The Idiotic Drug War And The Idiots Who Cheer For It

It's a damn holiday. I wanted to do some quick little post about nothing of importance. Maybe snicker at something stupid someone said accidentally or whatever it is I try to pass off as humor around here.

Sadly, this was not to be.

You see, the Fitchburg Police Department has decided that instead of doing something valuable with their time they should devote a whole lot of effort to busting low-level drug dealers.

So some people are probably having a slightly more difficult time getting pot than they did a week ago. Don't you feel safer already?

To make matters worse, they're talking about all this asset forfeiture bullshit. If you're not familiar with it, asset forfeiture laws basically allow the cops to steal the stuff of anyone in any way related to a drug offense. It's abused basically as a matter of policy.

So yeah, I'm not behind this current pointless law enforcement theater. But as anyone familiar with them should already know, the editors of the S&E love it.

Their editorial is entitled New approach against drug crimes will make a difference, which is both unsupported by the facts and laughably naive. Shocking, isn't it?

Let's look at some idiocy:

For literally years now, we have been saying that police and prosecutors, along with city officials and judges, need to start treating drug offenses like the serious crimes they are, and stop coddling drug addicts, who by definition are criminals.

Oh fuck you, editorialist! This "drug addicts are by definition criminals" argument is the oldest and stupidest argument in the prohibitionist's arsenal.

Fornication is illegal in Massachusetts. If you have sex before marriage, you are by definition a criminal. So we could just as easily change the above to say:

For literally years now, we have been saying that police and prosecutors, along with city officials and judges, need to start treating fornication like the serious crime it is, and stop coddling fornicators, who by definition are criminals.

Shit, they probably actually do think that.

The point is, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. Apparently the big-government Republican assholes behind this editorial like having the government legislate their morality, but the rest of us can do just fine without the help, thanks.

Also, hey assholes, drug addicts are NOT criminal by definition. The vast majority of people with a drug problem use only legal drugs (alcohol, mostly). So let's stop with the bullshit argument already.

Whatever. Moving on:

DeMoura said that any property where a drug dealer has been arrested will receive a letter addressed to the landlord or listed owner warning them to evict or eject any tenants that are committing illegal activity.

DeMoura said if no action is taken by the landlord then the owner can be fined between $100 and $1,000, imprisoned for between three months and one year, or the house can be seized.

There's our friend asset forfeiture again.

Don't misunderstand what's going on here. The landlord is being told to evict or eject any tenants that are committing illegal activity. If they don't do this, they face fines, imprisonment, or even the seizure of the house. Even though they had nothing at all to do with the alleged crime, the landlord could suffer serious repercussions.

Why do they do this?

Well, courts have a funny way of considering you innocent until you're proven guilty. I'm sure the S&E doesn't back that either, but that's the way it is. Landlords, on the other hand, aren't bound by that (though they may be bound by the lease).

An arrest took place on their property. That's not a conviction, that's an arrest. It could all be a big mistake. The landlord still has to do the eviction thing, apparently. And they have to evict anyone who's "committing illegal activity." Man, I hope nobody has any speeding tickets!

How, pray tell, is the landlord supposed to know if someone's committing illegal activity? Most people make an effort to keep their illegal activities pretty quiet. But hey, the police don't care about your fancy "rights" and other liberal claptrap. They care about intimidating your landlord into kicking you out of your home, even if there's no basis. Better yet, if your landlord is the principled sort who doesn't want to go along with it, they can fuck up his/her life seriously. Hooray for our great protectors!

But if you ask the S&E, those great protectors aren't worth a damn unless they also punish, punish, PUNISH the already-presumed-guilty!

As important as the actions taken this week are, it's just as important that judges set high bails in these drug cases, and then implement strict sentences when a defendant is found guilty.

Likewise, city officials, working with our Statehouse delegation, should do everything they can to rid the city of Fitchburg, and particularly Main Street and the downtown -- of non-profits that cater to drug addicts.

Oh yeah, and that's who the real guilty party is! It's non-profit organizations that make an effort to help people with substance abuse problems! Those fucking assholes, with all their compassion and their "helping your fellow man"!

It's long past time to get serious about fighting drugs and to throw these failed treating the criminal like a victim or client policies out the window.

There's your final sentence of the editorial. It's a garbled sentence, but the message is clear.

Do you have a substance abuse problem?

Well then, according to the Sentinel you don't have a medical problem, you are a problem. You're not sick, you're a criminal. The system isn't corrupt, you are. And they'll do everything they can to influence asshole cops and spineless lawmakers into ruining your entire life.

We need to take this power away from the cops and the lawmakers (the editorialists are already impotent, they can whine all they like). For now, make sure you vote for Question 2, and help move us in the right direction.

This stupid war on drugs helps nobody. It's just the way that moralizing nitwits like the S&E's editorialist get their rocks off. They clap and giggle when people's lives are ruined. And for what? Because some people like to put things in their body that the government doesn't like.

That's it. That's what people go to jail for.

Time for the government and the police to face reality. Understand that people have always taken mood-altering substances. Get over it. Decriminalize it. And let's start helping those who suffer instead of making everything worse.

If Jesus Ran for President

Jerome Corsi, world's greatest idiot

You may or may not know who Jerome Corsi is by name, but you've almost certainly heard about his works.

See, this is the asshole behind the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Same guy who recently published the book "Obama Nation", which is a nice compendium of lies and idiocy. Want someone to thank for the stupid emails your grandmother sends you claiming Obama's a Muslim? Corsi's your man.

He's also a 9/11 "truther", which of course means he's a gullible idiot. Oh, and he made news just recently for getting detained in Kenya for not having his papers in order, while in the country on some dumbass anti-Obama stunt.

He's also a favorite of the worst "news" organization in the world, WorldNetDaily. They love him!

In fact, here's a fun article in WorldNetDaily about Corsi and his devastating "proof" that Obama is all buddy-buddy with Kenya's Raila Odinga. Though in typical WND fashion, Odinga is referred to as "ruthless, foreign thug." Both those adjectives are intended as epithets.

What's Corsi's proof of this connection? Emails, of course! Which we can happily see for ourselves in shitty-resolution scans of printouts of them! Let's look at them!

Here's the first one:

In case you can't make it out, I'll transcribe that for you:

Subject: Let's share a dream!

Hello brother,

I will kindly wish that all our correspondence handled by Mr Mark Lippert. I have already instructed him. This will be for my own security both for now and in future.

Faithfully,
Obama

How damning!

Apparently not only is Obama secretly best friends with Odinga, he's also a Nigerian email scammer!

No native English speaker uses the phrase "I will kindly wish." Not to mention leaving out numerous words (like "be" before "handled by" and "the" between "in" and "future"). And seriously, do we really think Obama signs his emails "Obama" and not "Senator Obama" or "Barack" (for friends/foreign dictators)?

The second email is almost as bad!
I'm not even going to transcribe that one, but let me point out a few things.

"mark.lippert.obama.senate.gov" is not an email address. Sure, maybe that's just a typo. Mysterious foreign Obama sure makes a lot of them.

He also has his email program set up really weirdly, since the first time around his return address wasn't capitalized and the second time it was. Nothing suspicious about that!

The fact of the matter is that even if these emails had been written by a competent forger and not someone on a break from sending out Nigerian 419 scams, there'd be no reason to believe them. They're emails, presented without headers (also forgeable, but it's not like these people are competent), context, or really anything at all that would actually tie them to Obama. Forging an email is about the easiest thing in the world.

Yet WorldNetDaily considers these obvious fakes "Proof" that Obama backs Odinga. And what WND prints gets reprinted by Drudge, and Fox, and all the other right-wing shills out there who care more about someone confirming their biases than actual facts.

Well, I have "proof" of something almost as devastating!



Quick, someone tell Drudge about this!

Open letter to local criminals

Dear local criminals,

Hey there! How's it going?

Probably not too great, because you keep robbing banks like idiots. And trying to escape on bicycles, apparently.

Look, I'm not much of a criminal mastermind or anything, but I have seen a lot of movies. Not once in all those movies did a bank robber successfully escape on a bicycle.

See, you can't carry a lot on a bicycle. So you can't get a lot of loot. Because if you do, it makes it hard to ride the bicycle. So the more successful the robbery itself is, the worse a getaway vehicle it becomes. If you shoplift a chapstick or something it's great, but not so good for bank robbery!

You also want to retreat to a safe location far from your targeted bank after a robbery, which is more difficult on a bicycle. This is important! If you live on a street that intersects the street the bank is on, you're too close to home!

You want to rob a bank that's at least several towns away. Several states, if possible. Not one that's conveniently down the road. If you're worried about convenience, you really shouldn't be robbing a bank in the first place. As a rule of thumb, don't rob any location within comfortable walking distance of your home. Especially if you walk around a lot. It sort of makes you easy to ID.

Also, what's up with the bank robbing? I know it's romantic and all, but have you looked at the economy lately? Banks are collapsing all over the place! The payoff for a bank robbery wasn't even all that big last year, and it's going to be even worse now. You have a 50/50 chance that the bank will collapse before you can even get a proper plan worked out.

Which brings me to something else. Have a proper plan!

Among other things, a proper plan involves not using a bicycle for your getaway vehicle! Also, you need accomplices. And cool disguises. And intrigue. Nothing is more boring than some jerkass walking up to the teller with a note demanding money.

Look, I know you guys are trying. But you clearly can't handle the whole bank robbery thing, so just cut it out. It's embarrassing.

Love,
Reverend Unicow

Is McCain demented?

So, I had this whole long post written up about McCain and how I wonder if he's suffering from the early stages of dementia. I quoted from the diagnostic criteria and everything! But it was too long and too boring, so it's been scrapped (this is why I don't normally post all that often, I scrap a lot of posts).

Let's see if I can get the point across more simply.

First, watch this. It's only 13 seconds long.

Get that? Instead of saying "fellow Americans" he said "fellow prisoners."

Silly little misspeak, right? Anybody could do it.

But most people would notice it. There was no glimmer of recognition there. No correction. Not even a mangled "fellow prisonamericans" agglomeration. Still, no big deal. Everyone misspeaks from time to time.

Yes, it's humorous that he's talking about "standards of clarity and candor" while being decidedly unclear in his speech. But still, not a big deal!

Or could it be a symptom of impending dementia? Aphasia is quite common in those suffering from dementia.

Some other symptoms?

Well, you can find some here if you want.

For instance, "Personality changes occur, and the person may manifest changes that are the complete opposite from their previous personality."

Sure, McCain has reversed his stances on tax cuts, religious "agents of intolerance," and pretty much everything else he used to claim to stand for. He's gone from straight-talkin' maverick (which frankly was never really true, but let's just pretend) to bald-faced liar. And nary a day goes by that you don't hear someone say "The McCain of 2008 is a different person from the McCain of 2000."

But maybe that's all just politics, not dementia.

Here's another symptom: "Poor judgment and impulse control often go hand-in-hand."

Well, he did pick Sarah Palin. If that's not poor judgment, I don't know what is! There's also his massive gambling problem. But poor judgment and impulse control could just be part of his personality, not the result of his brain deteriorating!

"They may speak crudely, make lewd gestures and display their genitals."

Speaking crudely? Holy crap yeah he does that. But he's apparently done that for quite some time!

Thankfully I'm not aware of him showing off his genitals in public. I'm not going to search for that one though, because I'm scared of what I might find. Once again though, not necessarily dementia! He could just be a jerk! In fact, that's probably what he is!

"[T]heir speech can become stereotyped, slow, vague and filled with irrelevant details..."

Well yeah, though that applies even more to Palin than to McCain. And to some degree it applies to every politician. Not grounds for dementia, just resembles it!

"[T]here is memory loss for recent events... long-ago memories are retained and dwelled upon..."

Hmm... did you notice on the day he claimed that the "fundamentals" of the economy were strong how he started off with that claim in the morning and was saying basically the opposite by noon? Short-term memory loss? Nah, probably just lying.

As for long-ago memories, well of course he dwells on them! He hasn't done anything worthwhile in 40 years! Not dementia, just uselessness!

I'm not sure where forgetting how many homes you have falls in the short-term/long-term memory spectrum, so we'll just give him a pass on that.

"They may ... respond to situations inappropriately by crying, laughing, hostility, and immobility at inappropriate times."

I haven't seen McCain cry, though his creepy laugh certainly does pop up a lot. Also not sure about immobility. He's old, he doesn't move around that well.

But inappropriate hostility? Oh hell yes!

Still, seeing as his nickname as a young man was "McNasty" I'm inclined to think he's always had a bit of that hostility in him. Once more it's not proof of dementia, he's just an asshole!

"They may confabulate stories to make up for lost memories to conceal the degree of memory loss."

Like making up stories about sympathetic Christian captors?

But the cross story seems to have been ripped off from Solzhenitsen. Which would mean he's a plagiarist, not demented!

What does all this mean, taken together?

It doesn't mean that McCain suffers from dementia (even though I still suspect he's in the early stages). It simply means that his personality traits and the way he acts are already pretty in tune with people who do suffer from dementia. And that he's an impulsive, nasty, confused, unpredictable, lying asshole.

That's much better, isn't it?

At least he's not waving his genitals around yet.

This pretty much covers it...

(Many more along similar lines here.)

Presidential Debate Liveblog!

Hey, it's a presidential debate between John "McNasty" McCain and Barack Hussein Obama! With commentary from me for some reason!

Will liveblogging it be fun? Probably yes for like the first 15 minutes, then I'll likely get annoyed and sick of the whole deal, but will keep going because I'm a masochist.

Complicating matters, I will be totally sober during the debate, as my body has recently decided that alcohol == headaches. This will make the debate remarkably less enjoyable, and I don't recommend that anyone follow my lead. In fact, I recommend you take a drink every time you hear the word "maverick." It will help dull the pain.

I'm going to be watching the debate online via Hulu, who will be using this as their first ever live stream! So maybe we'll get some awesome technical difficulties along the way and I can call the whole thing off. That would be pretty sweet.

Incidentally, tonight's moderator will be Tom Brokaw, NBC's liaison to the McCain campaign. Damn that liberal bias!

Okay, here we go!

8:45 - Yeah, it's 15 minutes early. I wanted to be ready. Also, I started watching the Tina Fey thingy on Hulu here and just discovered that at the end she says "maverick" in case you're playing a drinking game! I did not know that when I wrote that shit up above!
8:51 - Now I'm just watching this:Way to be exciting, Hulu!
8:58 - Okay, timer's over and it's beginning and I'm treated to several terrible commercials. I think they're just streaming whatever dumb shit is on NBC right now.
9:00 - Yes, we will be having "undecided voters" asking the questions this evening. No mention if they're illiterate too or just regular morons.
9:03 - Brokaw is getting all down on the economy. "We don't know where the bottom is." Hee.
9:03 - Some bald guy sitting in the bald section asks about bailing out bald people. Obama: "It's the Republicans' fault you bald guys are suffering."
9:05 - Obama has steps: 1) Fire fat cats 2) Reform system.
9:06 - McCain thinks it's all about energy independence and "keeping taxes low." The question was about bailing out normal bald guys, dude!
9:07 - Oh, the actual plan is buying everyone's house. That makes perfect sense.
9:08 - McCain will not appoint Tom Brokaw to be Secretary of the Treasury or whatever. That passes for humor. He also thinks the CEO of eBay "inspires trust and confidence."
9:10 - Obama likes Warren Buffet, then makes fun of McCain for thinking the fundamentals of the economy are sound.
9:11 - Some guy asks a question I missed because my dog is being obnoxious. McCain talks about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, blaming Obama for encouraging them?
9:14 - Obama "McCain's all about deregulation and is a big fat liar but I'm trying to look dignified so I won't actually say that. But his campaign chair's a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, so nyah."
9:16 - Brokaw: "Are you saying the economy is going to get worse before it gets better?" Obama: "No, blah blah blah." WRONG.
9:17 - Same question to McCain, same basic answer but stutters a lot and is still trying to make up for 3 weeks ago by calling American workers the "fundamentals" of the economy.
9:18 - Some southern woman: "How can we trust either of you when both parties are responsible for this big clusterfuck we're in?" THANK YOU STUPID WOMAN FOR YOUR DEEPLY PROBING QUESTION.
9:20 - Barry: "Yeah, we suck. Here's a bunch of empty gibberish meant to placate you since you didn't bother to ask a real question."
9:21 - McNasty: "I'm a reformer! I love Joe Lieberman!"
9:23 - Oh my god he won't shut up.
9:24 - Brokaw, "Health care, energy, or entitlement reform, put them in order of importance!" This is a question?
And yes, I think Brokaw is drunk.
9:25 - McCain won't put them in order, he just says they're all important. Obama's cool with prioritizing, energy #1, health care #2, education #3.
Wait, was education a choice?
9:28 - Some old lady with AOL wants to know which animals the candidates will sacrifice to Ba'al.
9:30 - McCain wants to sacrifice earmarks. So he's killing a pig. Probably Babe.
Also says "We're not rifle shots here, we're Americans." which makes no damn sense.
9:30 - Obama: Remember 9/11? We really should have sacrificed back then instead of shopping like idiots. YES, BUT WHAT ANIMAL?

9:33 - Brokaw: "EVERYONE'S DRUNK!!!" This is somehow related to the economy.
9:34 - OMG Obama said some people are living "high on the hog." Why is he so sexist about Sarah Palin's lipstick?
9:35 - McCain's dementia kicks in: "Obama wants to nail Jello to the wall like Herbert Hoover... Protectionism... we'll get to that... he wants to increase taxes... small business are going to cut jobs... the economy is bad..." He moves his fist during the whole thing like his Jeopardy buzzer is broken.
9:37 - Brokaw won't let Obama respond to McCain's crazy, and starts making up questions. Brokaw asks about reforming Medicare and Social Security because the Greatest Generation is really concerned about them.
9:39 - Obama: "I'm going to ignore your dumbass question, Tom. Instead, here's all the ways McCain just lied to you."
9:40 - Man, McCain and Brokaw sure are chummy. McCain: "I'll answer your question." Then he doesn't.
9:42 - Someone assassinate Tom Brokaw now, please.
9:43 - Audience lady asks how we're going to move fast on environmental issues and "green jobs."
9:43 - McCain: "Seriously, I love Joe Lieberman. Also nuclear power!" Because environmentalists really love nuclear power.
9:45 - Obama sees the "green jobs" as being just like computers. Yes, we'll have a big bubble when everyone gets involved, which will then burst. Obama also likes nuclear power, but other stuff too.
9:47 - The splitscreen reveals the horror:
9:48 - Ooh, even better!
9:50 - Question: "Should healthcare be treated as a commodity?"
9:50 - Obama has mastered the "Yeah that sucks, here's another plan" response. "If you like what you have, keep it. If you don't have health insurance, you can have ours. Also, McCain's plan sucks." THIS IS TRUE.
9:53 - McCain thinks putting everything online will make healthcare fine. He wants you to go across state lines for health care. Like a common criminal fleeing the po-po's!
9:54 - McCain thinks people have health insurance that pays for hair transplants. "I might need one of those myself." Nobody laughs.
9:55 - Brokaw: "Health care: Privilege, right, or responsibility?" WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
9:55 - McCain: "Responsibility, but we're not giving it to you. And Obama wants to fine you!!!"
9:56 - Obama says it should be a right and looks totally frustrated that everything McCain says about him is a lie. Then tries to correct the lies. Tough luck, Hopey, nobody cares about your dirty liberal facts!
9:57 - I hope you commenters are keeping up the cleverness. I can't read all your comments because this liveblogging is surprisingly difficult. You guys should take over.

9:59 - Foreign policy time. Some guy named Phil asks how economic stress will affect our nation's ability to be a peacemaker in the world. No $$$$ means no bullets!
10:00 - McCain: "we have gone to all four corners of the world and shed blood... so we are peacemakers." What?
10:01 - Obama goes off on how all our wars suck. McCain is scribbling something and looking grumpy that Obama doesn't love war as much as he does. Why do you hate war, Hopey?
10:03 - So the answer to Phil's question is "we're fucked!"
10:04 - Why is buttplug Brokaw asking questions? Stop breaking the rules, Tom!
Anyway, he asks when it's cool to go invade other countries. I think he's pissed that Hopey's down on war.
10:05 - Hopey says we'd stop Hitler. Smart move! Also, remarkably good ideas for Darfur.
10:06 - McNasty looks pissed and is saying "my friends" way too much. Stop raining on his war!
10:07 - Old white guy says we need "a cool hand" in charge. The most impulsive man on the planet, with a huge gambling problem, thinks he's a "cool hand"!
10:08 - To clarify, that was old white guy McCain, not old white guy Brokaw.
10:08 - "Should the US respect Pakistani sovereignity and not pursue Al Qaida there, or should we do them like we did Cambodia?" - some lady.
10:09 - Obama: "Yep, Bush sure fucked that one up pretty awful didn't he? Maybe if he wasn't such a dick we wouldn't have to even worry about that question!" Then, after a lot of talking, he says yeah we'll kill Bin Laden if the Pakistani government won't do it.
10:10 - McCain: "My hero is Teddy Roosevelt... talk softly, big stick.. Obama wants to talk to Pakistan before invading them..." I think he's developing a lisp.
10:12 - Finally, he ends with the exact same policy as Obama.
10:13 - Obama wants a followup and McCain gets pissy and wants his own. Obama's followup: "What the fuck, John McCain? Why do you keep lying about everything I say?"
10:14 - Oooh, Hopey brought up McNasty's "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" song! This rebuttal right here is where Obama just won the debate.
10:15 - McCain's rebuttal to the rebuttal: "Not true." Then goes into a story about joking with a veteran that stops after "I was joking with a veteran."
10:17 - Brokaw asked some question about Afghanistan I wasn't paying attention to, and the responses are boring. Oh my god I'm going to murder everyone if this doesn't end soon.
10:18 - McCain is hung up on Obama not "admitting he's wrong about Iraq." Yeah, that's going to happen.
10:19 - Some dick on the internet wants to apply pressure to Russia on humanitarian issues without starting another Cold War. McCain takes this opportunity to say Putin is a big KGB apparatchik or whatever. This question is idiotic.
10:20 - Where are all the Code Pink protesters? There must be undecided Code Pink protesters, right?
10:21 - Obama talks about supporting Russia and ex-soviet republics to help keep from having problems in the first place. This is too nuanced! What about Putin's crazy KGB eyes?
10:23 - Brokaw: "Yes or No, is Russian under Putin an evil empire?"
10:24 - Obama: "it's nuanced, you ass!"
10:24 - McCain says "Maybe" and gets a laugh and then goes on for awhile saying nothing at all.
10:25 - Another bald dude asks if we'd wait for UN Security Council approval before defending Israel if Iran attacks Israel. He also wants to know if we would wait for approval from Papa Smurf before rescuing Brainy from Gargamel. He is clearly an undecided voter.
10:26 - McCain: "Hell yes! We'll bomb those fuckers all the time! I love these imaginary questions! Hey, did you see that episode of 24 where Jack Bauer tortured that guy?"
10:27 - Obama: "Maybe we should avoid that in the first place, dumbass. But yeah, if your totally imaginary scenario comes to pass we'll do what we need to do."
10:29 - Last question! From someone in New Hampshire:
"What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
THIS IS THE STUPIDEST QUESTION EVER. THANK YOU NEW HAMPSHIRE FOR SUCKING SO BAD.
10:30 - Obama "Whatever, dummy. Here's some stuff I do know." Then just stump speech for awhile. He does this stuff well. Change, hope, courage, sacrifice, new direction!
10:32 - McCain: "What I don't know is what's going to happen." Also where countries are on the map? Then to the stump speech.
10:33 - Fine, I'll say it for you guys: MAVERICK MAVERICK MAVERICK MAVERICK
10:34 - Oh thank god it's over. Hahaha they both just stood in front of Brokaw's teleprompter!

Okay, I have no clue what that debate was all about. Hey commenters, you rule!

I AM NEVER DOING THIS AGAIN.

Big plans!

Time for an experiment!

Actually, three experiments.

First off, I'm going to try to manage a post a day for the next month. Just to see if I can do it. So from now until November 7th there should be at least 30 posts (no doubt of wildly varying quality). That will take us past the election and at least part of the post-election confusion, so there should be no shortage of stuff to write about.

Second, I've put ads on the site. Because if I'm posting that much, I might as well see if I can make some money off it. Chances are I can't, but it's worth a shot. I'll try to keep them unobtrusive, and am still sorting out the layout. If you're using an adblocker it would be really nice if you could whitelist me. If you don't want to, that's fine too. Yes, I know ads suck.

Finally, there's a presidential debate tonight and barring unforeseen circumstances I'm going to liveblog the thing. Like a real blogger! So perhaps you might want to check back whenever the debate starts. Also, I should probably figure out when it starts myself, or this may not go very well.

That is all.


UPDATE: And instantly I have an ad for the endlessly idiotic Answers in Genesis! Goddamn it, Google!

A less good quote

From John McCain, here (pdf):

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Yes, let's model healthcare after the banking industry. It's doing just great.

Update: What's Palin's take on healthcare? I was able to dig that up too.

Reporter: Do you agree with Senator McCain's attitudes towards health insurance deregulation?
Palin: In what respect, Charlie?
Reporter: My name's Frank.
Palin: I can see Russia from my house!

Possibly the best quote ever...

In keeping with the tragic yet ultimately entertaining reality that comedians do better at political reporting than fucking political reporters, I present to you this piece from cracked.com.

Yes, the magazine that started off as a cheap Mad Magazine rip-off and eventually went out of business as a print magazine and is now web-only (and actually pretty decent) does better political commentary than all the stenographers reporters at CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and wherever else together.

The whole thing is worth a read, but the reason for this post is the following quote, which is directed to the media itself...

I get that candidates are going to run slightly shady campaigns. I get that, because I’m not an idiot and that’s just politics as usual. I can learn about the shadiness of their campaigns by watching their commercials. They’re going to lie. It’s your job to get the truth and to hold someone accountable when they lie, not just weakly point out ‘Hey, that might possibly be construed as slightly perhaps being not so forward in the field of truth. Let’s take a poll to see how the American people feel about possibly perhaps being lied to maybe.’ Don’t just point it out, do something about it.

Have you ever been fucked violently in the ear? And then your friend comes in and, instead of helping, starts telling you what the guy’s balls look like? That’s you. You’re that friend.

I want you to protect me from getting fucked, and all you’re saying is “Balls, balls balls.”

Thank you, guy who writes for Cracked.com! You have made my day!

Sometimes I wish I still had cable...

It's sort of depressing that the highest-quality news you can get from the TV is on a comedy show. But that's the way it is, and at least you get treated to brilliant moments like this:

Why you shouldn't trust polls

People talk about polls a lot these days. Particularly presidential polls, where we're constantly told that Obama and McCain are "neck and neck."

This makes for more drama in the race, which journalists love. Nothing more boring than a runaway victory, that's for sure.

But is it really neck and neck? Maybe, but you really can't draw that conclusion from all these sucky-ass polls!

Remember the two days after the New Hampshire Democratic primary when everybody in the media suddenly realized that all their polls were incredibly wrong? Those were good days! Then they went right back to believing that their polls were valid and have been beating us over the head with them ever since.

Before I get into why the current polls are so incredibly flawed, let's talk about history a little. You've no doubt seen the famous picture of Harry Truman up there holding up a "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline after the 1948 election. This actually wasn't a polling error, it's just a nice picture. In fact, this screwup was due to a bad extrapolation of early voting returns. Which brings Fox News to mind, for some reason.

More relevant to what I'm talking about is the 1936 presidential race, in which it was at one point determined by the highly respected Literary Digest poll that Alf Landon would win in a landslide.

Remember president Landon? Of course not. FDR beat his brains in. Landon won Maine and Vermont and that's it, FDR got the other 98.5% of the electoral votes. In the popular vote, Roosevelt got 60.8% and Landon trailed almost 25 points behind with 36.5%, one of the biggest victories in modern history. Yikes!

What went wrong?

Well, Literary Digest (which was folded into Time magazine a couple of years later) used idiotic sampling procedures. They only polled their own readers, owners of registered automobiles, and people with telephones.

They did this during the Great Depression, of course. When the only people with cars and phones and with enough disposable income to subscribe to Literary Digest were far wealthier than the average citizen, and therefore more likely to vote Republican.

In modern terms, it would be like the Wall Street Journal running a poll that only counted their subscribers, people who drive Mercedes, and people who eat caviar at least once a week. Totally worthless.

Incidentally, George Gallup had his own poll of 5,000 random people that year and correctly predicted that FDR would win. And we haven't been able to shut up the Gallup polls ever since.

So, how does this relate to our current situation, when Gallup's more statistically-worthwhile polls are commonplace and pollsters have hopefully learned from their prior really stupid mistakes?

Simple: It all comes down to phones once again.

Most political polls are conducted by telephone. Many pollsters (but not all) just call land lines.

It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that in the current presidential race Obama does much better with younger voters and McCain fares better with older voters. This is true not just of these two, but of their political parties. The young mostly vote for Democrats and the old mostly vote for Republicans. It's just the way it goes.

It also shouldn't come as a shock that young people are far more likely to be cell-only while old people love their landlines. Hello, sampling error!

Pew Research recently released a study looking at the cell phones vs landlines issue. It's pretty telling:

Let me particularly point you to the third part of that chart, where they look at Obama vs McCain preference.

Among the landline-only people, you get 46% for Obama and 41% for McCain. Okay, that's not far off what the other polls around this time showed. You get slightly more for Obama in the two groups that have both (landline-mostly and cell-mostly), but it's not really a significant difference.

But among the cell-only group (which is apparently just under 15% of the country) you get a massive shift. It goes up to 61% for Obama and drops to 32% for McCain. That's a big difference!

Yes, you'll also see that the cell-only group is less likely to be registered to vote (still time!) and also slightly less likely to actually vote (maybe not enough time?), but that's not unexpected among the relatively unreliable "youth vote" and is what candidates hope to address with GOTV campaigns.

Polling organizations are aware of these discrepancies, of course. Hell, Public Opinion Quarterly (which I assume most pollsters read) even had a whole issue devoted to the cell phone vs landline problem.

But it's not just about cell-phone only and landline-only people. It's a bit more complex.

The bigger polling firms (like Gallup) use random dialers that don't exclude cell phones. Let's take a look at the methods section of their most recent poll. It's pretty sparse, unfortunately:

For the Gallup Poll Daily tracking survey, Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008.

The general-election results are based on combined data from Aug. 24-26, 2008. For results based on this sample of 2,724 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Okay, it's good to have a large sample size, and that's a nice low margin of sampling error.

And as you can see, they do call people with cell phones. Though they don't mention how they know that it's cell-phone only. Do they ask anyone with a cell number if they have a landline and dump those people into the landline group? Maybe so. It's tough to know from this tiny little methods section.

The problem goes beyond cell-only and landline, though. It goes into a feature that's present on virtually every cell phone and only present on a relatively small (though growing) number of landlines: Caller ID.

I'd put Caller ID into the "practical difficulties in conducting surveys" category as mentioned in Gallup's disclaimer up there. For a large number of people (myself included), if a number comes up on the Caller ID that I don't recognize, I don't bother answering the phone. This is even more true if I'm out somewhere and my phone rings. Why should I take the time to answer some stranger's call when I know they can just leave me a message if it's important?

So who does answer the phone to talk to pollsters? Lonely people. People with nothing better to do. Invalids. People who are desperate to talk to someone -- anyone -- now that all their friends are dead.

In other words, old people.

Obviously it's not just old people talking to pollsters, but I'd be willing to bet good money that if you look at the median age of people who respond to telephone polling and compare it to the median age of voters, you're going to find at least a 5-10 year discrepancy.

According to RealClearPolitics.com, the likely median age of voters in the 2008 election will be about 44. I've been unable to find good data showing what the media age of responders to telephone polls is, but if anyone can point me to some I'd be mighty grateful.

Even if we give big firms like Gallup the benefit of the doubt and assume they go to great lengths to make their sample match the median age of the voting population (which they should if they want a truly representative sample), we still have a problem! They could do absolutely everything in their power to make the demographics of their sample match the electorate, but they can't do anything about people who just won't take a telephone poll. There are plenty of those people, and there's no reason to assume they have the same views as those who do respond to the polls.

A couple more problems with cell phones I'll just touch on...

First, unlike landlines, cell phones are not tied to one location. Your cellphone number can follow you around for years, so you can quite easily have a number that corresponds to another part of the country entirely.

This is a problem because polls rely on extrapolating your one point of data into a representation of a large number of people living in your area. If you live in Texas but have a Delaware phone number, you're counted as being from Delaware. Not such a big deal if you're doing a nationwide poll, but for anything more local than that then goodbye representative sample!

Second, cell phones generally don't represent a "household" like landlines do. This is perhaps a minor quibble, because polls probably shouldn't be counting the views of whoever answers a landline as being representative of anything beyond that individual, but it happens. My household has three phone numbers (two cells and a landline). Can that skew things? Yeah, but it's probably not huge.

Third, there are indeed still people who don't have a phone number they're reachable at. They may have a limited cell phone that they'll only use for outgoing calls. Or one of those cheapo convenience store phones that they certainly won't waste time talking to a pollster on. How do you think they vote? Probably not for Alf Landon!

There are plenty of problems with polling beyond the ones I've raised here, but I'm also not saying that polls are totally useless (indeed, I often refer to them even in this post). Tracking polls can show trends reasonably well. Standard polls can still give a rough idea of where things stand, and if this election weren't so divided by voter age maybe they'd even be reasonably accurate. And more focused polls can be quite good. But I'm talking about the presidential election here.

And since choice of candidate is divided so much by voter age in this election, most of the polls you're seeing now are likely to be wrong. Don't pay much attention to that +-2% margin of error, because there are so many other factors involved it's likely to be considerably higher.

Now, maybe I'm wrong about all this. Maybe the polls are spot-on and they've already done a flawless job correcting for all these factors. I guess we'll find out in November. But for now, don't read too much into the polls.

The Turtle Is A Narc!

Okay, it's the swarthy days of August and local politics are alternately boring and depressing, but not really interesting. Same deal with national politics. Which leaves me with little to write about.

John McCain not knowing how many homes he owns (the answer is seven) is pretty funny, but there's nothing to write about it beyond that. Plus it's funny in sort of a sad way. Like when my grandfather was cutting the Thanksgiving turkey back in 1994 or so and said something about "in this year of 1977..." Humorous, yes; but humorous in an old-guy's-mind-turning-to-pudding kind of way, which is sad.

Luckily, I stumbled across possibly the most important and captivating news of the year!

Read it here and be disturbed! I'll wait.

Back? Good.

If you were too lazy to click that link, the basic story is that someone growing pot plants out in the wilds of Washington DC was busted after a snitchy turtle wearing a wire GPS tracking device honed in on his crop! It's the turtle in the picture up there. The one with the smug look of self-satisfaction.

Never trust a turtle!

There was also this disturbing statement by someone-or-other (the police maybe? shitty reporting!):

"He felt like he had a layer of security, but he probably never counted on a turtle with a tracking device leading us to that location and finding the field."

Holy crap!

Anyway, this got me thinking. Nobody expects a GPS-enabled turtle to narc on their stash, which is what makes it so incredibly newsworthy. It's also what makes it ripe for creating an awareness campaign about the dangers of the herpetological war on drugs!

I hereby present some ideas to raise awareness of this new threat to our liberty (click images to embiggen)...

---

Here's a mockup of what might happen if this Drug War turtle encountered the severed (and apparently earthenware) heads of Cheech and Chong!



Chilling!

---

Next, we have here a LOLCat sort of thing that all the kids seem to like...



As if the nearly unstoppable destructive might of Gamera wasn't bad enough, now he's narcing on your stash!

---

The turtle in the story worked alone, but it's only a matter of time before they start teaming up dumpy cops with GPS-enabled turtles in order to steal people's bongs!



Be warned, you'll be seeing this sort of scene a lot in the coming years!

---

It gets worse. It's only a matter of time before the turtlenarc gets sloppy making a bust and someone gets killed.



Beware, citizens!

Apparently, I am extremely manly

At least according to this web gizmo that guesses your gender based on your browser history...

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 3%
Likelihood of you being MALE is 97%

Site         Male-Female Ratio
myspace.com 0.74
youtube.com 1
amazon.com 0.9
facebook.com 0.83
cnn.com         1.35
blogger.com 1.06
imdb.com 1.06
wordpress.com 0.98
weather.com 1.08
evite.com 0.67
bestbuy.com 1.11
netflix.com 0.79
drudgereport.com  2.08
urbandictionary.com 1.13
snopes.com 0.74
huffingtonpost.com 1.35
boston.com 1.08
anywho.com 0.8
staples.com 0.98
rottentomatoes.com 1.17
harvard.edu 0.9
tigerdirect.com 2.23
kotaku.com 1.94
petsmart.com 0.59
ebaumsworld.com 1
census.gov 0.9
mysimon.com 1.04
tomshardware.com 2.33
amd.com         2.13
anl.gov         1.11
angieslist.com 0.77
scienceblogs.com        1.41

Oddly enough, I don't remember visiting several of those sites. Even more oddly, the national census skews female?

Mrs. Unicow only managed a 50/50 split. At least she fared better than this lady, who is just as macho as me (which is obviously extremely macho).

So how about it, readers? Are you paragons of masculinity and/or femininity?

On Global Warming

While I don't think I've ever really talked about it here, one of my many interests is the battle between climatologists and those who deny the reality of Anthropogenic (that is, man-made) Global Warming (AGW).

It's a fascinating thing to watch, since many of the most vocal denialists seem to be coming at the topic with at least some understanding of the science involved. They're not generally experts, but they've devoted enough time that they can at least lay claim to a reasonable understanding of the science involved (often more than I have, anyway).

Still, they harbor some deep-seated political or philosophical beliefs that cause them to interpret that science in a way that is contrary to what the experts come up with, but that supports their preexisting beliefs. This is somewhat different from the manufactured debate about evolution, for instance, because those arguing against it are at least attempting to operate in the sphere of reason.

Of course, vastly more don't operate in the sphere of reason, have no understanding of the science involved, and simply parrot what they read on the Drudge Report. To be fair, many who believe in AGW don't do so for rational reasons either. But they're likely right despite that fact.

Case in point: I recently had someone tell me that AGW is a myth because "last year was the coldest on record." This is, of course, total bullshit. Perhaps last year really was the coldest on record somewhere, but that has nothing to do with the global temperature. And even if it were true globally (in fact, last year was slightly cooler than the year before), it says nothing about the overall trend towards warming, which is vastly more important than any individual point of data. The claim was also made that there's no scientific evidence to support AGW, which is of course nonsense.

However, as I said, I'm not an expert on climatology and I mainly defer to the general consensus of people who really do understand such things on a deep level. This general consensus skews strongly towards the belief that AGW is a reality.

Still, I have to ask myself: "What if the denialists are right?"

Well, luckily for me, I subscribe to Bob Park's weekly email newsletter, and he said it far better than I ever could:

Suppose, I asked myself, that the deniers are right and the CO2 thing is a mistake? What will happen if the world takes the CO2 thing seriously, adopting common sense measures to counter anthropogenic warming and there never was any warming in the first place? 1) there will more non-renewable resources to leave to our progeny; 2) we will breath cleaner air and see the stars again, the way we saw them half a century ago; 3) we could stop paving over the planet, and 4) cut down on the number of billionaires. If we’re wrong we could have a party. We could have a party either way.

Dang, I wish I had said that.

Now, it's entirely possible that some of the better-informed denialists are just making an academic case that the current understanding of AGW is wrong and, theory aside, support doing many of the same things that the rest of us support. But that's certainly not the case among their more ignorant followers, who mostly seem to subscribe to the belief that if AGW isn't real we should just go on doing what we've been doing.

Exactly what benefit do we get from not changing what we're doing? I can't think of one, and am left wondering just why anyone would support that course of action. Is it laziness? It is hiding one's head in the sand? Where are their parties?

Honestly, I have no idea. Anyone have a clue about this?

The twisted mind of Nathan Bech

Alas.

You'd think that after my nice civil discussions with a member of his staff, I'd lay off Nathan Bech for awhile. He did tell me I'm Bech's harshest critic, after all. Maybe I should pause and let others catch up to my level of harshness. Or maybe the guy just deserves a break.

Truth be told, I probably would have given him a break, because I'm not super-interested in giving him a ton of press, and I'm not too concerned about him winning the election. Olver should retain his seat easily.

But if there's one thing I can't resist, it's a batshit-insane press release. And Bech has served one up to me on a golden platter.

To be honest, I don't even know where to start with this piece of bullshit. Let's just quote and fisk, shall we?

Olver Home Heating Plan Fails 75% of Needy Bech says "Drilling will provide relief for all."

21st July 2008

Nathan Bech (R - West Springfield) expressed bewilderment about incumbent John Olver's (D- Amherst) continued unwillingness to loosen regulations for new refineries or to allow drilling for oil in ANWR and offshore drilling in the United States. "Olver knows seniors and poor people will freeze this winter if we do nothing. He knows his plan won't work and still he pursues the same failing polices," said Bech

Here's the first problem (aside from the fact they forgot a period at the end of that paragraph): Bech is talking about "this winter."

Does he seriously think that ANWR and offshore drilling will keep anybody from freezing this winter? Because that's just insane. Try 2030, if you're lucky.

But I've been over all that before, so let's not worry about it now.

Moving on..

In a speech before the House of Representatives on Wednesday July 16th Olver explained, "A whole new crisis looms as families face a price approaching $5 per gallon for heating oil for their homes. That's twice last winter's price. Last winter in Massachusetts and New England alone, 350,000 low-income families used the LIHEAP program to get by, yet only one in four of the families eligible by income use [sic] the program. Many of those already eligible families will be in desperate need of help this winter, and many more middle-income families' budgets will be severely stressed by the doubled price of home heating oil."

See where I put that "[sic]"? There's an intentional misrepresentation a typo there.

If you compare Bech's press release to Olver's, you'll see that Olver didn't say that only one in four eligible families "use" the program, he said they "used" the program. There's a subtle but important difference, which Bech will now further twist to his own bizarre interpretation.

Oddly, you'll also find Olver's "middle class" replaced by Bech's "middle-income." But it's the use/used distinction that Bech exploits.

Witness the insanity!

Bech argued that Olver's own words prove three quarters of the people refuse government handouts for heating oil. "The people of central and western Massachusetts do not want to be dependant [sic] on welfare to heat their homes. We are self sufficient and don't want to take handouts. We simply want government to get out of the way and let increased supply lower costs. If we allow new refineries to be built and if we allow off-shore drilling energy prices will go down," said Bech.

Holy fuck that's stupid.

Seriously, Nathan? You seriously think that Olver's words "prove three quarters of the people refuse government handouts for heating oil"? Are you high? Do you have even the faintest idea what you're talking about?

Now, a sane person hearing that only a quarter of eligible recipients get help from LIHEAP might imagine many reasons for why that's the case.

For instance, they might assume that most people who are eligible for assistance are unaware of it, so they never even think to apply for help. Or they might assume that the application process is so grueling that a lot of eligible people don't make it through. Or they might assume that there are other programs that people use in its place.

They absolutely do not assume that poor people are refusing "government handouts" that would help keep them from freezing to death!

The only people who would assume that are either rich assholes that are totally disconnected from reality, or deranged militia members living in shacks and preparing for "the coming race war." Either way, they share a detachment from reality.

Want to know why only a quarter of people eligible for LIHEAP get help? Maybe this is related...

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is not an entitlement program, meaning that you are not guaranteed help because you meet certain criteria. Congress provides a specific amount of money each year for LIHEAP.

When the LIHEAP funds are gone, LIHEAP grantees can no longer provide federal help until Congress provides funds for the next Federal Fiscal Year that begins on October 1st of each year. Therefore, it is possible (at the time one applies) that a state will have exhausted its available federal LIHEAP grant monies, and thus be unable to serve additional households even if those households are eligible to receive help.

Yeah, and how's that funding going?

Oh, not so well:

FY 2009 Proposed Funding
The President’s proposal for FY 2009 LIHEAP funding is a cut of 22 percent, reducing the block grant from $1.98 billion to $1.7 billion and the emergency contingency fund from $590.3 million to $300 million. The President has proposed zero funding for the Community Services Block Grant and the Weatherization Assistance Program.

Starting to see a trend here?

The whole point of Olver's speech to Congress was to try to get more funding for LIHEAP. That's why he was talking about people who are eligible but couldn't use it. Only a quarter of those eligible get help, not because they refuse it, but because there's no fucking money to give them!

It takes a truly twisted mind to turn an attempt to get proper funding for heating assistance for poor people into a claim that people reject that very assistance out of some twisted desire to conform to Republican ideals. It's impressive, in the same way that 2girls1cup is impressive. And both can cause nausea.

Must we go on with this?

Yeah, we must...

Olver blamed Republicans for the crisis saying, "Congress must end rampant speculation in crude oil futures, yet our Republican colleagues in both branches have consistently opposed such legislation."

Hey, that's true! Maybe things are looking up!

Bech responded, "It is Economics 101, when action to increase supply is taken, the price of futures goes down and speculators leave the market place. When the executive offshore drilling ban was lifted last week the price of crude went down $9 a barrel with in [sic] hours.

Hey, he's doing pretty well. Bech and Olver agree that speculation is a problem, they just differ in the best way to solve it. I'm inclined to agree with Olver and disagree with Bech on this matter, but reasonable people can differ.

Maybe this is a sign of an upcoming improvement in the Bech press releases! Oh, but wait... that quote didn't close... there's one more sentence to go...

Olver doesn't seem to have a problem with speculators in the pharmaceutical industry; after all he has thousands of dollars in Pfizer stock."

FUCK!

I thought we were talking about energy costs and LIHEAP and people freezing this winter, and Bech comes out with a slam that Olver owns stock in Pfizer? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? How is it relevant to anything anyone is talking about? Is speculation some sort of problem when it comes to pharmaceutical prices? How does this have anything to do with anything???

I give up. This is way past just honesty problems. This is dementia.

No more mystery

Remember that post I made a few days ago? The one immediately beneath this one? If not, I recommend you read it now or nothing I say in this post is going to make much sense. Or maybe it will. Either way, I'm bored with it now and am just posting this so I can move on to something more interesting.

Anyway, some of the mysteries in that last post are now not so mysterious. I've had some polite discourse with the formerly mysterious Brian S. Murphy, who is Nathan Bech's Volunteer Coordinator. Pleasantries were exchanged, tales were told, etc.

Contrary to what I had speculated about, my annoying commenter "BSM" was not Mr. Murphy (who is quite civil). My bad!

On the other hand, BSM is a supporter of Nathan Bech (albeit informally), swiped most of the comments directly from a policy paper written by Brian S. Murphy, used BSM as a name to somehow "credit" Mr. Murphy, and contacted Mr. Murphy to brag about the commenting, at which point a chiding was presumably administered.

So while it wasn't a direct connection, there was at least some connection there. Mr. Murphy had basically been identity-thefted! Though most identity thieves don't brag about it to the victim. This is a shame, because it would make catching them a lot easier. Still... Not cool, BSM!

Of course that was only one element of the whole weirdness. There was also the matter of the Phoenix blog. And that was the real Brian S. Murphy commenting!

I chided him in my post for not disclosing his affiliation, and he conceded the point in email:

I will make sure that we include our affiliation when we comment on a blog. It's a fair criticism of something that wasn't intentional. I don't think it gets to our honesty at all. You made a good point and we'll modify what we do going forward.

So that's good, and gives me little to complain about here.

There was also discussion about who's behind Bech's Wikipedia page. I'm not going to go into details about that one, but will give you the gist.

The story given to me by Mr. Murphy indicates that while it indeed was someone with a political agenda, they weren't officially with any campaign, and indeed support neither Bech nor Olver. They also sound like sort of a dumbass.

There was more to the emails than just that, of course. I got a lot of campaigny talk about what Nathan Bech is about and what he believes and so forth. Which is all well and good, and I will perhaps talk more about it at another time. Some of it's good, some of it's just plain baffling. I also might do a Q&A thingy with Bech at some point. We'll see.

Brian Murphy was quite pleasant in representing Bech. His emails were well-written, and not super make-fun-of-able. He also came off as pretty sincere. The kind of guy you can have a civil conversation with, even if you disagree.

So, some mysteries are cleared up, some speculation is put to rest, and after my pleasant email exchanges with Mr. Murphy I must be feeling good about Nathan Bech, right? Maybe I'll lay off him for a bit? Only time will tell!

yeah, I'm writing another post about him now...

The hilarious ineptitude of Nathan Bech's spin machine

About a month ago, I wrote a post about Nathan Bech. He's the Republican looking to do battle with John Olver in the fall. He has honesty issues.

About a week after my post, I started getting comments on it from an apologist for Mr. Bech by the pseudonym of BSM.

Generally when a newly created account starts parroting some candidate's platform a week after the post is made, I start to wonder if perhaps the commenter is somehow affiliated with the campaign and just found me through a Google Alert. So, after a bit of back-and-forth, I ended a followup comment with this:

ps Are you part of Bech's internet team? Like the guy who made his Wikipedia page? Just curious.

Perhaps I should explain that Wikipedia part. That was a case of somebody registering an account, making Bech's page (and nothing else), and then disappearing. Another possible indicator of a campaign operative, natch.

Anyway, my question seemed to largely (though not totally) shut up Mr. BSM, and all I got out of him was this:

BSM said...

Unicow -- the man, the myth, the moonbat economist. He can't understand supply and demand but he sure can sling an insult.

Code Pink is calling.

Lovely. I asked again:

[Y]ou didn't answer my ps. Are you part of Bech's team or not? I'm seriously curious, because it's obvious he has one and it looks like you just registered this account to respond to this post. And if my asking about it makes you disappear then I'm just going to assume you are.

...and got the witty retort:

BSM said...

Did you create this blog just to post your thoughts?

I think you are part of the Unicow internet team! All one of you.

Oh snap!

That was the last I heard from the enigmatic "BSM." He never exactly denied being employed by Bech, nor did he admit to it. Alas, we may never know the truth!

That's the backstory. Now we get to the fun stuff.

Bech's campaign recently sent out an email mentioning this Boston Phoenix article in which the writer awarded them the "Crappy Spin of the Day Award" for a totally absurd reinterpretation of something Olver said (as I've mentioned, Bech has honesty problems).

This alone is pretty hilarious, because they actually linked to the article talking about their dishonesty, though they did try to spin it again in the email:


Oh my. That's an even worse spin than the one they got the award for! They gave everyone an easy way to go see just how dishonest Bech is and then backed it up with a totally lame "it's good we got this becuz libruls r bad!" claim. And at the same time, it comes off as desperate for attention! Well done, sirs!

Also, in what way is his "opponent" fighting back? It was an article (technically a blog post) in the Phoenix. Olver had nothing to do with it. Even Reilly wasn't "fighting back," he was making fun of how pathetic Bech's press release was. Is Bech just going to redefine words to suit his purposes? It looks that way.

Thanks to Mr. Bech's email, I went and read the Phoenix article. Thanks Nathan! I wouldn't have noticed that otherwise.

Nor would I have noticed the comments on it. Particularly the two by a "Brian S. Murphy."

Hmm... why does that seem so familiar? The apologetics for Bech, the sense of intellectual superiority that can only come from having studied economics at the prestigious "Western New England College," the ineffecutual sarcasm, the tendency to ignore the issue at hand? The initials?

Could it be my friend BSM? [Update: Probably not. See bottom of post.]

Honestly, there's no way to know for sure. It could be Buffy St. Marie. Or the Bloated Spaghetti Monster. It's a mystery!

But here's something we do know. Nathan Bech's FEC filings are online. They're pretty hilarious in themselves, since they show that of $70,410.95 in itemized receipts for campaign donations, $58,860.95 (that's 83.5%) came from Bech making loans to himself. This is clearly a grassroots campaign!

But who cares about itemized receipts? Far more interesting is the list of disbursements.

Who's that we see halfway down the page next to a payment to "Staff"?

Surprise! It's someone by the name of Brian Murphy!



Of course, it's certainly possible that these are different Brian Murphys, right? And BSM could be anyone. But I don't think it's being overly presumptuous to assume that all these Brian Murphys with a great love for the otherwise-not-very-popular Nathan Bech are most likely the same person. [Update: Or maybe it was. Well, two out of three isn't too bad!]

It's perfectly fine if Mr. Murphy wants to comment on blogs and defend his overlord. That's his right.

However, by not disclosing that he works for Nathan Bech he's being inherently dishonest in his postings. There's a reason that respected journalists (and even pain-in-the-ass bloggers) talk about "full disclosure." It appears another commenter on the Phoenix article is probably also affiliated with Bech (though I didn't spot him in the FEC filings), but he at least links to the Bech website in his name. That's semi-disclosure, anyway.

See, if you don't disclose these things up front then people just assume you're just a normal guy with an opinion, not an interested party. Which means you won't get the kind of scrutiny you'd get if people knew you're actually part of the campaign staff. It's basically a more subtle form of sockpuppetry.

And the ducking of a direct question (assuming BSM and Brian S. Murphy are the same person) only makes matters worse. It was an easy opportunity to tell the truth, and the only response was an attempt to change the subject by lamely attacking me. One can only assume that if they're the same person, then BSM certainly didn't want people to know that he's on Bech's staff.

You know Bech's honesty problems? They apparently extend to his staff as well.

Try not to be too shocked.

--------

Update 7/20/08:

This morning I received an interesting email from Mr. Murphy. He informs me that he has not posted here, which I will take him at his word on. He also says he didn't make the Wikipedia page, which I hadn't meant to imply was him anyway, but there you have it. Brian S. Murphy is apparently not BSM.

What makes that interesting is that he claims that he does know who "BSM" is and who made the Wikipedia page (different people). We're going to discuss this when I can get in touch with him, so prepare for intrigue!

Also, I'm apparently Bech's "harshest critic, bar none." Which is sort of neat. I think that just means I'm unusually harsh, but the recognition is nice!

There was more to the email, which maybe I'll talk about later. I will say that Mr. Murphy came across reasonably well in his email and not as the sort of person who'd say "Code Pink is calling." (Though it's hard to know from one email.)

Finally, while the BSM/Brian Murphy connection may not exist, I do stand by the bulk of this post regarding the importance of full disclosure (it just applies to the Phoenix blog instead of mine now). I also still think that the Bech campaign continues to put out incredibly dishonest press releases, and that the spin machine is missing a few cogs. But maybe Mr. Murphy will wow me with something later. Stay tuned!

Segways? How about some alternatives?

As you may have heard, there's a fundraiser coming up to purchase a Segway for the Fitchburg Police.

Now, it's not something that would come from tax money, so if people want to spend six grand on a Segway for the cops, they're welcome to do so. But I can't help but wonder just which alternate forms of transportation we could get to help the police be "visible to the public" and "go larger distances in a short amount of time," both benefits cited by Chief DeMoura.

Let's look at the options, shall we?

Segway

• Cost: $6,000, plus energy costs for charging.
• Pros:
  • Makes you look high-tech.
  • Makes you about 6 inches taller, good for increasing visibility and spotting crime at a distance!
  • Can go 12 mph for about 2 hours.
  • Easy to use, even for uncoordinated or out-of-shape officers.
• Cons:
  • It's hard to respect anyone riding a Segway.
  • Requires electricity (energy costs, danger of running out of juice in the field, etc.).
  • Can't jump curbs.
  • Makes you look like you're trying to hump a robot.

Bicycle

• Cost: about $1,000 for this one (6 for $6,000).
• Pros:
  • Goes up to 35 mph or so if you're a good sprinter and can be ridden at a lower speed all day.
  • Elevates you slightly compared to foot traffic.
  • No difficulty going off-road or jumping curbs (depending on rider).
  • Can apparently be useful in a shootout (see photo).
• Cons:
  • Doesn't reverse direction quickly.
  • Flat tires are a pain in the ass.
  • Not good for out-of-shape cops.
  • Saddle sores.

Skateboard

• Cost: roughly $100-$300 (20-60 for $6,000).
• Pros:
  • Elevates you about 3-4 inches, increasing visibility and so forth.
  • Can maneuver quickly.
  • In a tight spot, can be wielded as a weapon.
  • Can be used to do awesome tricks and entertain the community.
• Cons:
  • Requires some fitness and balance, plus practice for the aforementioned awesome tricks.
  • Poor off-road abilities.
  • Cops and skaters do not traditionally get along.
  • Skinned knees.

Horse

• Cost: varies, but probably at least $6,000 for the horse and about $3,000 a year for food and whatnot.
• Pros:
  • Comes with a certain innate dignity.
  • Little girls will get all excited to see you.
  • Best visibility of any of the options here.
  • Can say "Hi-ho Silver, away!" when fighting crime.
• Cons
  • Expenses of buying, feeding, and housing a horse.
  • A male horse may lead to embarrassing moments if it gets sexually aroused.
  • Not appropriate for overweight officers.
  • Manure.

Rollerblades

• Cost: $100-$300 (20-60 for $6,000).
• Pros:
  • Highly maneuverable.
  • Some cops in Antwerp already do it, and don't you want to be like Antwerp?
  • Two to three-inch elevation... visibility, etc.
  • Can move pretty fast.
• Cons:
  • Rollerblades are almost as goofy-looking as Segways.
  • Necessitates a backpack to carry around some normal shoes.
  • Might make you look like you got separated from a gay pride parade.
  • If you have to fire your gun you might go rolling backwards.

"Personal Mobility Device" (aka old-person scooter)

• Cost: varies, about $4,000 for the one pictured, but may be as low as $2,000 (1-3 for $6,000).
• Pros:
  • The town's senior citizens and quasi-disabled will feel you're one of them.
  • Goes up to 10 mph.
  • Can frighten criminals with your little horn.
  • "With its powerful dual motors, the Wrangler is the ultimate all-terrain personal mobility vehicle."
• Cons:
  • Requires electricity (like the Segway).
  • Worst visibility of any of the options here.
  • Little basket on the front better suited to transporting a tiny dog than a cuffed prisoner.
  • Judging from that one "Seinfeld" episode, you may get jumped by a gang of crotchety old people.

Pogo Stick

• Cost: $30-$100 (60-200 for $6,000).
• Pros:
  • Great visibility if you can hop high enough.
  • "Boing, boing, boing..." noise coming down the street will frighten away criminals.
  • All-terrain (depending on skill).
  • Can go undercover as a really lame street performer.
• Cons:
  • Hard to move at a high rate of speed.
  • Significant chance of hitting yourself in the chin if you slip off.
  • May cause motion sickness.
  • Best for catching criminals who are directly above you.

Certainly there are more options than the ones I've listed above, but at least this is a start. Feel free to chime in with your own ideas in the comments (no sneakers though, this is about technology, not footwear!).

Let's make sure the FPD has the tools it needs to most effectively fight crime!