Clinging To Our Guns, Religion, and... Happiness?

Republicans are Happier!!!

The Washington Post is incredulous. Forgive my language, but I shit you not. David Montgomery asked the following question:

The data, alas, do not account for those furious Republicans at McCain-Palin rallies. Are they happy in their anger?

Has this guy even ATTENDED a Republican rally? I'm serious. Is he going by the Ruth Marcus or David Singleton accounts: both of which have been completely debunked?

Here's the deal. I'm a Republican. I like my party. That being said, the anger displayed at these rallies is G rated in comparison to the violence [both in language and in action] we have witnessed this election coming from our opponents. The way Ruth Marcus and David Singleton have portrayed [LIED ABOUT is a more accurate description, but I'm Republican and happy, so I can afford to be generous] these rallies, one would think that attending a McCain Palin rally was akin to going to a Pantera concert. The rather uncool reality is that the level of violence is more akin to a John Tesh or Kenny G affair... And, odd as it might sound, that makes me happy.

Capitalism Is Scary: Dress Up As Adam Smith For Halloween Instead of Michael Myers

We have come full circle. The debate as to what constitutes socialism is now at the forefront. The narrative is right where the Republican party wants it to be. Hopefully, it's not too late for this election.

I couldn't post a comment for Ruth Marcus' piece, "The 'Socialist' Scare" in the Washington Post. So I'm posting it here because I have serious questions as to whether Ms. Marcus and I were even at the same rally.

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

Ruth Marcus, what an irresponsible take and explanation of the Woodbridge rally. You should be ashamed of yourself. Of course, you probably are not because it's all for the "greater good" of getting your guy elected, isn't it?

Your ignorance comes through loud and clear when you say that the Obama for Change bumper stickers were all Soviet symbols. The C with the star was a take on the flag of the Nation of Islam. Anyone with half a brain and certainly someone who is publishing a piece in the WaPo should know this. They should also know that McCain supporters, including the McCain campaign itself got authorities and made him leave. Don't believe me? Watch This Clip. Several Muslim Republicans confronted the people and many people cheered and clapped when those people were forced to leave.

Second, the rally was calm. There were lots of young families there, including my own. You chose to highlight the handful of people among thousands yelling "socialism" without noting that many in the crowd were laughing when the remarks were made because the people shouting them looked silly--not shouting angrily in agreement as Ms. Marcus would have us believe.

What you willfully ignored was the positivity and optimism of Republicans. I met people of all ilks at that rally and people were as nice as can be. I saw moms in line at the port-a potties, reaching into their diaper bags and purses for wipes and tissues and napkins to give to strangers with other young children. I saw a man dancing with his daughter who was in a wheelchair. I saw a woman run up to another woman with a young child on her shoulders to fix the child's "plumber butt" [no pun intended]. Basically, I saw kindness. Kindness that the Democratic party thinks does not exist simply because we don't agree as to the extent that the government should be "evening the playing field". The purpose of OUR government is to maintain order and protect its citizens: NOT to provide a welfare state.

The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself for publishing this piece. I have toilet paper that has more factual support.

**Update: Further evidence that this woman is just another idiot blinded by Obama's hypnotizing smile. We Republicans are so freaking SELFISH aren't we?

***My original title was, "Capitalism Is Scary: Dress Up As Adam Smith or Jeremy Bentham For Halloween Instead of Michael Myers". I decided to edit it because my intent was not easily understood. I received an e-mail "correcting me" that Bentham is considered the Father of the Welfarism. I know this. My not-so-great title was intended to point to the difference highlighted in my comment: capitalism v. welfarism, which would explain my use of "or" in the title. The interns are busy watching Scooby Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf as a treat. They will be firmly reprimanded later.

****My earlier comment on the rally.

Re: Corporate Fraud Initiative, Amendment 53

The Race To The Bottom responsibly discusses (here, here, here, and here) Colorado's proposed Corporate Fraud Initiative or Amendment 53.

A vote of NO suggested by Daily Kos? How very laissez-faire of him. Even Adam Smith did not wear an Adam Smith necktie.

Truth be told, while Amendment 53 may not be a viable answer for Coloradans, such thinking is a step in the right direction. It is arguable that we wouldn't need an SEC if states would simply pass and enforce their corporate criminal laws. One problem is that state criminal law attorneys usually lack the specialized corporate and business law knowledge and background necessary to prosecute these crimes.

What is needed, is something along the lines of the federal government to create a special task force of corporate law attorneys in every state to prosecute for corporate malfeasance. Civil lawsuits and fines are not deterrents anymore as officers, directors, and executives protect their personal assets simply by purchasing D&O insurance. Jail time, it seems, is the only deterrent for the unscrupulous who have no problem negatively affecting entire markets [as is the case today].

If we were somehow able to limit the standing of shareholder derivative civil suits following criminal indictment ONLY [criminal proceedings perhaps done in a procedural manner similar to something like the Guantanamo Commissions: criminal commission with an expert panel (in lieu of an uneducated factfinder) reviewable by a judiciary] and effect this at the state level in EVERY state [to prevent against the race to the bottom phenomenon-hence the need to for such an initiative to come from the federal level], we might actually have something that could protect Joe-Investor while maintaining a classical liberal identity.

Of course, this is all just ideating "out loud". :)

Pounding Nails In The Coffin Of The Embryonic Stem Cell Debate

Japanese scientists have successfully generated stem cells without the use of a virus carrier. The problem with introducing these genes via virus is that it makes the host more susceptible to tumors and other problems caused by the viral genetic material.

Of course, the Obama manages to get this wrong as well. "I believe that the restrictions that President Bush has placed on funding of human embryonic stem cell research have handcuffed our scientists and hindered our ability to compete with other nations." It is apparent that embryonic stem cell research in other nations suffers from the same sort of stigma that it does in the U.S. Consider this:

"[James Thomson] said he's amazed at how quickly scientists have begun exploring the use of the reprogrammed skin cells he reported on last year. "People are jumping in very rapidly, much more rapidly than they did 10 years ago" after the initial discovery of embryonic stem cells, Thomson said.

In all, 812 labs in dozens of countries have requested the materials needed to reprogram ordinary cells into iPS cells, said Addgene, a Massachusetts-based repository for research supplies. By contrast, a half-dozen or so labs started working with embryonic stem cells in the months after his landmark 1998 paper, Thomson said."

Obama also said, "However, embryonic stem cells remain the 'gold standard,' and studies of all types of stem cells should continue in parallel for the foreseeable future. ..."

While Thomson, the man responsible for discovering these non-embryonic pluripotent stem cells, has called embryonic stem-cells "the gold standard", he did so not because of known limitations on non-embryonic stem-cells. Wouldn't a prudent compromise be to exhaust all non-embryonic stem cell avenues before having to rely upon those harvested from human embryos? The reason embryonic stem-cells are deemed "the gold standard" is because they are easier to work with and known because a handful of researchers have been working with them for the past ten years. Look at the sheer increase in interest in non-embryonic stem-cell research. Imagine what that many more scientists working on this could discover without having to further impede on the sanctity of a human life.

The Branchflower Report: Paper Worth Less Than Biden's Law Degree

The Branchflower Report

There are times when a judge has made his decision before looking at the evidence. It happens when the finder of fact is an interested party. This is exactly what has happened in the case against Sarah Palin.

"I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."

Jaundiced eye indeed.

My question is this, at what point did personal interest in one's community coinciding with the benefits associated with protecting that community become an ethical issue? The finder of fact quotes Monegan's testimony extensively, but the one portion of the report that contains words directly from Palin is an e-mail to Monegan under the subsection entitled "Event 7" on pages fifty-seven to fifty-eight [bolding my own].

In sharing a few personal examples with you, including the trooper who used to be related to me-the one who illegally killed a cow moose out of season without a tag-he's still bragging about it in my hometown and another officer confessed to witnessing the kill, this trooper was "investigated" for over a year and merely given a slap on the wrist... though he's out there arresting people today for this same crime! This is the same trooper who shot is 11-year old stepson with a taser gun, was seen drinking in his patrol car, was pulled over for drunk driving but let off by a coworker & brags about this incident to this day... he threatened to kill his estranged wife's parent, refused to be transferred to rural Alaska and continued to disparage natives in words and tone, he continues to harass and intimidate his ex, -even after being slapped with a restraining order that was lifted when his supervisors intervened... he threatens to always be able to come out on top because he's 'got the badge", etc. etc. etc.) This trooper is still out on the street, in fact he's been promoted. It was a joke, the whole year long "investigation" of him - in fact those who passed along the serious information about him to Julia Grimes and Tandesky were threatened with legal action from the trooper's union for speaking out about it. (This is the same trooper who is out there telling people the new administration is going to destroy the trooper organization and he'd never work for that b****, Palin.)

Anyway, just another personal example of what I've personally seen out there and had to live with for two years - and this is what people in the Valley are putting up with (those many residents who know of this trooper time-bomb who's supposed to be "protecting" them.)

The portions I bolded suggest to me that she honestly believed [and with good reason] that the continued employment of
Wooten was an actual public safety issue. Furthermore, it demonstrates her justified belief that Monegan and the troopers' union were acting with a callous disregard [or "rogue mentality"] for the safety of the people in order to protect, not only one Wooten, but those troopers who condoned Wooten's indiscretions [i.e., the officer who witnessed the moose kill and the one who let him off for drunk driving].

Furthermore, the report glosses over the "improper motivation" element of this inquiry [pages 50 & 51]. The Alaska Administrative Code defines "improper motivation" as "a motivation not related to the best interests of the state." The list following the definition is not inclusive, it is expansive. The fact remains, that Palin DID have the best interests of the citizens in mind. Her state of mind is well-documented in the one piece of direct evidence as to her words and actions, the e-mail. The fact that she pressed the issue with Bitney and others suggests not that she was trying to abuse her power in her self-interests, but that she was exhausting all avenues to effect the change that was actually in the best interests of the people of Alaska.

There was no reason to demonstrate both personal and financial gain. The analysis should have started and ended at "improper motivation". Isn't it axiomatic that a civil servant personally gains when the needs of the public are served? An indirect personal benefit does not negate public benefit.

Palin had the right to fire department heads without cause. They served at her will. THE END. The fact that there was even an investigation into this matter is a farce.

A Real Feminist Issue

Wolf culling is not a feminist issue. [Sorry Gloria!]

Firing of political appointees who endorsed one's opponent is not a feminist issue.

The over zealous car seat lobby is.

Spare me the stay at home dads and the whole "Gaybies" rhetoric, the people who are truly affected by these regulations are moms. The car seat phenomenon has gotten beyond ridiculous. It takes my husband fifteen minutes to run to the store to pick up a gallon of milk [that includes getting lost at the store looking for the dairy case]. It takes me an hour just to get the kids [ages two and three] out the door and loaded into the car. I am looking at an extra five minutes per each loading/unloading of two kids in and out of the car. For one trip to a store, that is TWENTY extra minutes [this, of course does not count chasing children, getting them out of strollers, making sure they have all of their "stuff" and have gone to the bathroom or are changed].

On an average day, let's be conservative and say that a mom makes probably about three trips with kids. Three trips times twenty minutes is one hour. ONE WHOLE HOUR OF A MOM'S DAY IS LOST TO LOADING/UNLOADING KIDS ALONE!!!! That comes out to more than fifteen days per year. That is more than two weeks per year lost just to loading kids in and out of a car.

Now, I gladly do this because my kids are worth more to me than those days and I have bought onto the whole car-seat-as-savior thing. This article makes me think differently. There is no doubt in my mind that my little toddlebops should be strapped securely in car seats, but EIGHT years old? That seems excessive given the actual statistics.

Furthermore, the flexibility of mothers everywhere is compromised. The other day, a neighbor told me that she almost called me to see if I could drive her son because she was having car trouble but then thought about the fact that I have two children in car seats and wouldn't be able to accommodate her own child's car seat. So she drove her unsafe car instead... At least the kid was strapped safely in his expensive car seat.

Our mothers had it a lot easier, they would take turns loading an entire neighborhood worth of kids in cars and save on gas and time and money. The average car can only accommodate two car seats. Carpooling has gone the way of all things. We are getting mad about the environment and focusing on conservation, but we have forced parents into NOT carpooling. How in the world does this make sense?

So, thanks, car seat lobby. Because of you, I will have lost 137 days of my life.