ten scariest words in the english language

"I'm from a corporation, and I'm here to maximize profits."

me & karl: two peas in a pod.

On January 11, I argued that Republicans and conservatives are making the same mistakes that the left did over a decade ago, when we got comfortable in our position as the bonafide leaders of America and never questioned whether or not liberalism would ever be the lesser of the poltical ideologies.

Either Karl Rove and I are thinking the exact same things, or Karl owes me a commission fee for plagiarizing my post, or it's becoming clear to everyone with a political mind that conservativism is crumbling into a pathetic pile of used and dirty rags, in spite of its decades of preparation. Today CNN.com reported that last Friday, Rove said the following at an Republican National Committee meeting:

"The GOP's progress during the last four decades is a stunning political achievement. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party -- in this case, the Democrat[ic] Party -- when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a mean to achieve the common goal," Rove told Republican National Committee members ending a two-day meeting.

"We need to learn from our successes," he said, "and from the failures of others."

Mr. Rove, you can send my payments to your preferred progressive think-tank.

Look at that admission in the second sentence. What Karl is saying in that sentence is that, in spite of its success, the conservative movement's failure is a cautionary tale in what can happen to a dominant party. Nevermind that he tried to juxtopose it with what happened to the Democratic party; he made his case before he stated what his case was. The second half of the statement just further clarifies. Just like with the Democratic party a decade ago, the conservative movement is making the mistakes of a dominant party that gets too full of itself.

kellogg co. in the courts

From Reuters:

A consumer group wants to keep Tony the Tiger from promoting sugary cereals on the SpongeBob SquarePants cartoon show, or anywhere else kids are watching.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest on Wednesday announced legal action to try to stop the Kellogg Co., maker of cereals like Frosted Flakes, and Nickelodeon cable network Viacom Inc., from marketing junk food to children.

A planned lawsuit will ask a Massachusetts court to stop the companies from marketing junk foods in venues where 15 percent or more of the audience is under age 8, and to stop marketing junk foods through Web sites, toy giveaways, contests and other techniques aimed at that age group.

The planned lawsuit in Massachusetts is the latest attempt to use the courts to try to battle the growing obesity crisis in the United States. (Read more...)

For me, this goes beyond battling obesity.

According to James McNeal's kids as consumers, "over a billion dollars is spent just on advertising to children," and that children should be referred to as "Kid Konsumers," that are "materialistic" and have an "economic power punch." The preface to the book proudly proclaims how this is a terrific book for those advertising to "four-to-twelve year-olds."

That billion dollars is a modest estimate from 1992; according to the American Psychological Association, that number is estimated at 12 billion dollars as of February 2004. Th APA reccommends that advertising to children under the age of eight be restricted, seeing as children aren't "[a]ble to critically comprehend televised advertising messages and are prone to accept advertiser messages as truthful, accurate and unbiased."

This boom in advertising targeting children is a direct result of the FCC lifting resctictions in 1981; rescrictions that had been in place since the 1960's. According to Mark Fawler, who was the chairman of the FCC at the time, the television was just another household appliaance, a "toaster with pictures" that didn't have to have any special regulation (Bakan, 2004). This is thrown right in the face of concerned child psychologists and consumer groups, whom acknowledge a reality that's apparently unknown to anyone that's actually in charge of what is allowed on our televisions. APA says that viewing television advertising can "lead to unhealthy eating habits as evidenced by today’s youth obesity epidemic."

Notice a theme here?

Of course, this ignores the current wisdom of this culture of "choice" that currently dominates American politics. Parents are sopposed to be the only ones that should be concerned about their children; government be damned. Children don't buy anything unless their parents put down the dollars for it, right? This fails to take into consideration a common bit of marketing genius called "Nag Factor," which basically is a technique used to urge children to "nag" their parents into taking them to fast food restaraunts, toys stores, et cetera. Naturally, for a corporation, a parent trying to make their kid shut the hell up for five minutes is seen as a perfect opportunity to make sales. Once you recognize a weakness, you exploit it as much as you can, to the chagrin of anyone trying to be that responsible parent that you hold up as your justification for the very same exploitation.

But conservatives and corporatists will be shouting in the streets about statist control of the markets if any sort of advertising restrictions are ever enforced, and how if you decide to limit the ways in which children can be manipulated by advertising today, you're likely going to be a communist nation tommarow.

This is all consistant with the conservative view that America isn't a society. Any nation is viewed by the modern conservative menace as a large collection of people, and that this is an invitation to exploit them in as many ways as can be imagined.

Nobody's looking to turn our businesses into state controlled outlets; we just want to let our five year olds watch a half hour of Sponge Bob Squarepants without having to wonder if they're going to be screaming about McDonalds or some variety of chocolate milk or whatever bullshit contraptions they're selling that they call "toys." Is that so much to ask?

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

-Thomas Jefferson

a welcome

I realised a few days ago that I never gave a formal introduction to this web site. I thought I'd catch up on this necessity tonight, seeing as five hours of sleep is probably more than anyone's ever needed to work a ten hour computer programming shift.

Let's get one thing straight. I'm no political wonk in any way. I have a couple of topics that I read up on quite a bit, like poverty and corporate policy, but after that, I'm kind of lost. It's embarassing, I know. You'd think I'd rather spend my time doing things other than claiming the "ircpolitics" blogspot url as my own in an attempt to take on the politically savvy right wingers in an IRC chat room called <a href="http://www.ircpolitics.org" />#politics</a>, but one has to do what one can. When a guy is watching his country turn into something strange, something he doesn't recognize, he can't just sit back and watch it happen without doing taking any small part that he can.

And I'm starting to not recognize my country. I see my countrymen approving of torture. I see them approving of having their phones tapped without oversight in the name of security. I see science playing second fiddle to creationism and faith based initiatives, and falling altogether at being politicized. I'm seeing a woman's right to choose an abortion being chipped away, and the progressive ideas of inclusion and diversity with the interest of equality basically falling off the page entirely.

So, in the interest of fighting the good fight, I make this small contribution to the debate. I've been a blogger of a few different styles, from social commentary to humor, and if I can handle creative writing, why the hell can't I handle politics?

So, here's to the online revolution, and here's to progressive politics.

Cheers.

the mistakes of the right, the mistakes of the left

At one time in history, liberals thought they were unfallable.

They simply didn't take conservatives seriously. We thought that their agenda was universally hated; we thought their ideas were considered universally regressive, and therefore, universally considered bad. We thought that the momentum was ours, always would be ours, no matter who took office of the presidency or how long conservatives took ahold of one or both of the chambers of congress. We didn't think we'd ever be in the position we are today.

As David Brock writes in his book, "The Republican Noise Machine," we always assumed Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter, and so on, were all self-discrediting. Not worthy of anyone's time, and therefore, irrelevant. We thought people just listened to them for amusement, and to have a good chuckle at what those defenders of the old and the ridiculous seemed to believe was relevant about the world.

We thought the conservatives were primative knuckledraggers that couldn't build a movement to save their lives, let alone their ideology. We didn't think anyone could ever take these old men in their surrogate youngster bodies seriously. And as it turns out, we were wrong.

What we once took for granted is now the subject of fierce interrogation. We assumed science would always be one the most important voices in our assessment of the world; now there is cases of creationism dressed up in a suit as "intelligent design" cropping up in schools across America. We thought there would always be a desire to move more ideas about life and culture and ways of living into the mainstream; instead we're seeing so much progress pulled backwards, like how gays are being chastized for wanting to marry, and white supremecy groups are taking a peek at the world again.

Let's just be honest, folks.

We fucking dropped the ball.

But the interesting thing we're seeing is that the right hasn't learned from this lesson of the left. They're still thinking the left is just a bunch of know nothing hippies who are too stoned out of their minds to ever pose a threat to them.

You're seeing this thinking all across the board, and the parallels are startling.

You have conservatives refusing to take liberal talk shows seriously. Air America Radio is just something to laugh at to them, just like how Limbaugh was just something for liberals to laugh at fifteen years ago.

You have them assuming, as I've already said, that we're just fools with liberal arts degrees, all of us. They're assuming we're just know-nothing dreamers that really don't have any ideas and really don't have any plans.

You have them scoffing at science just as we once humored religion about the seperation of church and state, and how such a wall could never be eroded. Just point to a single one of the literally dozens of conclusive studies that say global warming is real and humans are, in part, causing it, and you'll see a conservative gut laughing at the prospect.

And finally, you see a ridiculous oversimplification of our position on President Bush. I've literally seen people in #politics, a chat room that I consider to be a perfect example of extreme right-wing views, saying that liberals just hate President Bush simply because we're sore losers from 2000 and 2004, and that we just hate him because of his "last name" or because we think he "stole an election" or two. Compare this to how the left used to always assume the right was just a bunch of meatheads throwing stones at the unfallable ideas that made up liberalism.

They're not taking us seriously.

This is the time in history where the left has to have its rebirth. The old hippie style of fighting (or, more specifically, thier style of not fighting) is being abandoned. The left is waking up from thirty years in a drug-enduced slumber from the sixties, and we're putting the pieces of our ideology back together.

So here's some advice, conservatives. You should probably take us progressives seriously. If you want to hang onto this little backlash movement of yours, you'd better stop assuming your opposition is composed of a bunch of fools.

But, as my first two posts pointed out, this isn't your strong point, conservatism. You're making the same mistakes liberals made decades ago; you assume that your backlash on its own will carry on no matter what. You assume your enemies simply won't show thier heads, or aren't smart enough to get around your methods, yet you expect to win in spite of this.

Good luck with that plan. Be sure to post me a comment about how I should "keep dreaming," or how us "poor liberals" will "never learn."

Looking at the history of how an ideology can fall, it seems that conservatives are the ones that haven't learned anything.

"to have [conservatives] running your government is like asking the termites to fix your house."

Joe Conason, author of The Raw Deal, a book about conservative motives to deconstruct Social Security, speaks about the conservative movement. This video is well worth the watch, which is over and hour long. It also has FDR's grandson for the introduction.

Go watch now!

conservatives and the "choice" of homosexuality

Any time a conversation in modern politics turns to whether or not homosexual couples should be allowed to marry or have a "civil union" or what have you, the conversation inevidibly turns to whether or not homosexuality is natural. You'll get progressive-minded individuals claiming that that's just "how they are" and "who are we to tell them who they can and cannot marry," and you have conservative-minded individuals, who insist that people who are gay are attracted to people of the same gender by their own choice.

I look at the development of a human mind as an immensely complex outcome of an immensely complex equation. To say that homosexuality occurs simply because you watched too much homosexuality-enducing cartoon characters, or because of any one influence is just absurd. To me, it's just how a series of perceptions resulted in a sense of sexuality that's the opposite of the standard practice.

But that's not what I'm here to write about.

What I'm interested in today is why so many conservatives like to call homosexuality a choice.

See, the thing about this line of debate is that conservatives are always throwing it at homosexuals, saying that they made a choice to be gay, and that its sinful to do so, and what have you. But you never have them reflecting this line of reasoning on the straight population.

Why is that?

When they hear about someone being straight, they never say that they "choose" to be straight, no, it's just what they are. This is because once they acknowledge that they believe everyone is "choosing" between being gay and straight, then they have to acknowledge that they are themselves "choosing."

But see, the problem is that, as any normal straight person will tell you (and when I say "normal" I mean "not conservative"), they aren't choosing. It really is what they are. Truth be told, I have never woken up one day and wondered if I should "choose" homosexuality for that day. Never crossed my mind.

So, what is up with these conservatives thinking we're all making this choice, when clearly, it's not the case? I mean, if homosexuals are choosing to be gay, then heterosexuals necessarily must be choosing to be straight, right?

Let's get into this a little more. Who is it, in reality, that really is making a choice when it comes to homosexuality? It's a gay person, when they are deciding when, and if, they should let their sexual preference be known to their family and friends.

So let's juxtopose these interesting, interesting items. On one hand, we have conservatives who think that we're all "choosing" our sexual identity. And we have gay people, who are choosing their outward, public sexual identity, but that they are, without a doubt, gay. And on another hand yet, we have straight people, who know for a fact that they have no desires for anything having to do with being gay, and it isn't a choice in any way.

Could it be that these conservatives are so stricken with anguish over their own homosexuality, and their choice on whether or not to act publically on it?

I mean, clearly, homosexuality-is-a-choice-conservatives have something different in their brains that have them convinced that every single one of us is on the brink of turning gay at any moment. This seems like quite a bit of projection, wouldn't you say?

One definition of projection goes as follows:

The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

Bringing this up in debate will most likely win you a black eye or two, but it'll definitely be a great time watching a conservative's brain flip backwards while he or she tries to figure out a defense for this line of logic. They won't be able to simultaniously defend their homosexuality-as-a-choice reasoning and maintain that they aren't an in-the-closet gay themselves. Good times to be had.

Just because we're stuck with this conservative menace ruining our country, it doesn't mean we can't have a bit of fun at their expense.

bremer's revelation

I wrote my very first post on this blog with the thought in mind that I had written quite an irreverent post. I thought maybe I stepped out of line to some extent when I said that the conservatives running our country are fools, and that they are proving it by underestimating our enemies. I declared that you can't trust a conservative to run a campaign against terrorism because they have absolutely no idea where to start, since they think that our enemies are using standard landlines and cellular communications, instead of something more obscure or more sophisticated. I thought maybe I was being a little tough on the people trying to save American lives, and maybe I wasn't giving credit where credit was due. Maybe they aren't so dumb, after all.

Then, I read this.

WASHINGTON, Jan 6 (Reuters) - Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. civilian occupation authority in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, has admitted the United States did not anticipate the insurgency in the country, NBC Television said on Friday.

Bremer, interviewed by the network in connection with release of his book on Iraq, recounted the decision to disband the Iraqi army quickly after arriving in Baghdad, a move many experts consider a major miscalculation.

When asked who was to blame for the subsequent Iraqi rebellion, in which thousands of Iraqis and Americans have died, Bremer said "we really didn't see the insurgency coming," the network said in a news release.

Oh. My. Non-existant God.

You've got to be kidding me. These are the people that conservatives trust with winning wars?

On one of the last nights prior to the 2004 election, I remember someone in #politics saying "elect a Democrat during war time? that's dangerous thinking." Dangerous thinking, folks.

You know what's dangerous thinking? Assuming you won't be meeting any long term resistance. That's dangerous thinking.

Assuming you won't be needing the best body armor money can buy for our troops. That's dangerous thinking.

Assuming that if you drop the corporate tax rate in Iraq to 15%, allow foreign companies to pull 100% of thier profits out of Iraq without any reinvestment, and create those same conditions for foreign banks, Iraq would explode with business, and companies would be rushing in to create a business boom*, like bees to sweet, sweet honey. You also have to go and assumed that there would be no resistance to the rebuilding, and therefore, nobody blowing up the investments that these companies are sopposed to be pouring into this nation. You did all of this forethinking with the assumption that, in one of the most dangerous regions in the world, there would somehow be no resistance.

Dangerous, dangerous thinking.

These are the fools that are running our nation, my kind reader. They've underestimated every single aspect of the war, from how much troops would be needed to how much in rebuilding funds would be needed to how much body armor would be needed. They thought that, after easily rushing American troops into Baghdad and topping the statue and regime of Saddam in no time, that this would be a cakewalk.

How much has the green zone expanded, I ask you.

How many American fast food restaraunts are lining the streets of Anbar, I ask you.

Where's that Wal-Mart that was sopposed to crush, for the assumed better, the local businesses and basically take over the economy of Iraq?

What about the web page for "New Bridge Strategies," one of the major consultant firms that was sopposed to be facilitating the rebuilding Iraq "after the U.S. led war," because the "opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that companies seeking to work in that environment must have the very best advice and guidance available." They still say on the rebuild page, "When Iraq is ready to rebuild, we will be there." This web page hasn't been updated since 2003.

This was their "plan." This is why they didn't think to use the best body armor for our troops; they simply assumed there wouldn't be any need for it. Just plow out the bad guys and make the conditions in Iraq so favorable to business, they'll simply be falling over themselves to get a piece of the action, and the country would practically rebuild itself, and we'll be out of there in no time.*

And this all ties together into a conservative mindset of faith and assumptions. Just like how they underestimated and assumed that there would be no resistance to American occupation in Iraq, they also assumed that the terrorists are using common technology instead of something more obscure or even more sophisticated. These are seperate occurances of shortcomings from the same school of geopolitical thought.

Did they get anything about this war right? I'm waiting; I want to believe, I want to see through what conservatives call my "blindness" and understand how this is a resounding success.

It's just that reality keeps blocking the view.

*CORRECTIONS*
In the original wording of this post, I claimed that conservatives relied on their "favorable business conditions" to create the infrastructure for Iraq. This claim was incorrect. As this USAID paper circa February 2003 recognizes:

Complete reconstruction of the economic and institutional capacity of 1980 (conditions prior to the Iraq/Iran war will require years of public investment.

(My emphesis added.)

But we do know one thing about today's conservatives, and that's the unfallable faith in the private sector. It can only be assumed that eventually, all public services would be privatized. I made the wrong assumption that they would be making efforts towards this at the first swing of the bat.

the dale m. volker questionnaire

My state senator sent out a legislative agenda questionnaire inquiring about our opinions on variety of subjects. Dissatisfied with the Yes/No responses that my senator made available to me, I responded in an e-mail. While this may have immediately disqualified my opinions, because it didn't serve his interest of a simple tally of what he can garnish support for during the year, I felt it was the right thing to do, as I explained to him in my e-mail.

I also thought this would be a great way to get a bunch of my opinions out quickly, and with purpose, on this blog. So, with no further delay, I present my 2006 Legislative Questionnaire.

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

Senator Volker,

Recently I have received a Legislative Questionnaire that presents a number of questions that regard areas in which I have some interest. Your questionnaire left little space for those who would like to elaborate more on their answer, as a simple "Yes" or "No" should not be a conclusive answer to complicated questions such as the ones you've asked your constituents to respond to. It is with this in mind that I have decided to send this email as my official response to your questionnaire. Since I have taken the time to go beyond what you have expected of me in presenting my opinion about what should be your legislative priorities for 2006, I hope you will respond to questions that I have, in kind. Simple redirections to web pages that could inform me on these specific matters would be appreciated and more than sufficient a response.

This is the first time I have participated in the New York state political process in a way that goes beyond a simple cast of a vote.

1. Do you believe that New York State should continue to give tax cuts and finance incentives to new startup companies located in New York State?

This question fails to give some important caveats that I feel are required to furher clarify which businesses you mean. Specifically, I'd like to know how a "startup" company is defined. How many years and/or months does a company have until it no longer is considered a startup company, and is the size and expansion of the company considered at all in this process of qualification? I do support giving as many advantages to local businesses as is reasonable, but I feel a "Yes" on this matter with the reasoning your question currently presents would be irresponsible.

2. The New York State Court of Appeals has mandated that the New York State Legistlature must increase school aid by billions of dollars for New York City. The request could mean huge increaes in state taxes and real property taxes in upstate New York. Do you think the Court of Appeals has overstepped its jurisdiction?

This is another question that I think diserves more clarification. What kind of increases will we be seeing in state taxes, and who will be impacted the most? Seeing as your question seems to imply that there will be /devistating/ impact on Upstate New York, I think I need a better idea of what and who, exactly, would be affected by changes enacted by the NYSCA, and to what degrees.

3. Do you think teachers should be re-tested to ensure that we have quality educators?

You seem like the type of legislator that doesn't like seeing the government mucking around in people's lives. So in response to this question, I have to say "No." I think that school supervisors should make the determination as to whom is and isn't competant to be teaching. While your question makes it seem like I'm against having "quality educators," it does so by presenting a false choice, a logical fallacy I find offensive. The question seems to imply that if I care about having "quality educators," then I will support retesting, and if I don't care, then I won't support retesting. But, getting back to why I responded as I did, I think that any teacher is certified in the first place is for a reason, and it is because of their competence. Once again, your questionnaire has failed to provide any reason why I should believe otherwise, and so I'll continue to believe that, while failing students continue to be a problem in New York, it isn't because of teachers. It is because of this view that I believe retesting is unnecessary and that a different approach to education reform should be persued.

4. Would you support the State of New York assuming the local share of your county's Medicaid program as some government officials, business leaders, and editorial boards have suggested, even if it meant your state taxes would increase by billions of dollars?

The questionnaire has once again failed to specify who would receive the brunt of the impact from the "billions" of dollars in tax increases. Your question should instead tell us how much, on average, each of us in each different tax bracket would have to endure in tax increases, as well as impact on new startup companies as compared to established businesses. Like other subjects that this questionnaire presents, I'm not an expert on the economics of taxation. So, if this request is considered unrealistic or unreasonable, then please respond instead with an explination as to why presenting the tax increase as simply "billions" is somehow more reasonable and more realistic.

5. In terms of school vouchers, do you support allowing students and parents to choose a private school over a public school at taxpayer expense.

I would say "yes" to this question, in part. I think that a limited amount of the expenses for private schooling would be okay. This amount should be determined by income of the parents, as it is, I feel, the only reasonable way to balance giving parents and students a choice over where they go to school and maintaining public financing of public schools. To pay for private education based on any other criterium, such as the student's ability to learn, is setting the stage for a two-tier education system where advantaged kids get even more advantages over other students, by pulling away inappropriate amounts of money from public schools in addition to keeping less advantaged kids that come from impoverished environments from being able to attend private schools. In closing, I certainly hope this charter program is done with the interest of targeting less advantaged students.

7. Should small businesses be given a tax cut for providing health insurance to their employees?

As I have already stated, I feel that local businesses should receive as many benefits as is reasonable. However, I would like to know how much of a tax cut would be given to small businesses that provide healthcare to employees, and how this tax cut will be paid for.

8. Do you support a universal health system that would provide health care coverage under a government program (As opposed to the current employee-based system) even if it means higher taxes or repealing tax cuts?

I've often considered such a proposal, but the current wisdom that floats around the subject implies that a universal health care system would be detrimental to our health care. I've never understood how socially subsidizing our current healthcare system would suddenly, and necessarily, turn it into a mess; although I do appreciate that additional bureaucracy could muck things up to some extent. You opinions and insight into such a system would be appreciated, and any resources about the subject would also be appreciated. For the moment, based on how I currently understand the debate, I say "No" to this question.

9.) Are health care costs, not health care benefits, your chief health care concern?

Simply, no. I've always been of a mind that believes that a dollar of prevention prevents ten dollars in expense. With that in mind, I say that almost any amount spent in healthcare is money well spent, which implies that benefits are more important than costs.

10.) Should New York State continue to dedicate financial resources to provide health care insurance to the uninsured?

Yes.

11.) Should New York State residents be required to pay a New York State sales tax for items they purchase over the Internet?

I feel this is a complex question that diserves a complex answer. I feel that a consumer's money is best spent when it is spent as close to home as possible. New York consumers purchasing from another state, or worse yet, from another country, is detrimental to that interest. With that in mind, I am also against more taxes that are against consumers. Furthermore, I can't understand why New York State should benefit from purchases that originate from another state. I would say that, from my point of view, that a tax could be imposed on sales originating /in/ New York. This however, causes the problem of causing a detrimental effect of online buyers not wanting to shop at New York-based internet stores. A national Internet sales tax that is imposed at the state level that uses the /national average/ of state sales taxes would be interesting, but may be oversimplified to the point of being offensive. Due to this myriad of arguments, I'm going to say "No" to this question.

12) Do you support the protection of "traditional marriage" between a man and a woman?

Yet another question that deserves more than a Yes/No response. I'm an athiest, but I respect the religious traditions of others. I also support non-religious traditions, as well. I feel that it is an American tradition to be progressive and more inclusive as the times change. This, I feel, is a non-religious tradition that diserves the support of anyone with the opinion that America should be more inclusive as it ages, indeed, that all men are "created equal." With this in mind, I am against gay marraiges, but I support civil unions that give all of the legal benefits to gay couples, an entirely reasonable position that I can't see you disagreeing with in any way. I'm open to a differing opinion, but I doubt I will ever be swayed on this matter.

13) In response to the question regarding assault rifles:

Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they break the law. If someone decides they want to do something unlawful, I'd like to know that they aren't toting one of these "so-called" assault weapons that they were formerly using just for "hunting, recreatinal, and personal protection use." Let's be reasonable, Senator.

This argument, of course, assumes guilt, and I realise that. But, your own question states that only the "majority" of assault rifles are used for legal purposes. You, as well, are assuming some degree of guilt when you say that the minority will be used for illegal purposes. I'd hate to devolve into emotional pleas, but how many people have died in this minority of illegal uses you speak of? And how many of those illegally used assault weapons were purchased legally? In conclusion, I respond "No."

14) Regarding Erie County Legislature replacement.

No.

15) Should New York State provide funding to assist farmers in protecting food products from tampering and from potential terrorist activities within our food chain?

Indifferent.

16) In your viewpoint, which is the most important issue facing New York Stat government?

I feel that Education always is and always should be the most important legislative consideration. Educational issues feed directly into the other issues listed, in the long run, and in a myriad of ways.

17) Are you able to easily access your State government and its agencies?

Honestly, I've never tried.

----------

In conclusion, I'd like to express some more concern about the questionnaire itself, which is the original reason why I decided to write this e-mail instead of responding by mail.

The questionnaire you sent to your constituents was highly biased to a certain point of view. Almost every question made a disagreeing opinion sound like a really, really bad response. In future inquiries of your constituents, I would like to see references to web sites that provide detailed information regarding the subject matter. In addition to this, I'd like to see more encouragement for elaboration on responses, and ample room for doing so.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my views.

are we underestimating the enemy?

One of the worst defenses of the spying program that has been implemented for the last few years is this emerging attack on whomever it was that leaked the spy program.

From the Washington Post:

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), speaking on Fox, agreed that finding out who leaked details of the spying program is crucial "because whoever leaked this information has done the U.S. and its national security a great disservice."

But he said the investigation may be more appropriately handled by the Senate Intelligence Committee, where many discussions are held behind closed doors. "We're talking about this entirely too much out in public as a result of these leaks and it's endangering our efforts to make Americans more secure," McConnell said.

Bush has said that “the fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States" and that "[t]here’s an enemy out there.”

The problem I have is that conservatives are underestimating the very enemy Bush speaks of.

Conservatives honestly believe that al Qaeda doesn't already assume that we are making as many efforts as we can to intercepting as much of their communications as possible. Conservatives think that the leak of the spy program is somehow shocking to our enemy; Cons think that the terrorists know they are taking on one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, but we aren't using any of that technology to track thier communications.

I'm not even considering anything like whether or not the wiretappings were indeed legal or constitutional or not. I have no interest in that debate, as it is already being throughly examined. My concern is that the people who are controlling the campaign to minimize terrorism have no respect for our enemy. The thought that terrorists are using your typical, household land lines and cellular communications is laughable. One conjures up images of bin Laden sitting on the back porch of a cave in the middle of the desert, kicking it back with a lemonade and twisting the phone cord around his finger while gabbing about the latest al Qaeda plots. This simply isn't happening.

In chess, a player is taught to never assume that your opponent doesn't know everything that you know about the position. You're sopposed to presume that they know you know that they know that you know, basically. Yet here we are, assuming that our opponents never thought we'd be tapping their communications. Bushies are assuming terrorists don't know that we know they know what we know... or something.

Maybe conservatives don't play chess...