Oh look, an attack article from the Washington Post!

To start off with, I want to point out that I'm ambivalent about the nature of Governor Rick Perry's (R-Tx) Gardasil/HPA vaccination executive order. I understand his concerns and his heart is in the right place. But he should have been more circumspect about the need for a executive order on the issue. Still, he did it as a Governor- and it fits with his "state's rights" agenda.

Anyways, on to the main story. The Washington Post followed up on Michelle Bachmann's attacks to Perry from last night's GOP debate with this article: Perry Has Deep Financial Ties to Makers of HPV Vaccine.

Okay, that sounds like damning stuff, doesn't it?

I don't think so, when you read the contents of the article. Let's go to the tape!

Debate updates

Some more post-debate thoughts:

Michelle Bachmann needs to tone down her sensationalism. She could have scored points against Perry on his cervical cancer vaccination executive order, but it felt more like she was trying to use that one wedge issue to take down his entire platform. Sorry Michelle, but most of America agrees with his (states rights!) actions on this. And her "You were bought out by Merck for $5,000" line was just over the top, and unnecessary. And constantly ranting that health care is "unconstitutional" just doesn't work. She needs to win on substance, not slogans.

Santorum did a better job on the vaccination front, but it won't help much, because no one really cares about Santorum.

I also think, since I've actually studied and taught immigration in America, I know that a good deal of the GOP contenders just aren't answering the immigration question right. The system for legal immigration is ridiculously complex, and needlessly so. That's one of the big barriers to immigration today. Most immigrants want to come to the states and become citizens. Make it easier for them to do so.

Ignoring the fact that 11 million illegal immigrants (if not more) are currently in the US doesn't make it any easier. Romney's plan sounds alot like stormtroopers going house to house and kicking them out of the US. That's what the Gestapo did. Now, if he wanted the police to have the authority to kick out those they captured committing crimes from the US- I'm all for that. But that leaves Perry with the best chance at winning moderate Republicans and Independents on this issue, once the dust settles from the pile-on with his immigration views from the other candidates.

Huntsman just feels like John Edwards did back in 2003-2004. He's a slick, slimy bastard with a goofy grin. And Ron Paul is the same idiot out there; why the libertarians don't go with Gary Johnson, I don't know.

**Update : Reader JohnK pointed out that it should read "11 million illegal immigrants" instead of "11 million immigrants." That's been updated in the text.

9/12 GOP/Tea Party Debate

The September 12th GOP debate was a pretty good one, and a few things are pretty clear from the debate.

First, I want to say that the debate was much better from a moderator perspective; CNN isn't my favorite cup of tea, but it's a far better one than the crapfest that was MSNBC's debate last week. Wolf Blitzer kept the stupid questions to a minimum, and actually seemed to focus more on reaching out to the Republican/Tea Party base. He spent alot of time on getting the candidates to have a dialogue about their different viewpoints as their state's representatives in Congress or as Governor. That's a valid moderator tactic, rather than MSNBC's "My god, why do Texas and Massachusetts suck?" cheap shots. So, kudos, CNN. Good job, overall.

Anyways, on to the candidates:

The Well-Intentioned but Stupid Idealists

I agree with Ann Althouse on this little article: Organizers of school garden in Madison, Wisconsin want more attention!

I don't really have a problem with these school gardens. I agree with the call to get kids, in general, outside of the techno-bubble they live in these days. But I would stress that they need to make it about, you know, school. Not just building a garden for the sake of it. Make it fit the curriculum.

"Teachers don't need to go out and dig in the garden; they can simply hold math class among the tomatoes to get students thinking about the environment and being outside, he said."

Aaaaaaaaand that's where the article lost me. What the hell does the garden have to do with math?! Anything? It sounds more like the creators of the gardens don't know how to fit it into the curriculum, and are upset That No One Appreciates The Work They Have Done. And they must be forced to like it. I'm sorry, but just because something's feel-good doesn't mean it belongs in school. Otherwise, everyone would have a adorable puppy to hold, just because.

Althouse is right when she says:

"[The] old outdoor class. Does that ever work? I say teach in the classroom and then give the kids some time to go out and play, freely. Not work in the sun.
I'm not against gardens, by the way. I love gardens. And I think a school garden could be a great learning experience. I just have a problem with underdeveloped feel-good projects and compulsory menial work"

Well said, Professor Althouse. Well said. Forcing the kids to work on the gardens without a well thought out educational curriculum is essentially slave labor, and really, cruel.

Dear Paul Krugman

I only have one thing to say in regards to your NYT blog post today:

Fuck you.

The deluded mind of Jimmy Carter

On one hand, I can say alot of good things about Jimmy Carter, but then all the negatives about him rise up like tsunami and squish it. He had a interview with the UK Guardian (ah, how leftist is this picture?), where he says:

'[What] he's most proud of, though, is that he didn't fire a single shot. Didn't kill a single person. Didn't lead his country into a war – legal or illegal. "We kept our country at peace. We never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a bullet. But still we achieved our international goals. We brought peace to other people...We normalised relations with China, which had been non-existent for 30-something years....We formed a working relationship with the Soviet Union."

 Here's what I have to say about that statement: 

The 9/10 mindset: Of Knaves and Fools

Some folks view 9/11 as though it isn't a big issue, or that it was "a while ago", and act as though it should be a historical relic. Writers like E.J. Dionne, who's a well known liberal writer for the Washington Post, wants us to leave 9/11 behind. But, as the Wall Street Journal points out, he goes too far in his comments:

"After we honor the 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we need to leave the day behind," Dionne writes. "Al-Qaeda is a dangerous enemy. But our country and the world were never threatened by the caliphate of its mad fantasies." (emphasis mine)

So let me get this straight, Mr. Dionne. The attempt by Al Qaeda to kill more than 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and attempt a decapitation strike on our political and military leadership (which was largely forestalled by the heroic work of first responders) wasn't an indication of it's capabilities? Sure, they were mad. Sure, they had fantastical views of the endgame result for themselves. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't try to attempt it, or that hundreds of thousands of lives wouldn't have been lost in the process.

UK Politics for a moment

I spent some time in England this past year, and while I had fun with some great people there, it took a bit of learning to understand the political differences between England and America. British newspapers are far more tabloid based. The "gotcha" journalism is more obvious in the UK as a result, and they clearly wear their politics on their sleeves. That's both a good thing (transparency!) and a bad thing (arrogance!).

Anyways, this is what caught my attention. Conservatives get millions from donors. Here's the money shot:

"Dozens of property firms have given a total of £3.3 million to the party over the past three years, including large gifts from companies seeking to develop rural land..."

Basically, it looks like the Telegraph is upset that the Conservatives (Tories) got £3.3 million over 3 years by land developers. Okay, that might be a "pay for play" deal, but really? £3.3 Million? By more than a dozen donors, who gave the money through conferences and intra-party meetings? And it sounds like it is right up front, so this doesn't feel like it's a backroom deal. It sounds more like basic fundraising, doesn't it? But to be fair, this does come after the major corruption scandal in Parliament (where MPs swindled money for themselves at the tune of billions). But, um, wasn't Labour the ones who were implicated more as a party in that? Anyways, here's where things get a bit more dicey.......for the Telegraph:

Why I hate Big Union

Ok, to start off with, I'm not against unions in theory. For basic wage earning, workplace safety, and legal representation, I think union representation is a good thing.

But I think that it's an inherently bad thing when unions try to wring every little concession out of their employers; that leads the way towards racketeering, blackmail, and undue political influence. As a political instrument, unions are A Very Bad Thing Indeed.

And now we've got the new "message" from the AFL-CIO on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11.They support the memory of the fallen and the heroic efforts of first responders. That's good, but what follows isn't.

"But other doors opened, too—doors to hate, suspicion of “others” and self-centered greed. Our fear was twisted into something much more dangerous.....The extremist small government posse has turned them into public enemy No. 1, as though teachers and firefighters, EMTs and nurses and union construction workers ruined America’s economy....Wealthy CEOs, anti-government extremist front groups and frothing talk show hosts—from the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks to the Koch brothers, Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group, Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and the American Legislative Exchange Council—also pushed open the door to hate." (emphasis mine)

Turkey's new Islamism

Turkey, under the leadership of Prime Minster Erdogan has made a shift towards populist and Islamist policies, rather than the kind of secular government that Kemal Ataturk envisioned. This is a crap deal for the Middle East, especially when the Arab Spring is pushing countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya towards true republicanism and hopefully, towards a secularist government. The real worrisome factor is that the Turkish-Israeli relationship is virtually in tatters, all thanks to Erdogan's policies, and it's becoming a flashpoint in the Middle East that no one wants, and frankly, should never have happened.

Now we have reports that Turkey is threatening to send their warships out to shield and protect the next "Gaza Flotilla". Nevermind that the UN just admitted that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is legal (even if they tried to whine that the Flotilla were "victims" of Israeli military excess. Bullshit.). This is more of the same kind of faux populism from the Turkish government. They have been saber-rattling for a while, and every time, they've had to back down. I surmise they will do the same here.......unless they really want the Israelis to strike back, and strike back hard.

Turkey doesn't have the military capacity to truly absorb the kind of sea and air campaign that they are threatening Israel with. Israel has long been the dominant air force (and naval power) in the region since the 1970's, and that hasn't changed. Their pilots and seamen are better trained, better equipped (for kinetic strike options and logistical support), and actually understand their civil-defense policies. The Turkish military hasn't fought a serious war since the 1920's, is operating on a peacetime budget (at best), and has a military that seriously doesn't want to engage in hostilities with Israel, which it (still) considers a friend and ally.

The big problem is that the Turks might embolden anti-Israeli activists and officials in Egypt, the West Bank, and Iran. The worst possible outcome is a paranoid Israel that feels it's back is up against a wall (again), and lashes out. Israel would ensure their survival in that endgame scenario- but Turkey would lose, badly. And alot of others would suffer the fallout (I mean that both literally and metaphorically) in the process. Grow up, Turkey. Grow up before someone else forces you to.

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

Having lived in New York for most of my life (I only moved out of the state in 2005), 9/11 has special meaning for me. Some might say I have "survivor's guilt", in the sense that I had family not far from Ground Zero, but I didn't lose anyone, thankfully. But many did, and hence, why I feel a bit guilty.

Anyways, it always bugs me when conspiracy theorists try to peddle their viewpoints that 9/11 was perpetrated by the U.S. Government. Popular Mechanics does a great job of disassembling their viewpoints, and pointing out the logical fallacies that are inherent in their arguments. I do have a few points I would like to add, though, after the jump.

GOP Debate Postmortem

I saw a bit of the GOP debate at the Reagan Center on MSNBC earlier (and I'm going over transcripts of it). There are a few snap comments I can make on it:

1. Rick Perry is both aggressive and new to the debate rounds. He often came off as assertive and in command, but when he didn't, it showed. He was, to some extent, right about Social Security being a "Ponzi Scheme", but substantially, he didn't really explain why, and how he'd remedy it. He also flubbed a very easy question about Climate Change, falling too easily on his Texas record than he should have.

2. Mitt Romney came across as in command. He was rarely on the defensive, even when there were attacks on his record as Governor of Massachusetts. He also got some of the best lines in there about the GOP field being united in their dislike of Obama. Good stuff, but he didn't get the knockout blow he wants against Perry.

3. Newt Gingrich had the best line(s) of the night, when he attacked the MSNBC moderators for their conduction of the debate. He effectively showed how they were trying to get the GOP candidates to fight each other, and that their questions and moderation was essentially one giant "Hey everybody! The GOP is nuts! Trust us!" MSNBC totally beclowned themselves here, with alot of obvious liberal "red meat" questions   that were disingenuous at best, and hostile at worst.

More after the jump:.

The State of Polls

Political polling is a necessary evil. It's not an exact science (although it tries to be one!), and a great deal of them play footsy with their polling questions and demographic percentages/breakdowns. But this makes me laugh: NBC concerned about their polls. Specifically, this line has me laughing, from NBC's Chuck Todd on the Nightly News:

"Now this has taken a hit on the president politically...A more important number that our pollsters say is in there is this idea that is this a long-term setback for him or a short-term one? 54-percent said long-term. Our pollsters are concerned. That’s kind of numbers you have when the public starts to give up on a president as a problem solver..." (emphasis mine)

Why am I laughing? Because the pollsters that NBC employs shouldn't be "concerned." It's not their job to care one way or the other. Their job is to figure out what the public does or does not want. By showing "concern," they are actually taking sides in the polling. By showing "concern," they are also leaving readers room to question just how much they are trying to protect the answers that they are concerned about, in their polling system. In this case, they can't hide the fact that America thinks Obama's done a shitty job, so far. That's why they're concerned. Dear NBC: you just beclowned yourself.

And that's the problem with polls, people. Generally they're good, but they can be messed with, especially for political reasons. So the next time you see a poll that shows wildly out of the ordinary percentages- go look at their samplings, and who's commissioning it. And maybe you'll find reasons to laugh as much as I have.

CM Punk/WWE Update

Sorry about the time off between posts. I've been busy moving to a different state, then getting a nice back injury that kept me mostly watching BBC Top Gear, Pro Wrestling, and HGTV shows. Okay, maybe not the latter. But I do have an update about the CM Punk saga.

It's working. CM Punk has managed to convince the WWE heads that he's a breakout star (and should have been one years ago), and that it was internal WWE politics that kept guys like him down. The dialectic (yes, it is that) between Punk, Cena, and Triple H (the "COO" of the WWE) has been well thought out, compelling, and great in-ring action. Punk's managed to win the WWE title, and he's managed to shed light on the failure of the WWE's "status quo ante". It's a good thing, and we've gotten some great wrestling and storylines out of it. Because of Punk, they're pushing Christian, Alberto Del Rio, Evan Bourne, Daniel Bryan, and even Zack Ryder.  It's a refreshing change of pace. And we have CM Punk to thank for it.

The Shallow Hatefulness of People

If there's one thing I hate in this world (ok, I hate many things), it's stupid and shallow people. Now, it's one thing for someone to make a mistake, but I just have a pathological dislike for people who show themselves to be my intellectual socio-cultural inferior or (University of Miami fans). l think some of this comes from my experiences in high school.  I have some fond memories of high school, but I also have memories of shallow and superficial idiots who could not get past their own over inflated egos and bitchy labeling of society. I admit, I'm a geek. But hey, that should be okay. However, some of the high school nonsense extended into my adult years, where dating occasionally was a minefield of girls who couldn't get past their stupid mind games. I'm glad I found a girl who didn't play those games (and herself was kinda geeky), and we're happily married. 

            What brings this up is a nasty internet dustup that I read today.  Alyssa Bereznak,  a writer for Gizmodo went on two dates with a guy (Jon Finkel) she met through OkCupid, and proceeded to write an article about it afterwards. She wrote how not only did she dump him, but it was horrible that she was going out with someone who was a "Magic: The Gathering World Champion".  Yes, seriously. She stopped seeing him because he was......a nerd. And she was upset that he didn't mention that in his OKCupid profile (really? WTF?) Btw, her original (unit-edited) version is actually worse.

(More after the jump)