of story.

3-19 Update: I stated above that the government derives its power from the collective rights of the people. I didn't provide any support for the position - an oversight on my part. It does not however, change my point. The contract power of the individual can still give the government the same rights and powers that I described above for the exact same reasons.

"I've created life!" "Lisa, breakfast! We're having waffles!" "Ooh, waffles!"

2007-03-15T14:08:00.000-07:00

I have heard a lot of people argue that public schools should be required to teach intelligent design. I believe that they are wrong.

For those of you who have been living as moss under a rock, here’s a definition: “The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/. I think it’s fair to say that most people understand the phrase “intelligent cause” to mean God. It’s probably also fair to say that by, “God” they mean the Christian God. I do not mean to say that all Christians believe in intelligent design. Many Christians believe in creationism which is not the same as intelligent design: intelligent design accepts things like evolution and the 4 billion year age of the Earth – strict creationism rejects both positions.

In my mind, the many arguments that can be made in favor of teaching intelligent design can be rebutted with a single question:

Why do they want intelligent design to be taught in schools?

I think that most people would answer that they don’t want the public school system to teach their children that God does not exist or that the creation story is wrong. They want children in school to be given a religious alternative to evolution theory. This motive is in plain contradiction with the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion. States cannot insert a requirement into the school curriculum for primarily religious reasons.

I understand that there are many people who argue that intelligent design is actually a scientific theory. Independent of that position, the school board cannot add it to the curriculum for religious reasons. Because intelligent design has been rejected by more than 90% of the scientific community, it seems unlikely that any school board would want to include the theory because of its scientific merit.

I could just continue to restate here the many arguments that have been made in opposition to teaching intelligent design in schools, but that would go against my tendency to make fringe arguments for mainstream positions. So, I have one additional point I would like proponents to consider:

Asking public schools to teach intelligent design is another example of parents abdicating their responsibility to educate their children. I cannot think of any authority that has argued that the government should be solely responsible for the education of our children. Rather, the primary responsibility for educating children should lie with their parents. As such, parents are completely at will (and obligated) to explain to their children the inherent problems in anything taught at school, including the theory of evolution.

For an interesting take on the issue, check out Scott Adams’ blog.

"The world was going down the tubes. They needed a scapegoat. They found Wayne."

2007-03-15T13:46:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else doubt whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed actually did all of the things that he’s confessed to? Before I go any further, I want to express that based on the evidence that I have seen (through the mainstream media), it appears that Khalid is a very, very bad man. He is probably responsible for the 9/11 attacks as well as many others. He probably deserves whatever punishment a court hands down for him.

Nevertheless, I don’t have much faith in his “confession” (and I'm not the only one). My doubt comes from the fact that this administration has made it very clear that they have no problem using torture to extract information from captured terrorists. So far, we have only seen evidence of this in cases where the terrorist was being held outside the US. However, given its support of torture, I do not doubt that this administration uses these methods within our own borders (including Guantanamo Bay). I believe that confessions extracted by torture are not reliable because the person being tortured will admit to anything to stop the pain. I am not saying that no information taken from torture is useful – some information may actually be true. But without independent verification, I will not believe it.

I also doubt the veracity of his confession because it seems too convenient. I originally believed his confession to masterminding the 9/11 attacks because we had information that led us to him. However, once he “confessed” to beheading Daniel Pearl, I stopped believing him. Then he confessed to being behind the “shoe bomber” attempt and the 1993 WTC attack. It seems too convenient that the same person was responsible for all of these highly publicized heinous acts (and 9 others). It seems to me that the government was looking for someone to blame and this guy is the worst guy we have. He makes it easy for us to want to torture captured terrorists. Because he is so bad, it’s easy for us to believe that he did these bad things which makes him good target for blame – a good scapegoat. Since the administration now has its scapegoat on whom it can blame these many attacks, it is in a much better position to declare victory in the war on terror before Bush leaves office (he is very concerned about his legacy).

“You may be right. I may be crazy. But it just may be a lunatic you’re looking for.”

Corenon Soliare Udoo Mahook!

2007-02-28T11:19:00.000-07:00

I've recently been persuaded that President Bush is not as evil as I once thought he was. In fact, I'm not even convinced that he's as stupid as I previously thought (which still isn't saying much). Rather, I believe that he is just horribly misguided. His world-view of only hearing and saying good news, loyalty above all, and never admitting mistakes may make him feel better, but it's a lousy way to run a presidency.

For example, President Cheney repeatedly said that he believed that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. I will concede that this is probably true - there were probably many people in Iraq who wfere happy to see us topple Hussein's brutal government. But we were not welcomed by everyone (Ba'ath Loyalists) and once we ousted Hussein, we should have known that a bitter fight for power would ensue. Because of the speed with which the country has descended into chaos and our seeming inability to cope with it, I find it unlikely President Bush or his advisors seriously considered the opinions of anyone who predicted that this would happen.

It seems to me that he does believe that if we can build a stable democracy in Iraq that it will serve as a catalyst in the region, prompting other countries to follow suit. My response was put best by Aasif Mandvi of the Daily Show, "We are grateful for the opportunity to test out the latest theories from your political scientists."

“That’s it. You people have stood in my way long enough. I’m going to clown college.”

2006-11-02T08:35:00.000-07:00

One day, I was flipping through a magazine and I saw the most effective advertisement I’ve ever seen. The ad was a picture of an overturned cookie jar with Mini Milanos spilling out onto a table.

When I saw the ad, I thought, “Man, I really want a Mini Milano.” Then I thought, “Man, I really want a cookie jar.”

“The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again.”

2006-11-01T13:08:00.000-07:00

The upcoming election has put into stark relief an important issue: how do you pick a representative that best represents your interests? There are innumerable criteria that may be used in picking a candidate, but I would like to identify a few that seem to be particularly relevant to this election.

Seniority. One of the arguments that Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah is making as to why he should be reelected is that he is a senior member of congress and will soon be the ranking member or chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. He argues that this makes him a better voice for Utah. I disagree.

First, he is no longer accountable to Utah voters. His overwhelming popularity and financial backing shield him from voter accountability. He can take for granted that he will win every election in which he runs. Since he doesn’t have to worry about winning support, he is basically free to follow whatever agenda he wants without fear of repercussion. This frees him up to follow only the interests of his donors and other special interests, rather than those of his constituents. To wit, he has accepted money from Tobacco companies; he voted to repeal the death tax (which affects only a small fraction of Utahns, but provides important revenue; and has accepted a vast majority of his contributions from out-of-state donors. (Links are to The Center for Responsive Politics.)

Second, divided government is key to the success of American democracy. Ours is a system of checks and balances where the power of the state is checked by pitting it at war with itself. Unfortunately, political parties have provided a way of muting that benefit. (Please understand, I am not arguing that political parties are inherently bad – in fact, I feel quite the opposite. This is just an unfortunate side effect.) When the same party controls different branches of government, the incentive to oppose acts of the other branches is largely removed. So, when Democrats control the White House and Congress, they are more likely to cede power between them than they would be when the two branches are controlled by different parties. We have seen this since 2001, as Congress has continued to cede more and more power to the Executive without retaining substantive oversight power. Senator Hatch has been a strong voice in favor of these concessions. Therefore, the interests of Utahns might be better served by electing a Democrat and turning the reigns of Congress over to a different party.

I do not mean to state that only Orrin Hatch should not be re-elected, but I mean to say that Utahns might not want to send ANY Republicans back to Washington this election.

The Great Equalizer

2006-10-27T12:13:00.000-07:00

The advent of the internet has changed the very way our world works. It has made available a vast wealth of knowledge to anyone who can find a computer with a phone line. Cisco CEO John Chambers called it, "the great equalizer." Presumably, he meant that communication through the internet puts everyone on an equal plane. Giant multinational corporations, world superpower governments, and crackpot individuals can all put their web pages side by side on a virtual stage. This new borderless democracy has attracted many citizens who are best described by something Homer Simpson said: "These are the people who saw an overcrowded marketplace and cried, 'Me too!'"

Now that I have a chance to have my voice greatly equalized, I cry, "Me too!"