rizzn-mule-five: party politics

Showing posts with label party politics. Show all posts

Friday, May 4, 2007

MSNBC's Republican Presidential Debate

I watched the debate, and I must say I was impressed with the aptitude that the Republicans handled themselves. I suppose that after years and years of being exposed to Republican ineptitude, its refreshing to be exposed to the flip-side of it.

Here's the most interesting thing to come out of this debate; given the huge field of the early Republican lineup of candidates that prevented Paul from elaborating much more on what makes him so very different from the rest of the pack, and the scant 90 minutes afforded the public to know who they are, Paul did as well as he possibly could going from near last to FIRST place.

This shake-up is very interesting.

BEFORE the Republican "debates":

Giuliani 41%
McCain 31%
Romney 28%
Huckabee 14%
Thompson 11%
Tancredo 10%
Brownback 10%
Paul 9%
Hunter 7%
Gilmore 4%

AFTER the Republican "debate" at 9:28am the next morning:

Paul 35%
Romney 30%
Giuliani 25%
McCain 20%
Huckabee 16%
Tancredo 10%
Brownback 9%
Thompson 9%
Hunter 8%
Gilmore 7%

RizWords - Daily Politics and Tech EP 37

RizWords - Daily Politics and Tech
Episode 37 - download now - subscribe now - iTunes subscribe

A member of the TechPodcast Network @ techpodcast.com. If it's Tech, it's here.
Remember, if you're listening on the podcast recording, you can call into the show live if you tune in through TalkShoe.com at 2:30 PM EST every weekday.
If you like the podcast (and you haven't already given us a rating), head over and do so, and don't forget to sign up for the discussion list.
Other Podcast Plugs:

TalkGirls comes on Tuesday nights. Check out the TalkGirls Podcast ... it's good times!
Cotolo Chronicles: Frank is a good friend of the show, and an associate of the late great Wolfman Jack. Check out his podcast.
NewsReal: Good friend to Art and I - has one of the best hours of news podcast each week.

Sponsors:

Try GoToMeeting for 45 days! Visit www.GoToMeeting.com/podcast to start your free trial today.

AACS - Guaranteed improved credit - http://aacsnet.com/ - Mention RizWords and get $50 off your entry to the program.

This was a PACKED episode... FULL of news. Art Lindsey is still on Medical Leave. See www.artlindsey.com for more information. On Monday, Bill Grady from You Are The Guest Podcast will be joining as co-host, and Derrick Vann, longtime personal friend, will be joining us on Tuesday. Do not fail to miss these shows, if you can. Hopefully, Art will be re-joining us next week soon.

But now, the news! The big talks today center around re-opening of merger talks between Microsoft and Yahoo!:

Massive: Microsoft, Yahoo Talk Merger
By Nicholas Carlson

Microsoft and Yahoo are talking at the merger table. And this time, Microsoft is said to be willing to pay the heavy price it would cost to acquire Silicon Valley's most successful Web portal. Some wonder whether that's wise.
According to unnamed sources cited by the New York Post, Microsoft broached the merger topic months ago and Yahoo quickly rejected the deal. A Yahoo spokeswoman told internetnews.com the company refused to comment on "rumors or speculation." Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment.
But since, a series of Google successes -- its launch of Web-based applications for small businesses, its outbidding of Microsoft for advertising firm DoubleClick and another quarter of spectacular financial results -- has Microsoft hot for Yahoo's Web presence once more.
ahoo's current market capitalization is $44.75 billion. In morning trading, Yahoo's share price rose five points, or 17 percent, to a near 52-week high of $33.23 per share.
Apparently, merger talks are just the cure for Yahoo after weak first-quarter financial results caused investors to bail on the company in mid-April. The problem then was that Yahoo did not exceed expectations for its new advertising platform, code-named Panama.
When reporting Yahoo's 2006 financial results, CFO Susan Decker said Yahoo did not expect Panama to positively impact its profits until the second quarter of 2007. But early reports of the advertising platform's success raised investor expectations. Despite positive reviews from Yahoo advertiser customers, however, those expectations were not met and the stock tanked. Until today's merger talks.

In other Yahoo! related news:

Yahoo Photos going dark as Flickr shines on (USA Today)
LOS ANGELES — At Yahoo, Web 2.0 has won one battle with stodgy old Web 1.0. — Yahoo is shutting down Yahoo Photos — for years, the No. 1 or No. 2 most-visited photo site on the Web. Its users will be directed to move their pictures to Yahoo's hot upstart, Flickr.

And on the flipside, two interesting Google-related stories:

Google Scholar Added to Google's Homepage
There's a new link to Google Scholar in the list of services from the "more" box. Google's search engines for scholarly papers was available on the homepage only if you visited Google from your school.

Google Scholar includes a big list of scientific publications and some of them aren't available in Google's main index. "Google Scholar covers peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts, and other scholarly literature from all broad areas of research. You'll find works from a wide variety of academic publishers and professional societies, as well as scholarly articles available across the web."

And the other:

YouTube Users Get Paid. Tomorrow.

On Friday, YouTube will begin revenue sharing with top users including LisaNova, renetto, HappySlip, smosh, and valsartdiary using the same system they’ve used for TV networks. They’ll also be sharing revenue with thousands of medium-sized content content creators like small production houses and universities.
These “top users” have been picked from the “most subscribed” list, and YouTube is spinning this as a way to put ordinary users on a par with professional content. I’m going to guess that this is partially related to the Viacom lawsuit, which alleges that YouTube is almost totally reliant on copyrighted professional content: just like the bizarrely late YouTube Video Awards 2006 (held in March 2007), this may be an attempt to highlight the importance of user generated content. (”Look, we make so much money from Renetto that we can pay him!”).
The top users were plucked from the “most subscribed” list, which may be a little worrying based on the fact that YouTube doesn’t really regulate these numbers. Even more worrying: they still haven’t fixed the bug that allows you to get more views by refreshing the page: when there’s money involved, that trick will be even more enticing (look at all the crappy videos on the Most Viewed list with very low ratings). Nonetheless, we now know that the YouTube rev share program is being tested on many more accounts that just the Afterworld trial we mentioned earlier.
More on the YT blog.
Embedded below: LisaNova, whose good looks almost make up for a lack of talent.

In more reasons to hate the RIAA news:

RIAA Drops Yet Another Case
Given just how many cases the RIAA has had to drop after it was pointed out that it's sued the wrong person, why isn't anyone questioning why the RIAA is allowed to file thousands of cases in a single shot when it's clearly not very careful about the process? The latest is that the RIAA has dropped a case after it was pointed out to the RIAA that the person being sued wasn't actually a subscriber to the ISP in question at the time of the observed file sharing. Oops. At some point, you would think that someone would point out that the RIAA appears to be abusing the legal system as its personal plaything in suing whoever it wants whenever it wants on whatever flimsy evidence it can find.

In EVEN CHEAPER laptop news:

India Hopes to Make $10 Laptops a Reality
sas-dot writes "We all know Nicholas Negroponte's $100 OLPC. India, which was a potential market, rejected it. India's Human Resources Development ministry's idea to make laptops at $10 is firmly taking shape with two designs already in and public sector undertaking Semiconductor Complex evincing interest to be a part of the project. So far, the cost of one laptop, after factoring in labor charges, is coming to $47 but the ministry feels the price will come down dramatically considering the fact that the demand would be for one million laptops."
Read more of this story at Slashdot.

This is quite a big deal... lots of big deals in the news today:

AOL Slips to No. 3 on Internet
After more than a decade connecting more Americans to the Internet than any other company, AOL has given up its title as the leading Internet service provider, a reflection of changing consumer habits and its own strategic shift.

I'm interested to hear what Todd Cochrane will say about this:

THE END OF MILITARY BLOGGING
The most excellent Noah Shachtman of Wired's Danger Room has a great article with lots of milblogger reaction to the new OPSEC regulations that will end military blogging as we know it. Yes, that's right - the end of soldier blogging from the war zones.

In purely political news:

Bush vetoes troop withdrawal bill
WASHINGTON - President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate. — In only the second veto of his presidency …

Condi, and why it's legal for her, and not Pelosi:

Rice to Meet With Syrian Foreign Minister
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to meet with Syria's foreign minister here later today, United States officials said. The meeting would be the first diplomatic contact at such a high level between the two countries in years.

This story set me off:

Is Virtual Rape a Crime?
cyberianpan writes "Wired is carrying commentary on the story that Brussels police have begun an investigation into a citizen's allegations of rape in Second Life. For reasons of civil liberty & clarity we'd like to confine criminal law to physical offenses rather than thought crimes but already threats, menace & conspiracy count as crimes. Could we see a situation where our laws extend?"

Read mor of this story at Slashdot.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

My Exit from the Libertarian Radical Caucus: Getting government out of marriage

The following was my unsubscribe message sent to the Libertarian Radical Caucus, a caucus belonging to the National Libertarian Party. Their foundation is strict adherence to Libertarian principals in promoting personal freedom (or as it's description says: a free-ranging discussion via email about the Radical Caucus and its role in the Libertarian Party).

Their moderation is spotty at best, they're highly infiltrated by liberals promoting cultural agendas instead of real promotion of freedom.

The discussion was originally about Bob Barr's support of the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) as success for Libertarians in handing more freedom and control back to the state level instead of the Federal level.

I think I'm done with this discussion group. Rules of moderation prevent me from singling you out and saying exactly what I think of you, but since this is my parting shot, I'm not going to hold back.

I know what the legislation was meant to achieve, but when the intent behind the legislation aims for something but achieves another thing, I think it's mighty hypocritical for you as a libertarian to call upon libertarians to 'repeal it.' As I stated before, it deregulates marriage and de-regulates the definition of marriage down to the state level. This is a step in the right direction.

The only reason for the Federal government to recognize marriage is for taxation purposes, and moral gerrymandering. The federal government has no business in my romantic or spiritual life, or the lives of anyone (not to mention income taxing in the first place). Marriage is a social contract with your significant other, your community, with your family and friends, and depending on your religion, with God. If you can find a church and a community that will accept your lifestyle choice, then you should do so.

Deferring to the state on the definition of marriage makes the definition actually easier to change. Local platforms are easier to speak from than national platforms. Again, I reference the Howie Rich initiatives.

If you are supposed to be a libertarian radical through and through, you don't get to pick deregulation when it doesn't line up with your pet special interest group's wishes.

And finally, as a general aside and pet peeve of mine - I'm tired of being dismissed (by you) and accused of not "being in the same universe" (by goldrecordings) simply because I don't walk in lock step with politically correct LGBT rhetoric. The LGBT rhetoric, more than any other set of rhetoric, is full of logical and philosophical holes that thorough thinkers are expected to overlook simply because it's treason to offend someone from that special interest group. I'm not a racist, and I'm not a homophobe, and I'm not trying to justify some sort of anti-gay agenda.

I'm not here to promote liberal agenda under the guise of LPism. The right to define the word marriage is not one of the pressing social issues of our age. There are very few, if any, enslaved homosexuals being denied basic human rights, so attributing the same amount of fervor and venom to the LGBT movement as the Black Civil Rights movement is disingenuous.

On the other hand, I am here to promote civil liberties of Americans. Americans have been held without having been charged for years at at time, and it has been since way before the Patriot Act (anyone remember Kevin Mitnick anymore?). Attention to laws that abuse freedom are significantly more important than adhering to cultural liberalism and what are frankly tertiary issues.

Having said that and flouted moderation rules, I'm going elsewhere.

Peace, Love and Revolution.

/mark "rizzn" hopkins

On 3/7/07, Starchild < sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
Mark,

It's hardly just my "personal opinion." Ask any politically
well-informed person whether the people behind the "Defense of
Marriage" Act were trying to make it easier, or more difficult, for
same sex couples to have their marriages recognized. Again, please
don't quibble about the precise wording of the act. You know the effect
the legislation was meant to achieve as well as I do.

Love & liberty,
<<<>>>

On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins wrote:

> Your personal opinion of the intent behind the bill aside, it's a step
> towards, not away from, deregulation of marriage.
>
> On 3/7/07, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Let's not mince words -- I'm speaking of the plain intent behind the
> > law.
> >
> > <<< starchild >>>
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 09:31 AM, Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins wrote:
> >
> > > The "Defense of Marriage" Act does not forbid same-sex marriage.
> > >
> > > On 3/7/07, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > Very good; in the United States, we can start by repealing the
> > > > "Defense of Marriage" Act and other laws forbidding same-sex
> > > marriage.
> > > >
> > > > <<<>>>

Update: Susan sent a personal message to me after I unsubscribed:

That's showing real class there, Mark. *sigh*

--
/mark "rizzn" hopkins
For my blog, profile, and wikipedia entries, simply Google "rizzn"
--
intelligent discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/rizzncom-v83/
--

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Jaw Dropping Ignorance

I've been gearing up for another round of letters to my representatives regarding this year's legislative agenda. I believe that marijuana should be legalized, but I don't really champion the idea because it's a movement that tends to destroy the credibility of it's champions. None the less, I must say that this is hands down the most atrocious response to a pro-marijuana supporter I've seen in my life. Your jaw will drop, guaranteed.

It comes from the blog Free Keene:

Earlier today I decided to write my representative, Delmar Burridge, an e-mail to voice my support for HB92, decriminalizing marijuana. Unfortunately I was very disheartened by the response I got to my letter. I expect much more from my representatives. Below is both my original letter and his response:

Dear Representative Delmar Burridge
I hope you are in good health. I understand that you are on the Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee which is going to hear testimony this Wednesday on HB92, decriminalizing marijuana. I know you are opposed to this bill, but I trust you can understand how important of an issue this is to many people both in Keene and the rest of New Hampshire. I hope you will consider passing it through committee so that all sides will have their chance to speak on it. NH has some of the most draconian legislation on marijuana, and hundreds of our friends and family members are being arrested for choosing to smoke instead of drink. Please think about passing this through committee so everyone can listen to the opposition and have their chance to speak.Thank you very much,

Toby Iselin
Keene NH

And his response:

Dear Toby:

My youngest brother Albert who I was very close to died from head injuries sustained when he wrecked his car in West Virginia. His wife walked away. He was a triple major in college; biology, philosophy, and psychology and was smoking a joint before the crash. It is all very vivid including the anguish my parents went through. This occurred in the 1970s and I still miss him. I began work as a juvenile probation officer in the poorest section in Philadelphia in 1969 and the above described experience pales to my on the job, eyeball to eyeball observation of family devastation I saw daily…..and these males were reefer users just like you….saying the same dumb stuff just like you and they were not smart college smart. I saw lots of blood and death. Trust me, these campers were not soon going to be setting the world on fire. Some did suffer severe burns.

Last night one of your buddies called me twice even asking me to be on his TV show. He was yelling and screaming and I hung up on him. You have to chill this guy out. I will say to you what I said to three different callers; I will vote no on this Bill and have lots of very chilling stories to relate to the other committee members so it goes my way.

Suggest you change all your friends, be the designated driver when you are old enough to drink since you don’t drink. I will sign the Bill that keeps tobacco out of the bars when it come up in the house so you don’t get second hand smoke.

I am copying two members of the Keene Police Department in case you want to change your ways and act legal and save your friends.

You are very passionate in your beliefs and would make a great snitch. It is thrilling to dime on your so called friends.

Be healthy and be well.

Delmar D. Burridge
DBurridge@ne.rr.com

(603) 352-5363 or
(603) 542-7744

I would just like to add that I never said that I don’t drink, and nowhere in the e-mail did I mention that I smoke marijuana. It seems that Representative Delmar Burridge is making assumptions without looking at any of the arguments or evidence.

Wednesday, January 3, 2007

Texas Green Party blasts Operation Enduring Freedom

The Green Party of Texas issued a press release today:

Here in the holiday season, George W. Bush's immoral and illegal occupation of Iraq has reached a grim milestone. As of December 31st, 2006, 3000 honorable men and women of our armed forces have died in this reckless and atrocious act of aggression.

Every claim made to justify this war has been a lie:
The claims that Iraq was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction
The claim that somehow Iraq was a clear and imminent threat to the United States
The claim that our purpose in Iraq was to "liberate" the Iraqi people from tyranny
The claim that the Hussein regime was in some way connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi women, children and men, has cost the lives of 3000 American military men and women, has injured almost 25,000 of our military, has cost this country almost half a trillion dollars, has shattered our foreign relations, and has fostered deep contempt and anger against our country across the globe. Our military presence in Iraq is fueling the civil war growing there and is inflaming sectarian violence. Our outrageous policy of torturing prisoners of war in Iraq constitutes a horrific violation of American values and principles that puts our own military men and women in grave danger of being tortured themselves.

The Green Party of Texas calls on the White House and Congress to immediately withdraw the American military troops from Iraq and fund an internationally-diverse humanitarian and diplomatic mission to that country.

I could pick this press release apart bit by bit, but is it really necessary? I guess that people still spew garbage like this is evidence that it is.

WMDs were found in Iraq on multiple occasions.
That Saddam used them on his own people and would have loved to have used them on Israel given the chance is a threat to national security, and the security of the world.
How can motivation for or against liberty be judged? Does the Green Party have a magical device used to divine the president's true motivations?
Saddam and Bin Laden did work together.

That we are grimacing as a country at the loss of 3000 troups is deplorable, and shows that America is no longer worthy of the mantle of 'Superpower' any longer. Compare death rates of Iraq and WWII for evidence.

That the Green Party thinks that throwing more money at this quagmire in the form of diplomacy and humanitarianism is idiotic, as eight years of diplomacy and humanitarianism in the face of terror and anti-Americanism under Clinton showed us that nothing can be achieved by this route.

Say what you want about my party of Libertarians - but hey, at least we're not Greens!

/rizzn

Update:

Fred Drew of the TxSLEC had the following to say on the press release:

I am sad that the Green Party has determined to pursue that tactic as it will alienate about 80% of the families in South Texas, who believe like President Ford, that Bush used the wrong message to justify the war and that Congress supported it wrongly by authorizing it, as required by the War Powers Act.

Most of rural America doesn’t support Bush but believes the troops are doing the right thing because they are the families of the troops and are being told directly from the horse’s mouth that progress is being made with the exception of certain areas in particular, Bagdad.

They are also not the stupid underachievers that they were called by Congressman Rangel.

There is a lot of difference between commencing a war for what appear to be the wrong reasons and then trying to get out later. If you walk away without a clear victory the same folks that heckle a dying man on the gallows will be even more convinced that they can defeat our way of life militarily, not to mention the kind of mid-eastern National Leaders that I watched describe how they would kill all of the western cultures. Remember, Armageddon is a goal to them, not a consequence.

Those, that think they can, will. Look back at the progress of events beginning in 1938. Dejavu

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

What's Wrong with the NYC Libertarians?

New York City Libertarians are going through what may only be described as pre-pubescent in-fighting and mud-slinging. I'm a member of discussion lists of Libertarian groups throughout the country, and therefore get a decent feel on the pulse of the nation's Libertarians. I must say, of all the groups in the country, the NYCers are the one's taking this cycle's walloping the worst.

As a libertarian, I'm fairly used to being disappointed by the cycle's election returns. We had our hopes up pretty high this year, too, and the only major sucesses were Howie Rich's emminent domain initiatives passing around the country. I've discussed the minor victories we achieved in Texas and South Florida, but the results in NYC were particularly dismal for a major population center with a fairly active Libertarian core group.

Unfortunately, this group hasn't taken it very well. Instead of analyzing their work and defeats extensively, and beginning planning for next year's Muni-Elections, they've decided to turn on one another like wild dogs. It mostly centers around a fellow named Dr. Tom Stevens, who if you believe his detractors, is a ego-maniacal pedophile. His supporters call him a Libertarian purist. In actuality, he was the leader of the Queens LP group, one of the fastest growing contingents of the NY Libertarian party.

The controversy started when a quorum met to de-certify the Queens LP as no longer being affiliated with the NY State LP. Apparently, this was building up for some time by those who were either jealous of or in some way inhibited by Dr. Stevens' ambition. Unfortunately, there is now a rift in the party of those loyal to Dr. Stevens, and those who will stop at nothing to get him out of the party. The latest effort to stir up the drama pot was by Mark Axinn's resignation as Manhattan's representative to the state party convention, and an attempt to replace himself with Dr. Stevens.

The Secretary of the NY LP accepted the resignation of Mr. Axinn, but did not accept the nomination of Dr. Stevens, citing an obscure portion of party by-laws.

The details of the case are inconsequential, and are symptomatic of a bigger problem - the inability of certain sects of the LP to put aside differences and focus on the real fights; the inability to 'save it for the game' if you will. I think this is because after repeated thrashings, and the inability to really see the difference they are making, they feel the need to lash out and manipulate things in a court where they know they can make a difference - in parlaimentary politics. Unfortunately, this is ultimately counter-productive, and needs to stop.

I say to the NY LP what I said to my parents after they decided to divorce after 29 years of marriage: "Grow up, stop acting like children, and get back together."

/mark "rizzn" hopkins

rizzn-mule-five