Racism in 2007? It couldn't be!

Here is a quote from a recent television interview:

"But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have." (Emphasis is mine)

Who said this? (for the answer, click on this link)

A. former Presidential candidate and KKK Grand Wizard David Duke
B. Presidential Candidate Senator John McCain
C. Fox "News" host Bill O'Reilly
D. A certain teacher at my school

I guess it was kind of obvious. However, the fact that a public personality can say this on broadcast television is a little stunning. The fact that he can also claim to be "fair and balanced" is even more stunning.

Secretly preventing the release of secrets

Last year I was up in arms about a "secret hold" being placed on a bill that would create a database showing where earmark spending went. It was finally revealed, thanks mostly to bloggers, that the hold was placed by infamous pork-barrel whore Ted Stevens from Alaska.

Well, someone is back at it. Its sort of funny though, when you ignore the fact that the secret douchebag is completely slitting the throat of democracy and taking a hot steaming shit on accountability and transparency. The bill that has been secretly held is a bill called the Open Government Act. The goal of the bill is to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act which will allow the public a greater oversight over our representatives that have turned to being a little to secretive lately.

Its sort of stunning to me that this type of hold can still be used in 2007. In fact, I would go as far to say that I am surprised that this tactic could ever be used. In the end, I have no hesitation to say that whoever is doing this is nothing short of a coward who should be removed entirely from public service jobs except sanitation.

my famous students

18 of my Economics students attended an event yesterday held by TownHall Los Angeles. The speaker was James Wood, President of the Getty Trust that runs the Getty Museum. This is part of a program that gets high school students involved in local civic events. Although I got them hooked up, I was unable to attend with them due to, uh, extenuating circumstances (a.k.a. Liverpool in the Champions League final). In any case, the L.A. Times did a story on the event and mentioned my students along with my colleague, Diane Wilson, who took my place. Look towards the end of the story. I guess my kids asked great questions dealing with questioning the Getty's dedication to student programs, etc. while some of the "grown-ups" asked poignant questions like "Why aren't there more bathrooms at the Getty?" In any case, I am proud of how well my kids represented our school.

Douchebag of the undetermined time period

In the last few months I have laid off the douchebag posts for several reasons. Partly because I wanted to be more faithful in humanity. Partly because I didn't want to become a target of crazy people. Mostly because it takes too long. However, this guy has brought the hate back out of me.

Roy Pearson is a judge from D.C. Two years ago, he took some stuff to the cleaners. A pair of pants were not returned to him so they were considered lost. He wanted the cleaners to pay him the $1000+ for the suit, which seems fair. However, before paying the cleaners found the suit. He still wanted to be paid. He said no. They offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. He refused and is now suing them for...wait for it... $65 million. Why? Pain and suffering, the cost of a rental car to drive him farther to a new cleaner and according to the article"the bulk of the $65 million comes from Pearson's strict interpretation of D.C.'s consumer protection law, which fines violators $1,500 per violation, per day. According to court papers, Pearson added up 12 violations over 1,200 days, and then multiplied that by three defendants."

Really?! Over pants?! How is this guy allowed to be a judge? He should be disbarred and humiliated in public. In fact, I think he should be ordered to spend an entire year not wearing pants no matter where he goes. Seems fair to me.

Let me throw this one by you

I was thinking today, which is a rarity in itself, about this "war" that we are in. The commonly-used talking point in the pro-war camp is that we need to fight terrorism there to prevent another attack here in the U.S. Now, here is my problem. Since when do terrorists have to fight us in Iraq? It has been made pretty clear that there wasn't much of a terrorist problem in Iraq while Hussein was in power. Now there is - mostly because we are there. However, if terrorists wanted to attack the U.S. again they could just do that. I mean, if we want to prevent Iran from attacking us we could attack Iran. Unless they want to give up their country then they'd be forced to defend themselves in Iran. Terrorists, however, have no home. In fact, one high ranking government official had this to say about terrorists In a 2004 speech,:

"The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased, or negotiated with." (my emphasis)

So we can't expect them to stick around and "defend" Iraq right? Oh, by the way. The quote was from Dick Cheney in case you didn't check the link.

This brings me to the question. Exactly how is fighting in Iraq preventing terrorists from attacking the U.S.? What incentive do terrorists have to stay in Iraq? There may be some that ultimately want to control Iraq, but that does not seem like Al Qaeda's mission.

I know what the next pro-war point will be. We can't leave Iraq because chaos will become the order of the day. I ways back I went to the Pasadena Civic's Distinguished speaker series and listened to Mikhail Gorbachev. One of the points that he made that stuck with me was that no stable democracy can be created by an outside force. Those within the budding democracy need to create it on their own. I feel like the people of Iraq need to be the driving force behind their new government. This is an opinion that the majority of Iraqis want as well. (Just look at the charts in this link)

In short, I have found myself incredibly frustrated of late on this issue. I am not seeing that there is light at the end of the tunnel. I'm probably preaching to the choir a bit and only repeating ideas that are all over the internet, but I really wanted to say more than "I agree". Assuming that the publicly stated reasons for staying in Iraq are bullshit, what other possible reason could Bush have now other than giving Halliburton more money?

Republican debate bingo

I know that its a little late, but if you read this before 5:00 Pacific Time, go to this website and make yourself a bingo card for tonight's republican debates. Each square has a conservative buzzword.