Quotes of the week

"I have the feeling about 60% of what you say is crap." --"Late Show" host David Letterman, to FOX News' Bill O'Reilly

=> I have a feeling 95% of what O’Reilly says is crap.

See the video clip: http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crooksandliars.com%2F2006%2F01%2F04%2Fletterman-to-oreilly-quot60-of-what-you-say-is-crapquot%2F

------------------
“I've been to Africa three times. All right? You can't bring Western reasoning into the culture. The same way you can't bring it into fundamental Islam.”

=> This is part the crap that makes up 95% of what Bill O’Reilly says.
----------------
"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster." –Ann Coulter

=>Lol! This is probably the only time I even remotely agree with Ann Coulter. I do not think it’s as black as white as she makes it out to be. However, I don’t understand the people that split tickets or vote for a different party every election year. In most cases, issues do not change that suddenly. Divided government more often than not is ineffective. In 2006, Americans voted for Democratic Congressional candidates primarily for one reason: to change policy in Iraq. Well, it’s been several months, have any major policy shifts happened? No! The timeline bill, if it hasn’t been already, will get vetoed. If Americans are willing to elect George Bush and then re-elect him after the disaster in Iraq, giving Congress to the Democrats won’t help. In a divided government, Congress either roles over and plays dead like it did in the Reagan era, or its efforts like the current Congress with it’s timeline bill hold little political value.

-------------------

America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America, which had encouraged them most, had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts.- James Madison

=>Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone say that immigrants (legal or illegal) are taking all the jobs away from middle class Americans. Many immigrants from Mexico and other countries take low paying, physically straining jobs that no middle class American would want. Americans losing their jobs do so not to immigrants, but laborers that live in other countries and are willing to work for $1 per day.
--------------------
“I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it ‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the environment. I’ll save that name – someday I might find a plant that eats poor people and minorities.”- Anonymous

=>Lol!

A respectable politician (it's not who you think it is!)...

A few weeks New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine was injured in a car accident. Corzine was sitting in the front passenger seat without a seatbelt while the vehicle was moving at around 90mph (it puzzles me that it was reported later that the vehicle was moving at only 70mph). The two other people involved, a state trooper and Corzine’s aide were seriously injured. However, Corzine suffered numerous broken bones, including an open fracture of the left femur, broken ribs, a broken sternum, a broken collarbone, and a fractured lower vertebra. He also received a large cut on his face, which required repair by a plastic surgeon. Ironically, Governor Corzine was traveling to his official residence in Princeton to meet with Don Imus when the accident occurred. This was after the comments made by Imus about the women’s basketball at Rutgers, but I think it was before Imus was fired.

The main point of this blog entry is that Corzine, a multimillionaire, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs is paying for his medical expenses with his own money. Expenses including the hospital stay, helicopter assistance, etc would normally be covered by NJ’s health insurance for all state employees. The actual cost has not been released but it is expected to be in excess of a few hundred thousand dollars. Corzine could easily have turned to his health insurance, but rightly decided it was a burden NJ tax payers did not need to bear. Corzine is a respectable public servant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042701192.html?nav=hcmodule

Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina

Today there was a debate between the Democratic Presidential candidates for 2008. The candidates vying for the DNC’s nomination that participated in this debate were: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel. Well, there’s definitely a lot to say about the candidates and the overall debate. I think the best performers so to speak, were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I was surprised with the negativity in this debate, and I think most of it was directed towards Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, I think had to defend her record more than any other candidate, and hers is NOT the most controversial. Maybe that’s just politics, but many times other candidates were asked questions that I think prompted them to present themselves as alternate to Clinton as opposed to clearly identifying themselves as the best candidate. Stupid questions get asked in every debate. For example in 2004 Kerry was asked in a debate with George Bush, if he could in the camera, into the eyes of every Americans and “promise” not to raise taxes on those earning less than $200K. In today debate, one of these questions was why do Republicans supposedly put so much money (they do not!) into helping her campaign and hoping Clinton wins the nomination. These are stupid questions because the responses to these questions are known before they get asked. What was Kerry supposed to say on national TV; yes he would raise taxes on the poorest Americans? And Hillary was supposed to say Republicans publicly support her campaign because they like her platform? It’s nonsense. Yeah, negativity is part of campaigns, but still, that in my opinion is a sign of weakness. I think because of these attack questions, she did not have the most rehearsed answers as many voluntary polls from MSNBC, CNN, and FOX news websites. Despite this, I think Hillary Clinton showed a different side of herself, not the cold, calculated politician that the media and Republicans make her out to be. Her emphasis on change I think resonated with many viewers.

Second, I usually consider myself to be well informed, but I had no idea one of these guys was actually a candidate! Alaskan Mike Gravel served in the US Senate during the Vietnam War, and was primarily known for his efforts to remove American troops from that region. This guy was very interesting, I thought. Just due to the sheer fact that I had no idea who he was, I paid a lot of attention to him throughout the debate. His

Barack Obama also did well. His response to the question about the candidates’ biggest professional regrets really impressed me. He responded that at the time he was elected, the Terry Schiavo/right to die issue dominated the news. His regret was that along with other members of the House and Senate of both parties, he supported the effort to allow the government to intervene in a matter that should be decided privately by families. Most of the other candidates’ responses dealt with their initial support of the Iraq war (except in the case of Kucinich, who pointed out his consistent opposition to the war). Obama, I think showed himself as less of a fluff candidate, though I still think he lacks substance compared to the others, Clinton in particular.

The debate did not help or hurt anyone else, in my opinion. In my opinion, Edwards was never a front-runner, but many people consider him to be. After tonight he still isn’t a frontrunner. Kucinich is an interesting character; his opposition to Iraq from the beginning was pretty much the only thing he said. He also claimed that tonight’s debate is going to bring Americans to his campaign because they will see the importance of a near immediate withdrawal and impeachment of Cheney. That’s not going to happen. Completely irrelevant to the debate, but relevant to his campaign is his decision to hold a black tie fundraiser in Huntington Beach the same night Hillary Clinton held a black tie fundraiser with Bill Clinton at Ron Burkle’s Beverly Hills mansion, for a minimum $2000 per plate contribution, but Kucinich’s dinner was a $25 suggested contribution event. Chris Dodd was so boring to listen to, he was the opposite of Kucinich and Gravel-no emotion at all. Joe Biden is a brilliant statesman, but has no chance at the nomination. Tonight I like that he addressed the stupid Hillary question I discussed above. The last candidate, Bill Richardson’s defense of an earlier comment about why he was late to call for the resignation of Gonzales was weak. Richardson tried to say that Gonzales was trapped by an aggressive Bush agenda, and his being Hispanic was the reason for Richardson’s delay. I do not buy into this, and I hope others don’t believe it. Gonzales became AG maybe because he was qualified, but also because of his political affiliation, and probably past financial support for the Republican/conservative agenda (same reason RFK became AG in 1960, it happens).

Club Fray!

Slate is an internet magazine that has articles about all sorts of topics, arts, life, food, politics, etc. It was orginally started by Microsoft & is now owned by Washington Post (WP) & Newsweek. Slate has a really nice discussion forum called the Fray, which I post in all the time. Part of the Fray is Club Fray, which you can post in by invitation only from an editor (usually based on previous posts) at Slate or WP. I've been reading Slate articles and making posts for about seven years now. I really like it, get a lot of replies, and it can get into very heated discussions quickly though. Some posters are nice.

I was invited to post in Slate's Club Fray recently! A lot of Slate & WP writers post in Club Fray, not the regular Fray for the above reason. To see my posts, go to Slate.com, then discuss. In the regular Fray forums I post in politics, fighting words, jurisprudence & election scorecard. In Club Fray, I post in News & politics. My post name is: Narayana.

Healthy Pets Act

Today the California State Assembly passed AB 1634, which was introduced by Lloyd LEvine orf Los Angeles, a bill which would require the spay/neuter of all dogs over 4 months of age. A breeder's license may be obtained, but for an outrageous fee, and must be renewed every year. Failure to comply could result in major fines or you could potentially lose your dog. This is one of the few times I split with my party, and can't stand PETA . Levine has a great record of defending animals rights in the Assembly, and I have supported his other bills. AB 1634 is an invasion of privacy and property rights, a form of animal cruelty with misguided & potentially disasterous consequences.

People should be free to own pets. Just as women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, people should be able to choose for themselves to spay/neuter their dogs. The state in this case is intruding too far into the personal lives of its people, and quite frankly, it's disgraceful. Pet ownership should not be regulated in this way.

The main justification for AB 1634 is that there are too many purebred dogs in shelters. This is completely erroneous, most dogs in shelters are wolves, or mixed breeds. Most dogs end up in shelters because some irresponsible jerk let their dog run all over the neighborhood, get lost, hit by a car, breed to anything. Or there are the really ignorant people that want to breed dogs to teach their children about the miracle of life. Once born they have difficulty finding them homes. These poor puppies are also usually mixed bred and end up in shelters.

I understand wanting to have less dogs in shelters, but this is not the way to do it. It punishes responsible pet owners and breeders. Now people like me who love their dogs, walk them, take care of them, keep them healthy with regular vet visits and truly make my dogs live happy lives, these people are being penalized with excess fines and fees. I compete in dog sports-agility, obedience and conformation with my dog. I know many people who do this for fun, and some who do this sort of work; handle dogs, as a career. The passage of this bill will be a huge blow to the careers and enjoyment of many Californians.

Even those who do not compete enjoy these sports. Animal Planet gets millions of viewers nation wide when it airs the annual Eukanuba Tournament of Champions show live from Long Beach. Only intact dogs can be shown, so the passage of this bill will be a disappointment to the millions of spectators in California and around the country.

AB 1634 is also supporting animal cruelty. The bill states all dogs must be spayed/neutured by 4 months of age. However, most vets (including the vet I take my dog to) advise pet owners to wait until at least 6 months of age to spay/neuter one's dog. The reason for this (especially in males) is that by the time a dog is 6 months he will be fully matured in the development of the eurethra. If the dog is neutered/spayed before it has matured, you could be seeing issues down the road with urinary track problems.

In a purely economic sense, this bill in inefficient. There are about 8-10million pet dogs in California alone, and about 1 in every 3 households in the US has a pet dog. Access to pet dogs becomes very limited as less people will be able to breed them. After this happens, the price of a puppy or any age dog will greatly increase and those who have obtained licenses will charge whatever price they feel like. In effect this is monopolizing the pet market. People will be unable to afford dogs, and a black market for pets will come about, the average dog will cost $5000+.

In a purely political sense, this bill is unjust. It punishes responsible pet lovers/owners, encourages animal cruelty and limits our freedom as US citizens.

California is often considered a pioneer in many public policy areas. What California does, many other states will usually follow, just look at the initiative process. Therefore, this bill must be stopped, in the Appropriations Committee before it gets to a floor vote. I encourage any pet owner or enthusiast to write to your local Assemblywoman (or Assemblyman) soon.

Quotes of the Week

More quotes

"Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and thepoliticians as a joke." —Will Rogers

=>Wow, this is insanely relevant to politics today even though it was spoken 30+ years ago. Comedians are being taken very seriously, look at Imus, and more recently JV and Elvis from CBS. With the huge credibility gap Bush and many Congressional Republicans created in the handling of the war in Iraq, people are finding it difficult to take what national political figures like MCs and the President seriously.

-------------------
"If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." -Harry S Truman

=>Well, if that's true, then I've got a head start :). Remember Clinton got a chocolate lab and named it Buddy during the height of the Lewinsky investigations? His approval ratings went up after the dog's first photo op. Oh, and Gerald Ford had a golden retriever he named Liberty in the post Nixon pardon era. Yay for the patriotic dog names!

-------------------
"It's the most important decision I've had to make since 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax." - Arnold Schwarzenegger when deciding to run for CA Governor

=> How could you compare being Governor of the largest state in the union to bikini wax I'd take the former anyday!

--------------------

"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it."- Clarence Darrow

=>I don't believe it. Today, anyone that could raise $20million+ in 3 months has this chance and should consider running, which is why I don't consider it. :\

Gun violence revisited.

Case #1

Today a NASA contract worker brought a handgun inside a building Friday at the Johnson Space Center (Houston, Texas) and shot a hostage then killed himself. There was a second hostage, he survived. This happened only a few days after the deadliest school shooting in the US. Police reported that the gunman had some disagreement with the hostage, which is was not like VA Tech's case since Cho killed 32 people, which we now know was done in part to avenge Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from Columbine.

What's interesting is that JSC authorities report that they reviewed their security system, and emergency procedures in lieu of the VA Tech massacre. The gunman was on good standing as an employee of Jacobs Engineering, as many (roommates, other students) assumed Cho to be.


Case #2

A 49 year old man shot his 26 year old wife before shooting himself. He also fired at one of three young kids in his house at the time, who were getting ready for school. The couple was married for 6 months. This was in Detroit, a city with one of the highest crime rates in the US. The kids are staying with relatives now. First of all, I feel so bad for these kids, they had to watch their father kill their mother, then himself. Secondly, I don't know why a 26 year old woman would marry a 49 year old man. Maybe he was rich, but the MSNBC article does not provide the husband/shooter's income, so it's unclear if she was trying to be the next Anna Nicole.

Gonzales hearings.

Today Attorney General Alberto Gonzales came before the Senate to testify regarding the recent, seemingly political firings of US attorneys. The hearing was a disaster (for Gonzales), he is toast and could end up resigning in the next 2-3 weeks. Not surprisingly the best part of the hearing was during Schumer’s questioning. Schumer called Gonzales on all his contradictions with the hearing of his CoS Kyle Sampson. During the hearing Gonzales told Senator Feinstein that Carol Lam, one of the US Attorneys was fully aware of the reason she was being asked to resign. Not so, according to Lam and Sampson, who told the Senate that she was not directly notified by anyone in a leadership position at the DoJ. Gonzales’ past statements, both at the hearing, and before the hearings, show that Sampson was in the center of all the action. Most of the responsibilities you would assume Gonzales to have taken on himself seemed to have been delegated out to Sampson. If Gonzales really didn’t have anything to hide, he should have blasted Sampson's testimony, and given a correct account of the reasoning & events leading up to Lam’s firing.

These are high stakes, the reputation of the DoJ and Gonzales are on the line. However, what he actually did was to refuse to comment on Sampson’s hearing. Apparently, according to Gonzales, it’s the responsibility of Congress to discuss the DoJ’s concerns with US attorneys; he kept referring back to how there was clear communication. If Gonzales really believes that, then he really isn't a good AG, it’s the DoJ’s responsibility to communicate any concerns it’s having with US attorneys regarding their performance. He lied to Feinstein as well. Carol Lam was either notified, or not notified, which means either Sampson or Gonzales lied. I think it was Gonzales, just based on his responses, he was much more defensive, he often gave vague answers.

Gonzales often would say that he could only report on what he could recall, and that he couldn’t recall certain meeting, and didn’t remember going to certain meetings. For these same meetings, Sampson testified that Gonzales was in fact at those meetings, and the two spoke about each attorney during this meeting when Gonzales essentially approved the plan to review their records in greater detail. Eevery Senator at the hearing- Sessions, Leahy, Schumer, Feinstein, etc, except maybe Orrin Hatch drew on the inconsistencies between statements made by Gonzales and Sampson, which is good, it’s probably easier to find out why these US attorneys were dismissed. Again if Gonzales was telling the truth, and there really were no political reasons for the firings, then I do not see why he didn’t say that Sampson’s testimony was wrong, and his account was correct.

From these hearings, I think Gonzales knew and is lying. There’s no way he didn’t know what was going on, at least the political reasons. He made the final decision to approve the firings. However, I do not think he was very familiar with these records, which is why he didn’t give a lot of specs about the individual cases of each attorney when asked to do so. That’s probably why he had such difficulty justifying the decision with the amount of involvement he personally had in the decision. Kennedy asked about this too, and all Gonzales said was that he didn’t know why some attorneys were fired, but he trusted Sampson’s judgment, but he also contradicted Sampson testimony when he said that Lam knew that DoJ had concerns about her policy.

Transcripts are available on MSNBC.com.

Multimedia Manifesto

It's now known what Cho Seung-Hui was doing in the two hours between the shootings at Virginia Tech. He complied what Brian Williams refers to as a "multimedia manifesto," in which he included videotapes, photographs, and writings mailed to the MSNBC office in New York. The interesting part is that it was delayed a day because of an incorrect street and zip code, but once in New York, it was immediately taken to MSNBC.

MSNBC has taken a lot of hits for showing this material on the national news. There are arguments about the sensitivity of this material, the emotional state of those affected, giving in to the shooter's demands, etc. Well, this is sensitive material, and it may stir up emotions, but that doesn't even matter.

If it wasn't aired, the families/friends of those killed should have been able to access it, actually, everyone in the Virginia Tech community should have. The general public, however, also deserves to see this material. The massacre happened at Virginia Tech, which is a public university; therefore it is in the interest of the public to know more about the situation, the shooter's motives (since, everyone interviewed claimed he was so quiet ad so much of a loner that they didn't know his name, personality or anything about him). I don't know how much this evidence will contribute to the investigation or prevention of future shootings, but I think MSNBC did the right thing. They used good judgment, showed the material properly by expressing their understanding of the sensitivity of the material and its timing but also their responsibility as journalists.

On the other hand, gun control has also been discussed as a way to prevent future shootings. I doubt this will help. There are still irresponsible people out there that will have a decent background in order to access guns, but then give the guns to, or leave them in a place easily accessible to kids. For example, Cho was able to buy the guns because his background check showed he didn't have a history of violence. However, Cho was institutionalized for the possibility of having a mental illness, which is not allowed for people buying guns. Therefore, his background check should have prevented him from buying the guns.

The NRA often takes the heat for crises like VA Tech, and Columbine, etc. I am certainly not a follower of the NRA, but they are just exercising their rights in the Constitution. The Constitution in many cases is very vague in terms of its wording, perhaps this was done intentionally by the Founders, but that is another debate for another time.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, the NRA simply interpreted it to mean that anyone should be able to keep and bear arms. Others interpret it to mean militias only, and since we don't have militias anymore, then people shouldn't have guns. Both make sense, the capitalization of particular words like "People, " adds to the confusion, who are these people? My guess is that they were militia men. There is another version ratified by the states in which different words are capitalized, like "Militia," and "Arms" but not people. Jefferson, Madison and many of the other Founders argued that the Constitution must be changed to reflect the values and ideas of its time. Jefferson went so far as to argue that the Constitution must be dissolved and created from scratch with EVERY new generation. Madison & Hamilton make similar arguments in the Federalist Papers. It could be argued that with the increased gun violence of our time that the Second Amendment and other parts of the Constitution are out of date and should be changed. However this won't happen until the make up of the Supreme Court also changes, especially with President Bush's two recent appointments. Replace Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito with Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, then Roe will be safe and the 2nd Amendment can be discussed.

Quotes of the Week

Some quotes...

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." —Ronald Reagan

=>Well, it took care of itself enough to become a massive debt, which certainly took care of Bush Sr in '92. :\

--------------
"What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?" —Marion Barry,former mayor of Washington DC

=>LOL! Well, it's sort of their Constitutional right, this guy needs to re-read Article 1.

--------------
"The New York Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control."- Ann Coulter

=>The OC REgister editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only two answers, regardless of the question. The answers are: love guns, love God.

Note: I have actually read the OC Register's editorial page.

-----------
"It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening" -Jerry Falwell

=>"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass" -Barry Goldwater. I agree.

Virginia Tech massacre

Today a terribly shocking tragedy took place when a gunman opened fire at Virginia Tech University. At this point 32 are said to be dead and dozens more wounded. I’ve been checking for new details frequently throughout the day. I remember thinking the 12 students killed in the Columbine shooting eight years ago was so many people at the time, but this is unbelievable. I was in shock this morning when I woke up and turned on the news just as the story was breaking.

The United States’ most precious natural resources are its people. The young people killed today were the future of our country. To see them getting struck down like this is truly heartbreaking. My condolences go to the students and families of Virginia Tech. I think the main focus now should be on making sure all parents and families are promptly notified about the safety of their kids.

David Shuster from MSNBC mentioned the possibility of multiple shooters, but from the interviews I’ve seen with witnesses identifying the shooter in both locations, that doesn’t seem possible. However, I am sure there will be several new developments in the coming days, so we’ll see what happens.

The shooter was an Asian male studying at the university on a student visa. The shooting started with a fight between this man and his girlfriend. Apparently, she was the first person killed. I’ve read articles describing the shooter as an organized gunman, with excessive amounts of ammunition, quickly reloading the clips. What could have motivated this person to first kill two people, think it over for two hour, and then go on a bloody rampage killing another 30 people? I don't know, and I don't think any really knows, except for the shooter.

Lets hope that the investigation will be thoroughly and swiftly executed. Please keep these families in your thoughts in the coming days.

The Money Factor

2008 Fundraising Totals:

Democrats
Hillary Clinton, $26 million
Barack Obama, $25 million
John Edwards, $14 million

Republicans
Mitt Romney, $23 million
Rudy Giuliani, $15 million
John McCain, $12.5 million

This list represents candidates from both parties for who’ve raised over $10million in the in the first quarter (Jan-Mar). There were only three in both parties, but I will point out that that New Mexico Bill Richardson is under $10million by around $500,000. Hillary Clinton, not surprisingly, is the top fundraiser of all Democratic candidates.

Compare the winners in presidential elections:

Bush (2000) $193,088,650
Gore (2000) $132,804,039

Bush (2004) $292.6 million
Kerry (2004) $253.9 million

This is all from OpenSecrets, and I couldn’t find data for primaries in those years (FEC databases take way too long to download), but clearly money is a good indicator of one’s success in politics. It’s good news for Democrats though, because two Democratic candidates are raising more money than any of the Republican candadates. I’m surprised Romney is doing so well (I thought the divorce/scandal from some years back would really hurt him in the primary), I think a lot of people were expecting McCain to emerge as the frontrunner as Clinton did. This is only the first quarter though.

This is really disappointing for a democracy, especially when we pride ourselves on having to the government. So, what can be done? Well, to start, the money=free speech doctrine from Buckley v Valeo can be overturned. If money truly equals free speech, then some people are better represented than others; some have more opportunities (and better opportunities) to have their voices heard, to impact public policy. More importantly, limiting contributions from other people and groups (and not doing the same for contributions to one’s own campaign) makes politics a playground for the rich. That's the last thing we want to do. Here in California, you have to be prepared to spend $10million for make a competitive bid for Governor, $6-8 million for a competitive US Senate bid, and $.5-1 million for a competitive campaign for Congress. Luckily, it’s not at the point where you absolutely have to be independently wealthy to even consider running for Congress, US Senate or Governor, but it’s getting really close to that point. Democracy needs to be brought back to the American people.

Imus

Don Imus, host of a radio show today was fired by MSNBC for referring to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy headed hoes.” MSNBC’s announcement comes after a two-week suspension of his show.

It is not clear to me why this comes as a surprise to people though, Imus has a long track record for making racist and sexist comments. Over 20 ago, he referred to an African American PBS anchor (Gwen Ifill) as a “cleaning lady” and an African American sports (Bill Rhoden) columnist as “NY Time quota hire.”

It’s difficult to say whether or not he deserved it. Even though it was obviously very rude, he is a comedian, and comedy can often time offend people. His free speech rights should be protected. Imus’ show had a strong following, and if his comments truly offended his viewers, then they should simply stop listening. There plenty of people and groups I think things would be better without, the KKK, NBPP, NRA, Phyllis Schlafly, etc but that is not why we have democracy, it’s like Justice Kennedy pointed out, the First Amendment is often inconvenient, but that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government, or in this case, society, of its obligation to tolerate speech

He probably could have avoided being fired. He made one apology after another showing his weakness, specially after the Rutgers athletes started making public appearances to respond. Imus should have come out and said it’s a comedy show, and the show is supposed to be funny, sometimes jokes can go too far and offend people, which in this case they did. Imus did this, but he should have stopped there without so many apologizes, perhaps then there wouldn’t have been as much public outcry, and sponsors wouldn’t have left, and he wouldn’t been dismissed. The story would have been over with the next day. Imus need to take lessons from Dan Rather, who made similar mistakes some tie ago when dismissed by CBS for incorrectly reporting President Bush’s National Guard service.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/11/imus.rutgers/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Quotes of the Week

Some interesting political quotes:

---------------
“Politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and for the same reason.” – Anonymous

People that say this and actually believe it really do not know anything about politicians and how politics works in the US. There is nothing wrong with career politicians. Actors, athletes, wrestlers, body builders turned politicians (with the exception of a few) look nice perhaps, but it's nice to have someone in office that's really given serious thought to government, public policy, and you can tell the person is very much invested in public service.

-------------
“A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.” - Dan Quayle

Wow, what was GHWB thinking in 1988? Other than picking up a few votes in the midwest, I have no idea.

-------------
“Politics is more difficult than physics.” - Albert Einstein

Yeah, it really is, probably because there are no set rules and formulas to give you the right answer.

-------------

“Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you.” – John Adams

Today's trouble would be Iraq. I still maintain that Saddam Hussein was never a serious threat to the US compared to the leaders of other countries, our time, money and resources could have more wisely spent. President Bush troubled a sensitive region in the Middle East, and now we are in a lot of trouble with an $8trillion debt and 3000+ Americans dead.

---------------
“Too bad ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.” - Henry Kissinger

Actually, I think it’s the other way around. “Politician” isn’t some dirty word, politicians are public servants elected to represent the interests of a group of people in government. Most of them do that.

----------------
“A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular.” - Adlai Stevenson

Short and to the point. President Bush declared Iraq a free society a few years ago. I’m not sure how safe it is to be a Kurd or Sunni there. :\

----------------
"What's Al Gore up to these days? Four hundred pounds....Did Al Gore actually swallow Michael Moore?" -Ann Coulter, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference

First of all, Gore was never 400lbs. William Howard Taft actually was close to 400 lbs, Gore looks nothing like Taft. Second, doesn’t she have ANYTHING better to do? Dinner with Hannity?

---------------
“If you are not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.” -Katherine Harris

She is in the ten percent of politicians giving the other 90 percent a bad reputation. How are people like her getting elected to the House of Representatives and almost to US Senate?!?!?!

---------------
“In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.” –FDR

This is very relevant to politics today. Iraqis must be willing to fight to achieve and keep their freedom, the US cannot and should not continue fighting their civil war.

Obama and the other Dem candidates

Barack Obama is without a doubt a well-educated, informed, politician with a seemingly grand agenda. His remarkable upbringing and coming to American thanks to then President Kennedy, is like the “America Dream,” in the most idealistic sense. However Dickerson brings up a good point, Obama may present nicely and look like an attractive candidate with his words, but what he lacks is substance and experience.

The three big frontrunners are Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Actually, I personally do not think Edwards is a frontrunner, but many people do. Hillary Clinton is like the Microsoft of this race, she is the big, established candidate with a track record, what some may consider to be polarizing. Barack Obama is like the new start up company that’s fresh, exciting, ambitious and innovative. John Edwards is like the company that's doing enough just to stay in business, or to stay somewhere in the ballpark to have some chance at the nomination. I think he's hoping for Clinton & Obama duke it out so he can emerge as the alternative.

Hillary Clinton is not making Obama’s mistake. If you recall in 2004, there were rumors and tons of media talk about her running that year, but she had said she wouldn’t consider running for President until she completed ATLEAST one full term in the Senate. I remember her saying that in multiple press conferences, news shows, etc. That was a very smart move because her time in the Senate was a great opportunity for to make herself stand out as an independent political figure, especially when you’re married to an ex-president, that’s important.

Back to Obama, I am not trying to be critical of his ambition, I think it’s great, I have a lot of ambitions myself, political ambitions. Being President of the United States is a big deal though, there are no requirements for this, but I think a presidential candidate should have extensive experience in public service. Notice I did not say “office” because for example with Hillary she was very much involved with education issues as First Lady or AR and then spearheaded a health care campaign as First Lady of the US, these, in my opinion are experiences that will really help her throughout her campaign.

I could go back in history and compare presidents from both parties and their experience level. Look at someone like LBJ, the last career politician-type president I think, unfortunately. It’s unfortunate because people shouldn't be so turned off by career politicians, at least they would have some idea what they’re doing as president. Just compare someone like LBJ to say Carter, or Bush 43. LBJ was a master at making deals, getting things done, he pushed more legislation through Congress in the 1964-5 session than any Congress has done before that and to this day. Experience and political savvy are good things, it brings results, and it makes government effective. Poor Carter, he seems like a nice guy and he did get some important things done like the Camp David accord and giving the Panama Canal back, but his administration was a mess. He either couldn’t or simply chose not to work with Congress in anyway. O’Neill couldn’t stand him for this reason; he alienated Democratic leaders, and didn’t have support from Republicans either for a lot of his policies. He never even put much effort into this thinking that the so-called “right thing” would be enough to bring the two parties together. You can see that in Bush 43 today. Bush 41 didn’t have this problem, he faced a Democratic Congress, true, but he knew the importance of a relationship with Congress,, and did a lot of negotiating with taxes, civil rights, etc.

Washington DC system, while it may have its flaws, in terms of political figures and power is an establishment, a different culture of sorts, and any President must know this, and must be able to turn this around a gain support for their agenda. Brains, ambition and idealism will not do the trick on their own, and that’s currently where Obama is at this point, so I think we’ll just have to watch him in the news and see how it works out in the next few months. After at least a full term in the senate, maybe more, I think he would be a better candidate. I always hoped Wes Clark would run for AR Governor or Senate to get his foot in the door. This happened to Wes Clark in 2004 as well.


http://www.slate.com/id/2163796/fr/flyout

California and 2008 primary

California's 2008 primary was moved up from its usual time in June to February 5th. This is an almost 4 month move up, which is supposed to give California a greater, more influential role in the outcome of the 2008 primaries. I commend the Governor's efforts, but I am not sure how much this will help.

The 2008 primary season will be much different than 2004 or even earlier years not just because of California, but several states are moving their primaries. South Carolina has moved it's primary to January 29th, supposedly in an effort to have African-Americans better represented. That's not really effective though, because South Carolina as a whole does not represent the US very well, and if the goal is to give African-Americans better representation in the primary process, well there's plenty of other states with substantial African-American populations. States like Louisiana and Mississippi have an almost 50% greater proportion of African-Americans than South Carolina, according to the latest BLS statistics.

The Nevada caucus moved up to January 19th to give the Hispanic voters more influence, but again there are states with a greater proportion of Hispanics, like California & Texas. New Mexico's population is 45% Hispanic compared to Nevada's 22%.

Besides these, New Hampshire & Iowa are still first. I think it's an unfair system because the people living in these two states are NOT very representative of most Americans. Since these are small states, campaigning takes place on a much more personal scale, while it sounds appealing, it's actually a bad thing. It's impractical, this is a presidential election, for candidates to go meet & shake hands with nearly every person in the state for a mere 3 delegates from NH & IA? Why do middle class whites on the east coast get this opportunity, and larger states like CA and even Texas do not? It is very undemocratic in my opinion to give this much influence to one small sector of the US population- lower middle class whites. CA has more delegates/electoral votes (general) than every state west of the Mississippi River combined (excluding Texas), it should be more influential in the nominating process as well. It is more practical for candidates to spend their time in states like CA, TX & NY because they would be reaching out to not just more people, but also more diverse people in the same time.

CA's influence even with this move up to February 5th, is further weakened by the fact that 10+ states are moving their primary to the same day. CA should be the second, or maybe even first primary without other states holding their primaries on the same day.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/california.primary/index.html