Question 2. Yes!

Dammit.

I was all set to write about this plan to shut off streetlights. I was going to debunk the idea that it would lead to more crime, which is very popular among the big piles of stupid who frequent the S&E's message boards.

But I figure the paper itself will probably do an editorial about it within the next week or so, and I can deal with it then. The S&E isn't representative of the community by any means, but they do a great job of promoting the ideas of the cranks who hang out on their message boards.

So instead, I'll deal with their current stupid editorial. As you've probably already figured out, it's about Question 2, and in a totally-not-shocking move is called Vote no on Question 2.

It's also laughably inept. Full of strawmen, non sequiturs, and just plain nonsense. It deserves a thorough fisking. Which will commence right now.

It actually starts off perfectly fine. Just the facts:

Question 2 proposes to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.

It would not, however, legalize possession. Civil penalties would be enforced, and crimes such as driving under the influence of marijuana or intent to sell marijuana would remain the same.

Civil penalties for those age 18 or older would include forfeiture of the marijuana and a fine of $100.

Those under 18 would be subject to the same penalties, if they complete a drug-awareness program within one year of the offense.

The program would include 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the abuse of marijuana and other drugs.

If the program is not completed, the youth's fine could be increased to as much as $1,000. The offender could also face delinquency proceedings.

The main purpose is to prevent a one-time youthful offense from becoming a lifetime criminal record, which can make it difficult to gain employment, rent an apartment and secure student loans.

That is all correct. Sadly, that's the last we'll see of the facts for awhile. Wave goodbye if you like!

Here's where it starts to go terribly wrong:

We understand the intent. However, if this question is approved, what kind of message will it send to kids?

That breaking the law a little is OK? That if laws are broken often enough eventually we'll soften those laws?

I've lost count of the number of times I've read editorials in the S&E bitching about "sending the wrong message" to kids. It's one of their favorite arguments, perhaps because it doesn't actually mean anything. It's a thought-terminating cliche, so they can just sit back after using it and look smug. No followup required!

They do follow it up, though. With some nonsense about "breaking the law a little" being OK. Huh?

Possession of marijuana would still be illegal. It would just be a civil instead of a criminal offense. There's punishment if you do it, it's just that the punishment is more in line with the level of the offense. "Breaking the law a little" doesn't even make sense, and certainly isn't relevant here.

And yeah, if laws are broken enough, maybe they should be softened! What's wrong with that? We all break the old "blue laws" all the time (need I bring up fornication again?). Times change, laws change with them. If a law is so ridiculous that most people feel fine about breaking it, then maybe it needs to change. Has the S&E forgotten that this is a democracy?

On we go!

Massachusetts laws already require judges to dismiss charges and seal the records of first-time offenders.

Most first-time offenders are now required to participate in substance-abuse education and community-service work.

Okay, I was wrong up above. There were a couple more facts that snuck in. Unfortunately it appears they're attempting to be used to suggest that the criminalization of marijuana possession is fine because first-time offenders can have charges dismissed. This happens after a period of probation, which the editorialist neglected to mention.

Regardless of how these facts were meant to be used, we can just say "yep, that's true" and move on. It's not like the editorialist actually used them to make a coherent argument.

Back to crazy!

It is important to know that the marijuana available today is much stronger than it was 30 years ago.

Actually, no. It's not at all important to note that. Even if it's true, it's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Question 2 deals with decriminalization of up to an ounce of marijuana, not the potency of the pot. Could we stay on topic, please?

It typically contains nine times the amount of mind-altering THC and is twice as carcinogenic as tobacco.

Dammit, what did I just say?

Still, nine times the THC? What wondrous times we live in to get such good pot! Sadly, it's not true. The pot today is pretty much the same as the pot 30 years ago.

Also, it's good to know that smoking pot is equivalent to smoking two cigarettes. If someone smokes ten joints that's like smoking a pack of cigarettes, cancer-wise! And if they do that every single day for multiple years it could be a problem!

But nobody smokes 10 joints a day, every day, for years and years. That would be insane. Studies have shown no connection between marijuana use and cancer. So why even bring up the carcinogens?

Oh, scare tactic. Right.

They don't really care about the health risks of smoking pot. It's not a health issue to them at all, really. It's a criminal issue. This talk of health risks is just meant to make marijuana seem more dangerous than it actually is.

We're starting to approach the end of the editorial. Time for the writer to bring out his big guns!

Making possession of one ounce or less of marijuana a civil offense would serve to embolden drug dealers and prompt teens to think it's acceptable to use the drug.

Seriously? You're sticking with the lame "sending kids the wrong message" non-argument? I'm pretty sure "teens" don't base their judgment on the acceptability of using marijuana on whether it's a civil or criminal offense. Has the editorialist even ever met a teenager?

Also, "embolden drug dealers"? What the fuck? Question 2 has nothing at all to do with drug dealers. No laws about dealing are changing. It's about possession, not selling. Drug dealers will be no more or less bold if this question passes than they were before.

But hey Mr. Editor, you're on a roll. You've provided not one valid argument against Question 2. Could you maybe vomit out some more irrelevant and/or discredited talking points? Please?

Plus, marijuana often serves as a gateway to stronger and more addictive substances that destroy lives and families.

Thanks, that's perfect!

First, this is of course irrelevant to the issue of Question 2. Question 2 is not "is pot good or bad?", it's about how to properly deal with people who illegally possess it. Do we fuck up their lives permanently for a little pot, or use a lesser punishment?

This "gateway drug" nonsense has been around forever. You'd think people would stop using it, because it's such a ridiculously easy argument to debunk.

Here's how it generally goes. The anti-pot brigade brings out some scary junkie. Someone who's done every drug they could find, and committed any number of crimes to finance their drug habits. They then point out that this person started with marijuana.

Kapow! Marijuana leads to heroin junkiedom!

But it doesn't. You can't work backwards. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in this country. So chances are that if you're someone who does less popular illegal drugs (like heroin, crack, etc) at some point you've probably also used marijuana. You're even more likely to have used the terrible gateway drug of alcohol, which of course should also be banned!

Of course most people who use marijuana don't go on to use anything else. Just like most people who drink alcohol don't go on to use other stuff. There's no causative link at all.

Hey, remember back when this editorial was dealing with facts? I miss those days.

Oh well, one more sentence to go. What's their coup de grace?

Decriminalizing marijuana amounts to an endorsement of substance abuse, and we do not support it.

That's not even an argument. It's just a lie. Well, the bit about endorsement is. They're probably not lying about not supporting it.

First off, nobody endorses substance abuse, you fucking moron. Even beer commercials--which explicitly endorse substance use--don't endorse substance abuse. Learn the difference.

Second, making marijuana possession a civil rather than a criminal offense doesn't even endorse substance use. It changes the penalties for something that remains illegal.

Let's say that somehow mail fraud had picked up the death penalty as its usual punishment. If you mail fireworks, you get executed. If they then change the law so that the penalty for mail fraud is a steep fine, that doesn't mean anybody endorses mail fraud. It just means that the original punishment was unnecessarily harsh.

It also doesn't mean people (or "teens" or whatever) are going to suddenly go out and commit mail fraud because the penalties aren't as bad anymore.

Question 2 is about changing the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana from being something that can ruin your entire life to something that will be a pain, but not ruin your life. That's it.

It won't increase drug use, it won't bring society to its knees. It'll stop some of the harm that's done to people in the name of the ill-conceived "war on drugs," which is truly just a war on the American people.

The gobshites at the Sentinel won't recognize this, of course. But they're clearly not operating in the real world. For those of us who are, voting YES ON 2 is a good idea.

Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?

"Dumber, sir."


Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:



Exhibit C:



Exhibit D:
Dead bear covered with Obama signs left at WCU


Case closed.

Question Three. Huh?

As you're hopefully aware, in 15 days we'll be voting. In addition to all the people vying for your vote, there are also three ballot questions to consider.

No doubt you've heard a bit about them already. On the first two, the choices are easy. If you're not a total fucking idiot, you'll vote no on question 1. If you support a sensible drug policy and actually care about public health, you'll vote yes on question 2. Easy choices!

But what of question 3? It's a tricky one!

It's all about dog racing, and here's what your vote either way would do:

A YES VOTE would prohibit dog races on which betting or wagering occurs, effective January 1, 2010.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing dog racing.

Okay, that's all well and good. But which is the right way to go?

A no vote changes nothing. So the yes vote people need to make a case for why a change needs to be made.

They do this by calling question 3 the "Greyhound Protection Act", which sounds better than the "Ban Gambling on Dog Racing Act", although the latter would be a more accurate description. Their website is at protectdogs.org.

Not to be outdone, the people who want you to vote no on question three have the website protectdogsandjobs.org. Sneaky!

Apparently both a yes and a no vote protect dogs, then? What the fuck?

Maybe this isn't about dogs at all, and both groups are in fact exploiting the dogs for their own nefarious purposes?

The "dogs and jobs" website says it's paid for by the "Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition". If you look at their funding though it looks like it's just a front for the greyhound track. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

The "Committee to Protect Dogs" has a much more grassroots list of contributors, and also gets a lot from the MSPCA and Grey2K, which appears to be a greyhound advocacy organization. Those are actually pretty decent groups, even though Grey2K is a really dorky name.

So maybe it is all about dogs then? And here I was thinking it was secretly about gambling. But if that's the case, then the anti-gambling lobby are doing a pretty good job of being quiet about it. Maybe they just don't want to associate with those dirty PETA hippies. I don't really blame them.

But the question remains: does greyhound racing actually harm greyhounds? Obviously a lot of people think it does. But are they right?

I would generally trust the Humane Society, but their Greyhound Racing Facts page has this bizarre question:

9. Could the greyhound racing industry ever be operated in a humane manner?

No. The racing industry is inherently cruel. Greyhound racing is a form of gaming in which the amount of money a dog generates determines his or her expendability. The answer for greyhounds is neither regulation nor adoption of "retired" dogs, but the elimination of the greyhound racing industry.

That's a total bullshit answer. What if the industry regulated it in such a way that the amount of money a dog brings in was unrelated to its expendability? I'm sure there are ways to do that.

And is it really "inherently" cruel? In my experience, athletic dogs like greyhounds quite enjoy running. If their living conditions aren't bad and they get to run around and enjoy themselves, where's the harm? What good does an absolutist position do here?

I think maybe the first question on that page actually gets to the heart of the opposition's issues with greyhound racing:

1. Do problems exist with greyhound racing?

Yes. Greyhound racing constitutes animal abuse because of the industry's excessive surplus breeding practices, the often cruel methods by which unwanted dogs are destroyed, the daily conditions in which many dogs are forced to live, and the killing and maiming of bait animals, such as rabbits, during training exercises. The industry exists solely for the entertainment and profit of people—often at the expense of the animals' welfare.

The first several issues there are all things that can be solved by regulation. Have better breeding practices, don't do cruel shit, no bunny-maiming, etc.

The only intractable part is the final sentence, where it is complained that the "industry exists solely for the entertainment and profit of people". I suspect this is the real reason a lot of people are opposed to it. It's less to do with whether or not the dogs are actually abused and more to do with the concept of the dogs being exploited for the entertainment of humans.

Personally, I don't find that concept terribly objectionable as long as the dogs themselves are happy.

The problem we're really faced with here is that nobody on either side of this question wants to give you any worthwhile facts. As someone who's generally fond of dogs (and animals in particular), I'd be all about voting yes on 3 if the proponents actually provided evidence of abuse.

Instead, we get claims of abuse without evidence, unconvincing slideshows that don't look all that horrible, and a really lame youtube video. Not compelling, folks.

From the opponents of question three we get a lot of talk about jobs (if your job is to abuse animals, then I don't care if you lose it, morons), some clearly inflated statistics, and the last gasps of an industry that's probably going to disappear within the next decade anyway.

How to vote? Beats me. The evidence that greyhound racing needs to be banned is pretty slim, and it seems to mostly be an ideological crusade. On the other hand, I don't want dogs to suffer and really don't give a shit if people find themselves unable to gamble on how fast a particular dog can run in circles.

It seems to me that the sensible way to deal with all this would be to enact strict rules to ensure the dogs have good living conditions. An outright ban seems excessive.

This is about the least cut-and-dried question we have. We have a lot of ideology on both sides, but very few facts. What few facts we do get are often distorted. So it's sort of a tossup.

Chances are it'll pass anyway, so it really doesn't matter how you vote. Enjoy your representative democracy, suckers!

Fitchburg even better in make-believe world!

It's a lazy Sunday and I'm not in the mood for political ranting, so instead I'll just relate to you what I've learned from my Harry Potter-enjoying brother.

Apparently the big sport in Harry Potter-world is Quidditch. Like all things nerdy and imaginary, it has an impressively long wikipedia page.

Anyway, JK Rowling wrote a real book about this fake sport, called Quidditch Through the Ages, which my brother read. Apparently there aren't a lot of US teams engaging in Quidditch (according to my sources there are two).

But what's the big impressive US team? Why, it's the Fitchburg Finches!

So there you have it. Fitchburg not only has a world class bike race, it is also home to the 7-time champions of an imaginary sport! Suck on that, rest of the country!

Better than the real thing

Chief DeMoura's Scary Mixed-up Math

There's a particularly badly-written article in today's S&E about Gov. Patrick's visit to Fitchburg and the coming budget cuts.

I'll leave analysis of budget stuff to Jason though. It puts me to sleep.

What I'm interested in is this:

Police Chief Robert DeMoura said the city doesn't receive enough money to begin with for Community Policing. He said the state [sic] last year had the third highest violent crime rate for cities of comparable size, but it didn't receive proportional funding.

Yeah, horrible writing. I assume that should have said "the city last year...", not "the state last year..." That's the assumption I'm going to work under, anyway.

It's an odd statement anyway. Third highest sounds bad, right? But third out of how many? What's a "comparable size," anyway?

Fitchburg's population in 2007 was 40,180, so are we looking at 39,000-41,000 maybe?
Oh, there are only five cities in that range (Beverly, Holyoke, Fitchburg, Westfield, Arlington). Third out of five doesn't sound all that bad, actually.

We could add in Salem, Leominster, and Billerica if we go up to 42,000. So third out of eight? That doesn't sound too terrible either.

Let's be extra generous and give a range of 35,000-45,000. Then we have 14 whole cities to choose from! In addition to the previously-mentioned cities we also get Everett, Woburn, Marlborough, Pittsfield, Attleboro, and Methuen (from smallest to biggest). What a happy bunch of towns!

Now we encounter another problem. DeMoura was talking about the violent crime rate for last year. The 2007 figures aren't available on the FPD website, though I don't doubt they exist (the FPD can be a bit slow about updating their site). No matter, that wouldn't help us with the thirteen other towns anyway!

Instead, we'll go to the FBI, and specifically this report.

Notably, the FBI has a huge caution against ranking on its site. Among other things, it says:

These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.

Hear that, Chief? Don't rank things! It's a dumb idea!

But since he already did it, I suppose I might as well check his figures.

Except that I can't! When I try to get the violent crime number for Fitchburg, I'm instead directed to this footnote:

The data collection methodology for the offense of aggravated assault used by this agency does not comply with national UCR Program guidelines. Consequently, the figures for aggravated assault and violent crime (of which aggravated assault is a part) are not included in this table.

So I can't even really compare! Leominster and Westfield have the same problem, so that's 3 out of our 14 cities that are now junk.

To make matters worse, aggravated assault is the biggest of the four subcategories that go into the "violent crime" category. What the hell sort of data is DeMoura even using to make his claim that Fitchburg is the third worst? This seems increasingly like a made-up claim.

Well, I could compute a new number of violent crimes without aggravated assault, figure out the crime rate (which is number of crimes per 100,000 people), and compare that!

So I did. Here were the top 5:

1. Holyoke: 254
2. Everett: 187
3. Pittsfield: 185
4. Fitchburg: 149
5. Leominster: 94

Damn, so close!

This isn't a really valid way to do things though, because those aggravated assault figures make a big difference. (Perhaps this is why they warn against rankings!) With the aggravated assault figures back in (and Fitchburg, Leominster, and Westfield automatically excluded) we get:

1. Holyoke: 1,250
2. Pittsfield: 683
3. Everett: 511
4. Salem: 323
5. Attleboro: 320

The order on the lower end of the list is all screwed up too, so aside from Holyoke being the worst in both cases, the first list is useless for ranking.

Perhaps you're thinking that Chief DeMoura has access to Fitchburg's aggravated assault figures and could therefore have calculated stuff out to get our mysterious third place ranking? Maybe so, but Fitchburg's figures are calculated differently than all the other ones here, so they're not usable for that purpose.

I'm also betting he doesn't have Leominster or Westfield's figures. It wouldn't matter if he did, though, because they're unusable for the same reason Fitchburg's numbers are unusable.

What's the point of all this?

Simple, the claim that Fitchburg has the third worst violent crime rate among towns our size in Massachusetts is meaningless scaremongering. It's not supported by the facts, and even if he had some sort of calculation that he could make come out that way, it wouldn't mean anything.

I know DeMoura is pushing for more pay for his officers, but doing it through fear is just plain wrong.

By the way, when it comes to property crime, Fitchburg ranks 6th out of these 14. Leominster is fourth. Chief DeMoura didn't choose to highlight this number though. After all, it's not scary.

Post-debate Whatever

Here is the single best thing to come out of last night's debate:


Awesome.

Most of the rest of it was babbling about "Joe the Plumber," plus the usual lies and obfuscations and pretty words that mean very little. The most exciting moment was when I really pissed off my friend's cat, who tried to maul me. He couldn't though, because he was declawed, and that must have been pretty frustrating. I feel bad about the whole thing. Sorry I was a dick to you, cat!

The results of the debate are pretty typical. If you already planned to vote for Obama, you still plan to do so. Ditto for McCain. If you're undecided at this point in the game you're probably so clueless you'll either miss the election entirely because you got confused about what month it is or you'll get lost trying to find your polling place and somehow drive into a lake. So who really cares what you think?

There are two things I want to mention, though. They both keep coming up, and they're both really aggravating.

This is a picture of an overhead projector:

This is a picture of the Adler Planetarium's Zeiss Mark VI projector, which John McCain has repeatedly referred to as an "overhead projector":


Yeah, pretty big difference there.

Here's a page where you can donate to help them renovate the Zeiss projector. Feel free to send them some money, by the way. Planetaria are awesome.

Anyway, know why they need a donation page? Because while money for the planetarium was in a budget proposed by Obama, it never passed. The Adler Planetarium got no money to update their 40 year old projector.

Yet McCain repeatedly brings it up. It's bad enough that he thinks planetaria are "foolishness" (that is actually the word he used). But in his whining about someone daring to try to fund science education, he can't even be bothered to tell the truth, which is that the funding never passed. Argh!

It's part of a weird pattern of Republicans hating astronomy, for reasons I can't fathom.

McCain hates planetaria, Nathan Bech hates telescopes, Sarah Palin presumably hates the concept of heliocentrism. I guess the astonomers have it a little easier than the biologists, at least. Hell, nearly 70% of Republicans reject evolution.

I wonder why America is falling behind the rest of the world in science.

The second thing that irritates me into calcifying a black pearl of fury is this quote from McCain about ACORN. This is basically the new Republican talking point/excuse for why McCain is going to lose.

[ACORN] is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history ... maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

Oh my god what total bullshit that is! Forget Diebold and the largescale disenfranchisement of potentially millions of people, what's important is that a few people might have registered "Mickey Mouse" to vote. So now when Mickey Mouse shows up to vote he will destroy democracy!

Here's a good explanation of ACORN and "voter fraud". In a nutshell, yes there have been cases of false registrations. This was fraud against ACORN, not voter fraud. There's no evidence anyone ever voted under the false registrations, someone was just trying to make some extra cash by registering people who don't exist.

In almost all cases, it was ACORN itself which drew attention to the fraudulent registrations. Their only crime (and this is only a crime in the eyes of Republicans) is trying to register poor people to vote. That's not a reliable Republican demographic!

Making this all the more annoying is that I can pinpoint when I first heard a Republican shill badmouthing ACORN. It was on NPR, in a piece about voter suppression by the Michigan GOP.

The shill downplayed the Republican attempts at voter suppression while also claiming that ACORN commits voter fraud for the Democrats. It was probably on September 11th that I heard it, judging from the date on this NPR blog entry.

Apparently it took the Republicans about two weeks to get their talking points coordinated, because it wasn't until around the 27th that attacking ACORN really started to take off.



The accusations are obvious bullshit to anyone who actually bothers to look at the facts. They're just a smokescreen to try to divert attention from the well-sourced evidence of Republican voter suppression.

Sadly, debunking lies like this just tends to make people believe them more strongly. Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing.

Anyway, Obama won the debate. Yay!


[Update 6:38 PM] Want to know more about what the hell is up with that picture up top? Go here and be enlightened!

Know your candidates!

As I mentioned yesterday, it can be tricky to get information on candidates. Particularly conservatives candidates, who tend to keep their actual agendas low-key so they don't scare away too many sane voters.

Allow me to provide some resources for the curious voter.

First, you should probably know who the hell is on your ballot. You can easily get that information at Imagine Election.

Just type in your address and it'll tell you who's on the ballot where you live, complete with links to a bit of information about all the candidates. Handy!

Along similar lines, there's also this thing, which is pretty fancy looking but I found annoying.

Still, maybe you want more information. Or information about specific issues. Being a science-y guy myself, I was curious about the various candidates' attitudes towards science.

In this case, you'd want to check out Scientists & Engineers for America's site, where they have a bunch of information about the science policies of everyone seeking federal office.

Actually, not everyone. Most of the Republicans running for Congress have no information available. But don't worry, I sent Nathan Bech an email suggesting he respond to their questions so I'm sure his answers will be up soon!

Along a similar line, if you're curious about which presidential candidate renowned scientists support, the AVoteForScience youtube channel has some endorsements. They just started out, but here's the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry endorsing Obama. My bet is you'll see a lot of that.

But there's more to find out!

It's handy to get information from the right-wingers too. They're far more likely to have information on the Republican candidates (these candidates may want to keep their conservative views quiet to the public at large, but they still need to motivate their base).

The hugely unpleasant Massachusetts Family Institute (who I also mentioned yesterday) have a whole bunch of voter guides. Nothing that's Fitchburg-specific, but here's one for Leominster.

The group "Catholic Citizenship" also has a page up for the Leominster race here. Leominster's candidates both really suck!

You could also use the perpetually ridiculous American Patriarchy Family Association's voter guide thing for that rightwing "values" information. Though its design is pretty annoying.

Back on the liberal side of things, if you're all about abortion rights, you can find NARAL's Pro-Choice voter's guide here.

The strictly nonpartisan League of Women Voters also has a bunch of information available online. You don't even have to be female to use it!

No doubt there are a million more voter's guides out there. Some useful, most totally useless. But at least here you have a start. Ignorance will be no excuse if you vote for some asshole!


PS Today is the last day to register to vote before the November elections. Do it!
PPS No liveblogging tonight's debate. I'm going to watch it with people and will do my complaining/weeping out loud.

Kurt Hayes' Stealth Agenda

Kurt Hayes is a Republican running for State Rep. in the 37th Middlesex district (which includes parts or all of Shirley, Lunenburg, Lancaster, Harvard, Boxborough, and Acton).

He has a terrible website. Also, for awhile I thought his name was "Kurt Haves" due to some poor design choices on his campaign signs. What more is there to say about him?

Quite a bit, actually. Though I suspect he would prefer it remain quiet.

See, there's a funny thing that happens to Republican candidates in Massachusetts. Since we're among the bluest of the blue states, Republicans have a difficult time getting elected. So they pretend to be "bipartisan" or downplay their conservative views, or run as independents, or try to appear more liberal than they are, or just simply lie. See Mitt Romney for examples of most of the above.

To be fair, Democrats running in red states do a lot of the same kinds of things. But they're not my concern at the moment.

My concern is this Kurt Hayes fellow, his seedy backers, and what he stands for (but doesn't want you to know he stands for).

A few weeks ago I got an email from Jamie Eldridge, the former holder of the seat for which Hayes is running (against Jen Benson). Eldridge is running for State Senate instead. By most accounts, he's a good guy.

It was an interesting email, which I oddly can't find on Eldridge's website. You can see the bulk of it quoted here. I'm not on Eldridge's mailing list, so I guess this was part of an effort to inform area bloggers. I also had a local tipster mention the same thing to me, so mission accomplished!

If you didn't bother to read it, the memo from Eldridge basically goes over how Hayes (and two other Republican candidates) are funded in large part by the despicable MIPAC.

Here's how MIPAC describes itself:

Massachusetts Independent PAC for Working Families, or MIPAC, is dedicated to helping elect candidates at the state legislative level who support pro-family positions, particularly candidates who support traditional marriage and the right of the Massachusetts citizens to vote on this vital issue.

What the hell do "working families" have to do with gay marriage? Beats me!

The important part to note is that MIPAC's entire reason for existing is to promote "pro-family" (more commonly known as "anti-gay") candidates, and to try to get gay marriage banned in Massachusetts. They do this by giving money to candidates, natch. But it's not just through the PAC that they give money (there's a $500 limit for that), as Eldridge pointed out in a nifty chart, the donors to MIPAC also give independently to these candidates. To such a degree that nearly 40% of Hayes' donations come from these out-of-district jerkasses whose defining quality is that they don't like gay people.



It's worth looking over the list of MIPAC expenditures, by the way. You'll find a number of familiar names. Brian Knuuttila, for instance. Guess that was wasted money. You'll also find Dennis Rosa and Guy Glodis on there. It's a handy little list of candidates who MIPAC believes will support their discriminatory agenda.

Of course MIPAC could be wrong to support some of these people, right? Maybe they're actually all very progressive candidates that MIPAC is just hoping to sway with the power of the purse.

Maybe, but that's not the case with Hayes. Hayes filled out a questionnaire for the Massachusetts Family Institute, another anti-gay (also anti-gambling, anti-stem-cell, anti-first-amendment, anti-porn, etc., etc.) group. You can see his responses in pdf form here. I don't recommend it, though, since the morons scanned it upside down.

Here they are flipped over and in image form. Click to embiggen.



The MFI also have a voter guide (also pdf) which boils down those longer responses. Obviously the MFI has more varied concerns than MIPAC, which is pretty straightforward about just being anti-gay. But the first question is the really telling one (though all Hayes' responses are straight along social conservative lines).

If you can't make it out, that first question is:

Should legislators vote yes to allow Massachusetts citizens to vote on a Constitutional Amendment that would define future marriages as between one man and one woman?

... to which Hayes answered "YES" without any further comment.

Of course, what that convoluted question is really asking is "do you oppose gay marriage?" It's just easier to ask it this way, where the respondents can pretend it's about voters' rights or some such bullshit. It's not. It's about whether or not they'll waste everyone's time fighting gay marriage.

So what's the problem? MIPAC can donate to whomever they want. Supporters of their cause can do the same thing. They don't have to live in Hayes' district to support his agenda, after all.

But Hayes' website makes no mention of his massive backing from anti-gay activists. In fact, I couldn't even find a mention of gay marriage anywhere on the site. If you went to his site not knowing his party affiliation, it would probably take you a little while to even figure out he's a Republican. But not only is he a Republican, he's a Republican who toes the conservative line on most social issues. Just another shill.

If that's what you're into, go ahead and vote for the guy (also, if that's what you're into why the hell are you here?). Knock yourself out. But he should at least have the decency to be upfront about his agenda.

I guess it's a good thing he intends to keep his day job even if elected, because I can't imagine people being happy if they voted him in, only to later find out what he's really all about. Better that they just hear it now, isn't it?

So yeah, if you live in that district, consider giving Jen Benson a vote.

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: