Sorry Congo: Foreign aid money used for gala and mural

Don't get me wrong - I love art.

It's one of my biggest passions, but 23 Million Dollars from the United Nations foreign aid fund used for the mural?!?! What an e'fing waste. What a joke.

To use that much money, which - mind you - could have gone to Rwanda, Kenya, Congo, Liberia, Botswana, Afghanistan, to name just a few. There are over 42 countries in the world that, according to the UN World Food Program, have a population where 20% or more of the population is starving. In 2006 alone, that was 87.8 million people.

Here are a few facts from Hunger International:

~923 million people across the world are hungry.

~Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes--one child every five seconds.

The rest here .

I'm so over the UN. It's time they get scrapped and/or overhauled. Lately all I've seen from their leaders is stupidity, and that's unfortunate for those who work for them and really work hard to fight hunger and such.


~Elindelwolf

Obama Wins

Congrats Mr. President, you campaigned hard and came out the winner.

Now...

"Someone will have to measure the wreckage. Someone will have to walk through the ruins. Someone will have to count the cost."[1]

Convince me; prove me wrong, sir. Show me that you're not just another politician who has promised the world, but delivers nothing.


~Elindelwolf


Sources:


1) Pierce, Charles P. "The Cynic and Obama." Esquire June 2008: 1-4. 26 Oct. 2008 .

Old topic, but: The bailout was NOT socialist.

Sometimes, I think socialism in the American dialect of English simply means something bad that somehow involves government. But reality isn't so simple, and I must make this clear: The US government is not socialist for the way it handled the financial crisis.

Wikipedia has this to say about socialism:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. [...]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

The concept of socialism is somewhat hazy, but I think this much is true: Socialists are interested in preventing the concentration of wealth and power in small pockets of society.

Think about this bailout. Money was taken from the government's coffers, money which was given to the government by taxpayers, most of whom are lower- and middle-class. This money was taken and then given to the banks that had a shitload of money but ran into severe difficulties. I'll repeat in simple terms: Money was taken from the poor and given to the rich.

Last time I checked, taking from the poor and giving to the rich promotes greater inequality between the two groups. It concentrates the wealth and economic power into the small, rich pockets of society. True, the bailout did not accomplish this horrid feat through free-market means, but I don't think that's the critical criterion. I think that socialists don't criticize capitalism per se, but rather the negative side effect that wealth and power becomes unfairly concentrated under capitalism. Any system with the same side effect, whether economic or governmental, is surely just as bad to socialists.

The bailout wasn't capitalist, but it wasn't socialist either. The best description is that it was anti-socialist.

— Athelwulf

"It was a misstatement," says Bachmann

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she regrets using the term "anti-American" while discussing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's views, a remark that could threaten her re-election bid.

Listen Mrs. Bachmann, there's no doubt about whether you made the comments or not. You can go to Youtube and find the interview with Hardball. You said it, period; now, just own up to what you said. Don't try to weasel out of it.

Whether or not you were led into a trap or not doesn't matter in my opinion. What matters is that you should never have said that. Not only that, but there is the lack of foresight on your part. Not to mention the incredible stupidity it took.

Personally I'm not insulted with her generalization and slander. Why? Well because it's typical politics as usual; There's been tons of comments made by both sides, Republicans and Democrats as well. I grew up as a child who was insulted quite often, and so such petty insults roll right off. It's obvious that she didn't know what the hell she was talking about, and was just the proverbial idiot box. My main concern is whether or not whoever wins is able to measure the damage, and fix it.

I do think it's incredibly poetic that her comment (perhaps) led to about one million dollars in being donated to her opponent over the course of a few days. From what I've seen Bachmann had a 9 point lead in the polls, but with this best case scenario of shoving both feet into your mouth and pulling them out your arse - there's a possibility that she lost a part of her lead; I was unable to find a poll pertaining to the race that was recent however.

You made a mistake Mrs. Bachmann, now own up to it, like a responsible adult.


~Elindelwolf

Holding our collective breath

With the bailout only a month old, the country and the world still holds its collective breath; some are hoping, others wishing, and a few even pray that this monetary gamble will work. At times I've likened it to a stunt pulled on some Mississippi riverboat, where the maverick gambler pushes in all his chips.

I understand, as fellow blogger Athelwulf stated, that sometimes you have to suppress the forest fire before you go through and assess the damage, further clarifying how you will be preventing the catastrophe. Still, it doesn't really fix the problem in the long term.

I'm all for finding a way to stem the blood, but the bailout is not going to truly fix the issue. In my opinion congress merely slapped a band aid on a shotgun injury and called it good.

Now though, they're talking about possibly another bail out or stimulus package. Uh, folks, where is the money going to come from? If we're going to take money (i.e. "surplus")and give it to the people, and then in turn they're going to have to pay for the bail out. Well, does it seem to any of you that they really would've pulled a fast one.

I've got this analogy of a thief giving back money to the person, but in turn taking the diamond the person has in their pocket.

Time will tell.

~Elindelwolf

Aye aye aye! (Concerning Obama and Ayers)

Honestly, I don't care about Obama's association with Ayers, or Wright, or anyone else that the media, Republicans, or whoever else is freaking out about.

My concern is:

Can he do the job?

As writer Charles Pierce wrote in an article in Esquire magazine,"Someone will have to measure the wreckage. Someone will have to walk through the ruins. Someone will have to count the cost."

Can he measure the wreckage? Can he walk through the ruins? Can he count the cost?

That's my concern, not some frivolous, politically crazed association with a has-been radical.


***Sources***


Hayes, Stephen F. "McCain Goes There." The Weekly Standard. 9 Aug. 2008 .

Montonaro, Domenico. "Playing to the base ." MSNBC. Oct. 2008. 9 Oct. 2008 .

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article

Oregon's congressional delegation and the bailout bills

Public record now exists for the members of Congress who support various bailout plans that the majority of the American public opposes. The results are fascinating. I have paid particular attention to the presidential and vice-presidential candidates, as well as Oregon's representatives and senators.

The first item of consideration is the tally of House Vote #674 for the failed bailout bill in the House this last Monday. A majority of Democrats supported it, and a majority of Republicans opposed it, but similar and very sizable percentages of representatives from both parties voted against their own party. First, the representatives who vied in the long term for their party's presidential nomination: Both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul voted nay. As for Oregon's representatives, Darlene Hooley and Greg Walden cast the only aye votes. Walden is the only Republican representative from Oregon, and is my representative.

Next is the Senate's 3-to-1 passage of their own bailout plan. Slightly more Democrats voted aye, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama. John McCain joined them. Oregon's Republican senator, Gordon Smith, who is running for re-election, voted aye. Oregon's Democrat, Ron Wyden, voted nay.

Finally, the House just recently passed the Senate's bailout bill. Democrats supported it 3 to 1. Republicans opposed it only by a slim majority. Kucinich and Paul voted nay again. Hooley and Walden voted aye again, and David Wu joined them. Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio were the only Oregonian representatives to consistently vote against these bailout proposals.

To recap spring's presidential candidates' votes:

• Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), aye;
• Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), aye;
• Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), aye;
• Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10), nay;
• Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aye;
• Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), aye;
• Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX-14), nay.

And Oregon's congressional delegation:

• Sen. Gordon Smith (R), aye;
• Sen. Ron Wyden (D), nay;
• Rep. David Wu (D-1), nay, then aye;
• Rep. Greg Walden (R-2), aye;
• Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-3), nay;
• Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4), nay;
• Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-5), aye.

Hope this is useful information.

— Athelwulf

Gays in California can marry...

... in 30 days!

Today, the Supreme Court of California ruled unconstitutional the state's ban against same-sex marriage. As of June 14th, if things go without a hitch, the California Republic will be the second US state, after the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to formally guarantee marital equality. I'm so proud. If a constitution guaranteed to me a right, I would want the courts to protect that right by striking down laws that deny it.

Not much more needs to be said about this fact; the CNN article speaks for itself, and I've written about the rights of same-sex couples before. Instead, I will address a common argument that judges are "legislating from the benches". If you, dear reader, believe the Supreme Court's ruling is "judicial activism", allow me to say this: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Read this excerpt from the ruling (a PDF file):

It... is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.... Whatever our views as individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative provisions.

The California Supreme Court doesn't exist in a bubble. It has to interpret what the California Constitution, one of the supreme laws of the California Republic, says. They ruled that to call a marriage-like legal union something other than marriage, based on whether the couple is the same sex or not, violates the Constitution of California. It wasn't their job to say, as if they were in a bubble, whether or not gay couples ought to be allowed to marry, and this is not what they did.

Judicial activism is such a load of bullshit. Notice, dear reader, that this pet criticism of the courts is only offered when the courts give a ruling that people happen not to like. I've casually observed that these people tend to be conservatives, by the way. They, like the rest of us, want a constitution to say what they believe in. But the fact is constitutions almost never do. No matter how much I believe in maximizing liberty and allowing all committed couples to marry, including same-sex ones, and no matter how much I wish the Oregon Constitution said the same thing, I'm smart enough to recognize that, in fact, it only recognizes opposite-sex marriages. I would, thus, not be mad at the Oregon Supreme Court for striking a law down allowing gays to marry. It would be their job to interpret the Oregon Constitution, and the matter would be out of their hands. The matter was out of the hands of the Supreme Court of California, regardless of whether each justice personally believed it was morally right or wrong.

So if you are going to post a comment whining about "judicial activism", don't.

— Athelwulf

Campaign wiki?: A suggestion to Steve Novick

I submitted this letter to the Steve Novick for Senate campaign. It is about a novel idea that came from Pete Ashdown's race against Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) back in 2006. Ashdown's campaign maintained a wiki as a public forum where people could collaborate on policies they thought Ashdown should adopt. As I say in the email, it exemplifies the saying "democracy in action".

— Athelwulf

Dear Mr. Novick,

Recently, one of your volunteer callers contacted me, and we talked about the campaign. I told him that a while ago I emailed the campaign an amazing idea but that I didn't get a response about it. I'm sending an email about it again. I'm interested in what you think.

Back in 2006's midterm election, Pete Ashdown, a Democrat, ran against the incumbent Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. He lost, but his campaign did something I think your campaign should do: They maintained a wiki which anyone could edit. It served as a public, ongoing forum for Ashdown's potential constituents to voice their ideas. People could collaborate on public policy which they thought Ashdown's campaign should adopt. It was a way for the people to influence his platform. At the end of this email is the URL to this wiki: Ashdown kept it up even after the election.

If anything exemplifies the saying "democracy in action", a campaign wiki as a public forum is definitely it. Of course, Mr. Novick, you would have the final say on your own platform. But if this wiki is nothing else, it's the easiest way to learn Oregon's thoughts and concerns that I can think of. I know you support net neutrality, and I'm sure you recognize that netroots organization and support are essential both specifically to your campaign and generally to the democratic process itself. I think it's a good idea to build on this theme of the Internet being a priceless asset to a campaign. I strongly believe that your campaign would greatly benefit by creating a way for your potential constituents to share their ideas and influence your platform. I ask you, as a potential constituent and a strong supporter, to create a campaign wiki which will serve the same purpose Ashdown's wiki served.

Of course, even though a lot of good would come of this, there would be some slight headaches too. You will have Smith supporters attempting to sabotage the campaign and generally running amok in this forum. However, if there are enough participants, the wiki will be self-healing. Anyone, such as supporters, neutral parties, and even opponents of the campaign, can easily volunteer their time to clean up the sludge that will make its way into the forum. A wiki is easy to vandalize, but it is also easy to moderate and clean up.

Please consider implementing this idea. And if you have the time, please tell me what you think. Here is Pete Ashdown's wiki: http://peteashdown.org/wiki/

Sincerely,

[name and city withheld]