Late at night.... A walk by the bay
These are actually my photos. I post a lot on this blog that aren't, but these are mine!
Monday, April 28, 2008
A walk by the water
Late at night.... A walk by the bay
These are actually my photos. I post a lot on this blog that aren't, but these are mine!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Punditry gone bad...
"... I'll say one thing about Malkin: she is independent, and I admire that about her. She is extremely polarizing, ridiculously partisan and quasi-fascist in her politics, but I can't help but admire her pluck. She has made a name for herself almost entirely by her own efforts, she's extremely hard-working, innovative and ballsy, and takes her own side to task from time to time. She's also managed to rise above the disgusting misogyny and racism that has been thrown in her direction. Don't get me wrong: her McCarthyite bomb-throwing is repellent a lot of the time. But the blogosphere forces you to take the good with the bad and none of us is perfect. Any individual who has wrested control of the discourse from the media establishment and forged their own path is part of the solution." Link
Frankly, I couldn't disagree more. Her posts, at least when I read her blog a year or two ago, were pure monarchical zealotry: the executive does what he pleases during war-time and shouldn't be questioned. Perhaps she does take the republicans to task from time to time, but it seems to come from a place of astonishment... how dare those republicans act more like.... traditional republicans.
Her posts strike me as without logic, reason, or merit, and she represents, at least to me, a serious problem facing our political discourse. How can we possibly come together as a nation when we can't speak about the same issues in similar terms? How can we argue about the validity of invading a foreign country when our pundits cannot even agree, when faced with strong supporting evidence, that the whole thing is a colossal mess. Indeed, even if we cannot agree that it's a mess, we need to at least be able to speak calmly about what _is_ happening over there.
Just to clear the brush, I'm a registered independent, I support the armed forces with a zeal that perhaps matches Malkin's love for her own brand of politics.
But frankly, I find her writing to be poisonous. She represents a kind of buffet style media where you can get exactly the kind of news, opinion, and fact that supports whatever position you wish to have. It promotes talking points, argument and disagreement without substance, and the "shouting past" tactics that somehow passes for debate in this country.
Her "pluck" and "balls" are admirable. But then so were McCarthy's, so are the President's. The ability to fly in the face of convention is only an admirable skill if it produces positive results. In this case, if you look at the current state of our discourse, I would put fourth that her "pluck" is not only disingenuous, it is also very damaging.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Again?!?
It looks like California is about to take another _huge_ hit...
It appears that people took out prime rate loans structured similarly to those crazy sub-prime ones we've heard so much about. That is, the borrower doesn't pay much for a few years up front, and then, after a specified time, their monthly payments will _double_
Combine that with a 26% drop in home prices over only the last 12 months...and you're looking at a bunch of people who's houses are worth 3/4 of the size of their loan...and who's paymants are now twice as expensive.
I can't imagine them not defaulting...on purpose...and buying someone's foreclosed house down the street at 3/4's the cost. Sure, their credit might be wrecked...but everyone else's will be too.
If this article is right...we're in for some seriously hard times...
Brace yourselves.
It appears that people took out prime rate loans structured similarly to those crazy sub-prime ones we've heard so much about. That is, the borrower doesn't pay much for a few years up front, and then, after a specified time, their monthly payments will _double_
Combine that with a 26% drop in home prices over only the last 12 months...and you're looking at a bunch of people who's houses are worth 3/4 of the size of their loan...and who's paymants are now twice as expensive.
I can't imagine them not defaulting...on purpose...and buying someone's foreclosed house down the street at 3/4's the cost. Sure, their credit might be wrecked...but everyone else's will be too.
If this article is right...we're in for some seriously hard times...
Brace yourselves.
To be fair...
I've been posting a ton of ra-ra Obama videos here recently. It's only fair that I be critical of him. It's ironic, I think, that he spends a lot of time decring scorched earth politics...and yet, he still says shit like this:
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The worst debate I've known
All political theater, no Politics or Policy. Clearly the media can't be trusted to moderate debates. Can they be trusted to provide us with news if that's the case?
Responses:
Open Letter to the moderators
Time Magazine
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Are you kidding me?
Can someone with an IQ greater than table salt explain how the word "Bitter" could possibly be condescending or elitist?
I'm referring, of course, to the greatest scandal to rock our political world since Hillary mildly inflated her combat resume. Bitter-gate. I shit you not, people are calling it "Bitter-gate"
In our fair liberal wasteland of San Francisco, Obama apparently responded to a question about how to campaign in Philadelphia with:
What's worse, anyone with a cable jack and a TV that'll turn on was treated to painful hours of self-absorbed, wealthy, gassbags endlessly repeating to us that the middle and lower class will not stand for this kind of insult. Who the fuck is being condescending now?
This, dear reader, is douchebaggery in its highest form. McCain, who has something like 7 houses, is going to tell a Black man who grew up with a single mother and no money that he's an elitist who's out of touch with the poor. Sorry McCain, I'm sure you can speak volumes about experience and foreign policy, however, someone should probably remind you that a closed mouth gathers no foot.
This is why I hate politics, this is exactly what makes me bitter about Washington. A bunch of self-serving assholes are going to tell you and me what the working class poor will and will not stand for. Seriously guys, is this the best criticism you can level at Obama? An Elitist? Really? Can't your multimillion dollar thinktanks come up with anything more than that?
I gotta go with CNN on this one:
I'm referring, of course, to the greatest scandal to rock our political world since Hillary mildly inflated her combat resume. Bitter-gate. I shit you not, people are calling it "Bitter-gate"
In our fair liberal wasteland of San Francisco, Obama apparently responded to a question about how to campaign in Philadelphia with:
What about the above paragraphs could possibly be insulting? Hillary Clinton was "taken aback"! Dear lord, by these extremely offensive comments."You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"Now, like some of you may have been, I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small town America. Senator Obama's remarks are elitist and they are out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans. Certainly not the Americans that I know - not the Americans I grew up with, not the Americans I lived with in Arkansas or represent in New York."Seriously Hillary, what about your time spent on the board of trustees at WalMart prepares you to say jack or shit about the working man/woman?
What's worse, anyone with a cable jack and a TV that'll turn on was treated to painful hours of self-absorbed, wealthy, gassbags endlessly repeating to us that the middle and lower class will not stand for this kind of insult. Who the fuck is being condescending now?
This, dear reader, is douchebaggery in its highest form. McCain, who has something like 7 houses, is going to tell a Black man who grew up with a single mother and no money that he's an elitist who's out of touch with the poor. Sorry McCain, I'm sure you can speak volumes about experience and foreign policy, however, someone should probably remind you that a closed mouth gathers no foot.
This is why I hate politics, this is exactly what makes me bitter about Washington. A bunch of self-serving assholes are going to tell you and me what the working class poor will and will not stand for. Seriously guys, is this the best criticism you can level at Obama? An Elitist? Really? Can't your multimillion dollar thinktanks come up with anything more than that?
I gotta go with CNN on this one:
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The case for Guns
I live in San Francisco so I run into a lot of angrily expressed opinion on the need for firearms.
"Why do we need guns?" is a perfectly fair question. The answer really is: "We don't 'need' guns. We just need free access to them."
First, lets clear the brush a little. Guns do not work, in most cases, for self defense. All studies, that I've read, show having a firearm in your house makes you more at risk for being shot, not less. In fact you're more likely to be shot with your own weapon. We could argue this point forever, but it's more of a side issue and one I'm not very concerned with.
Rights
We, in this country of ours, have a right to own firearms. Why?
First, when we fought the revolutionary war, we took on the British almost entirely with citizen soldiers. Regular people who, because they owned guns for hunting and protection, were able to form an army to drive off the army of King George. The founders figured this sort of thing might happen again some day, so they added, as the second amendment: "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."
Second, and probably more importantly, we the people are endowed by our creators with inalienable rights. We entrust our government to protect those rights. If, at some later point, our government no longer respects our right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness we must revolt. Again, the founders foresaw a time when our own government might turn into one resembling King George's. Were such a thing to happen, we have a responsibility to rise up. According to Jefferson:
We must, as responsible citizens, be ready and capable to defend our rights from those who would take them from us. Again, as Jefferson said
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
This is why we must, in order to live in a free society, have access to firearms. How could we possibly mount a resistance without them? Knives and sticks do very little against an M16.
Practically
Anyone who thinks our government could never possibly become tyrannical need only look to the erosion of our rights in the last 8 years. Do we need to revolt right now? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean we won't need to later. If nothing else, George W (the irony of his first name is not lost on me) has reminded us that it only takes one event for us to close our eyes to protecting our Constitution from the government who's forsaken their oath to uphold it.
This is why we don't need to own guns. But we need to be able to whenever the mood strikes us.
"Why do we need guns?" is a perfectly fair question. The answer really is: "We don't 'need' guns. We just need free access to them."
First, lets clear the brush a little. Guns do not work, in most cases, for self defense. All studies, that I've read, show having a firearm in your house makes you more at risk for being shot, not less. In fact you're more likely to be shot with your own weapon. We could argue this point forever, but it's more of a side issue and one I'm not very concerned with.
Rights
We, in this country of ours, have a right to own firearms. Why?
First, when we fought the revolutionary war, we took on the British almost entirely with citizen soldiers. Regular people who, because they owned guns for hunting and protection, were able to form an army to drive off the army of King George. The founders figured this sort of thing might happen again some day, so they added, as the second amendment: "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."
Second, and probably more importantly, we the people are endowed by our creators with inalienable rights. We entrust our government to protect those rights. If, at some later point, our government no longer respects our right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness we must revolt. Again, the founders foresaw a time when our own government might turn into one resembling King George's. Were such a thing to happen, we have a responsibility to rise up. According to Jefferson:
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
We must, as responsible citizens, be ready and capable to defend our rights from those who would take them from us. Again, as Jefferson said
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
This is why we must, in order to live in a free society, have access to firearms. How could we possibly mount a resistance without them? Knives and sticks do very little against an M16.
Practically
Anyone who thinks our government could never possibly become tyrannical need only look to the erosion of our rights in the last 8 years. Do we need to revolt right now? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean we won't need to later. If nothing else, George W (the irony of his first name is not lost on me) has reminded us that it only takes one event for us to close our eyes to protecting our Constitution from the government who's forsaken their oath to uphold it.
This is why we don't need to own guns. But we need to be able to whenever the mood strikes us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)