Why I'm voting "no" on gambling

  

  The Arkansas Times blog has a good post by Max Brantley which offers plenty of info that should give those of any political view reason enough to oppose Nancy Todd's proposed gambling amendment.

  Of course religious conservatives would oppose it on moral grounds and would prefer to keep the "sin" of gambling at bay places like Mississippi (where guys are always selling their souls to Satan at the crossroads to play better blues music), our state's own den of iniquity known as Hot Springs, and Southland in West Memphis (which I don't even consider part of Arkansas, and grew up viewing mainly as a signpost on the way to the Beale Street Music Festival). Bleeding heart "libruls" will oppose it because of the way gambling draws in the poor and unfortunate among us, who don't have the sense to spend their money properly.

  My own reasons for opposing it fall into these two categories:

1.Free market lovers should oppose it because it would give Nancy Todd's Poker Palace a monopoly on gambling in the state which would be put into law.

2.I also think most people with any sort of pragmatism would realize that the restrictions in the law on the state to regulate gambling in any way at all would pose a problem.

North Carolina goes all Gandalf on gays

    Quick thoughts on North Carolina's new amendment. Let's be clear, we're not discussing a law to legalize gay marriage that was defeated, this was a constitutional amendment (!) against gay marriage in a state that already had anti-gay marriage laws on the books. This was a turf battle in which a metaphorical flag was planted in the ground and it said "hey homosexuals, you shall not pass!" My question, and the question that every person who is a Christian must come to terms with: In a political system in which the will of the people is determined through vote, should Christians use the law of the land to enforce God's will, or what they believe is God's will, on those who don't share their beliefs? If you say yes then I'd like an explanation as to what you think this accomplishes.

The Daily Caller and Iran's rattling sabers

  A recent article in the Daily Caller once again sounds the drumbeat for war with Iran. The headline of the article is "Iran rattles sabers: '11,000 missiles ready to launch' at Israel, US targets". Wow, pretty scary crap eh?

  But read the article (it can be found here), and you'll find that this is only a threat by Iran in response to any US/Israeli attack on its soil.

  From the article:
The Kayhan report emphasized that the leaders of the Islamic regime have successfully thwarted American and Israeli threats over its illicit nuclear program. But given Iran’s missile capabilities, it said, any aggression on its soil will be met with the launch of 11,000 missiles against Israel and U.S. interests in the region.

  So a country saying it will counterattack if it is attacked is saber rattling? I'll admit, that's a crap load of missiles to launch in response to what would most likely be a US or Israeli attack on a few nuclear sites. I'll also admit that I'm not so naive as to think that Iran isn't at all threat to Israel and many of its neighbors. But of all the stories I've read about Iran's threatening posturing, this one doesn't scream saber rattling to me. It does scream big bloody deterrent. And our country wouldn't launch missiles if another government decided to bomb a few of our nuclear facilities? Please.

Big Hollywood's pathetic response to HBO's "Game Change"

   

    Sorry, I haven't posted in a while (not that many people are going to notice). I had to post something regarding Big Government's alleged exposing of the "lies" in HBO's film Game Change. You can read it here. I'll be watching the film when it airs tonight, but even without having seen it I can recognize the weakness of the arguments provided by author Stacy Drake.

   I won't go over all 10 of their points because I have a life (or a little bit of one that I try to preserve), but by covering a few of them it becomes pretty clear that their definition of a lie sucks. There are a few valid points in the article that I won't cover here but I would attribute most of those to artistic license and the need to make a 2 hour movie. And those points don't obscure how thoroughly weak this takedown is.

Here we go:

Alleged lie #10: HBO says their film is a balanced portrayal of the McCain/Palin campaign
Response: Beyond the grotesque character assassination, there is a heavy partisan imbalance at work. "Game Change" portrays most Republicans in a bad light -- everyone minus Steve Schmidt (Woody Harrelson), Nicolle Wallace (Sarah Paulson), Mark Wallace (Ron Livingston) and Chris Edwards (Larry Sullivan). One character refers to former Vice President Dick Cheney as "Darth Vader," while the McCain/Palin rallies depict inhinged men yelling "terrorist" and "he's a Muslim" at the mention of Obama's name. Then, there was the the quote they placed toward the end of the movie which had Sen. John McCain (Ed Harris) warning Palin not to get "co-opted by Limbaugh and the other extremists." None of these instances were balanced and were clearly told from a left-wing point of view.

I'll acknowledge that the film probably isn't balanced, it is HBO afterall, but these arguments are weak. Major character Steve Schmidt has said in real life that the film is accurate, why should we take this author's opinion over his? Also, anyone who remembers the woman McCain shut down during the '08 campaign after her accusations of Obama being a Muslim could definitely believe the idea of people at rallies yelling "he's a Muslim". Only the most naive would think there weren't some people like this attending those events.'

Alleged Lie #9: Palin is portrayed falsely
Response: Virtually every characteristic attributed to Palin in "Game Change" is false. They portray her as as egotistical, ungracious, demanding, stupid, forgetful and, cruelest of all, mentally unstable. They do show her as a loving mother, even though they have her going into "catatonic stupors" being separated from from her children. Even when they're trying to be nice they're mean. I don't know Palin personally, but I know people who do. I have never heard any stories that fit the descriptions listed above; in fact, I've heard just the opposite.
An egotistical person wouldn't put her state's well-being before her own political career. An ungracious person wouldn't spend her time calling in long messages to supporters, giving them shout-outs at rallies, or spending countless time shaking their hands on rope-lines. It also appears as though Alec Baldwin didn't get the lefty memo. In October of 2008, after meeting her on the set on SNL, Baldwin describes Palin as "polite" and "gracious." Oops!

This comes down to he said/she said. Some people have described her the way the author mentions and other people have described her as the way the film portrays her. Pick your narrative.
As far as calling in long messages to supporters and giving them "shout-outs" at rallies, those are the kind of things that are only done by um, every politician ever. Nothing terribly exceptional about that. And Alec Baldwin calling her "gracious" is proof of nothing either. Every person can appear gracious especially when meeting someone for the first time. That doesn't tell you their entire life's story or what they are like behind closed doors.

Alleged Lie #7: Palin wanted to flee Alaska
Response:  The movie suggests Palin wanted to flee Alaska. At the 89 minute mark, Palin whispers into Schmidt's ear:

I so don't want to go back to Alaska.

Never mind Moore's horrendous acting -the statement is ridiculous. If Palin "so" wanted to get out of Alaska, why does she still live there? And how exactly do you explain "Sarah Palin's Alaska?"

Well there are many ways to explain "Sarah Palin's Alaska". You could go with what the author probably wants us to say which is that Palin loves her home state and wants to support it, or you could say that she wanted to keep her name in the spotlight with a reality show (and make some money too, $1million an episode from what I've read). Once again, this depends on who you believe she really is. None of us on the outside can say for sure. Also the quote in the film is from a book about Palin titled "Sarah from Alaska". So we have he said/she said again.

Alleged Lie #4: The film says Palin opposes stem cell research
Response: At approximately the 16 minute mark in the film, while interviewing the faux-Palin, Schmidt says:

Senator McCain supports stem cell research, you do not.

While the movie is correct in pointing out that Palin differed with John McCain on the issue (McCain supported federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), they make no distinction between embryonic and adult stem cell research. There is a big difference, and Palin supports adult stem cell research, as she pointed out in her interview with Charlie Gibson:

We’re getting closer and closer to finding a tremendous amount of other options, like, as I mentioned, the adult stem cell research.

Anyone with any common sense knows that when stem cell research is mentioned in the context of political disagreement it is invariably embryonic stem cell research. You'd be hard pressed to find a politician who opposes adult stem cell research.


     Final thoughts: Most arguments regarding the "real" Sarah Palin are, as mentioned earlier, he said/she said arguments. For those of us without the inside scoop, or with only second hand stories, that isn't enough for us to accuse anyone of lying.

Times when I'm embarrassed for/by my state...

I have important family matters that take priority for me, but I just wanted to throw in my disgust about a story that will be getting more attention I'm sure. The Blue Arkansas blog had the first post I've seen on it, so check out their post which I'm linking to at the end. All I can say is I'm disgusted by knuckle draggers who do crap like this.

Gingrich is right, Mitt Romney really is full of baloney...

 ...but this is different baloney than Newt was talking about

Some choice moments from Romney's New Hampshire victory speech:

"Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. He believes America’s role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. I believe a strong America must – and will – lead the future."

“He doesn’t see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it."

“He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth."


Okay, Obama the appeaser and the apology maker, yet not one actual example of this tired garbage that the biggest wastes of space in the GOP primary continue to throw around.

Also, terrorists who don't fear death and fight with IED's and bombs strapped to their bodies don't care how powerful America's army is. I'm wiling to wager they will continue to challenge it even if Romney was somehow able to arm and militarize every U.S. citizen.

Cut the crap Mitt. Get some class. If you want to hammer Obama, talk about the economy. That's a place you're more at home. Leave the militaristic foreign policy mumbo jumbo to your neocon advisers who spew that for a living (or better yet, fire your neocon advisers...yeah..right.).

Huntsman's Obama Problem

  As I caught a bit of this morning's Meet the Press debate before heading to church this morning, I had observation about Huntsman. His service as ambassador to China has been a criticism in some Republican circles and was one on the debate stage last night. Huntsman tried to address it in this morning's debate the same way he always has, with a comment about serving his country first.

   That's a great reason and will resonate with a lot of New Hampshire independents, but Huntsman has missed using a great example to further support his argument. Robert Gates was Obama's Defense Secretary after he served as Dubya's. Both his and Huntsman's positions were and are important to U.S. foreign policy (although the Secretary postion far more powerful). Gates, a Republican, served with almost zero criticism from the GOP. How Huntsman hasn't thought to use this example is beyond me. I doubt it would have made a huge difference in NH, and we'll see how he does there very shortly, but it would have been a stellar comparison showing the non-partisan nature of some positions.

Paul SuperPAC's Stellar Ad

  Revolutionpac.com came out with a great ad on behalf of its candidate Ron Paul. This doesn't totally counter the content of his newsletters, or answer all the questions I have about them, but it's still a great ad. It's the first ad I've seen that attempts to delve into who Paul really is, as opposed to transmitting his views on limited government, foreign policy, etc.

Ron Paul can't keep dodging.

  

   Anyone who has kept up with recent presidential campaign politics is aware of the controversy about the Ron Paul news letters from previous decades. They were sent to subscribers and contained numerous offensive, racist, and nutty ideas. The New Republic has links and summaries of them here. I was aware of them during the 2008 election but I bought Paul's excuse that they were written by a ghostwriter and that he had little involvement in them. I still buy that, but a recent revelation (for me at least) has made me reexamine whether that explanation is enough.

  Some of the newsletters make it very clear from the way they were written that the author is supposed to sound like Paul. They are written in the first person  in a kind of "from the desk of..." style. My impression had been that all of them were written as random unsigned articles under the heading of the Ron Paul Newsletter. The fact that some were written in his voice and that some even bore a signature, makes me question his judgement. Even if he didn't write them, I question why a person would think such words are the sort of thing Paul would endorse. Paul needs to answer to these emails with a fuller explanation.

   If he didn't write them, then, to put it bluntly, the media will need a scalp. Whoever did write them needs to be offered up. If he did write them, then he needs to admit it and then get out of the race. Those are the only options. As much as I can't stand her, I think about how much more extreme the response would be against a Michele Bachmann if she had published similar articles under her name. Fairness dictates that Paul must answer for this, no matter how much I appreciate his dissenting views on foreign policy and the war on drugs.

GOP presidential candidate preference in descending order.

The candidates that this blog likes (or could live with) at this moment:

1. Jon Huntsman-a great background with experience as a governor, businessman, and ambassador. And a foreign policy that isn't neoconservatism but hasn't embraced isolationism either.

2. Gary Johnson-a very popular (in his state at least) former governor of New Mexico. Ron Paul with executive experience and less crankiness.

3. Ron Paul- just for the grand experiment his presidency would be. I predict a lot of gridlock, but maybe some meaningful reevaluation of our country's place in the world.

4. Mitt Romney- has definitely let a little bit of the meanness of the rest of the GOP field into his campaign, but at least he doesn't seem to preoccupied with Muslims, gays, or our "anti-colonialist" president.

Rick Perry enters pander mode.

In recent weeks we have witnessed two examples of a candidate drowning and grabbing onto anything that can pull his numbers up. That candidate is Rick Perry. Okay okay. I know this blog is sympathetic to Huntsman, and I'll admit that his numbers are low but at least they're so low that any movement has only been up (in New Hampshire at least). Perry's fall has been something to behold. He's even tied at 3 percent in some state polls with Huntsman. Perry's candidacy has been just as embarrassing and silly as Herman Cain's. But on to the panders...

Pander #1: this one hasn't gotten as much attention because of pander #2, but Perry recently went anti-Wall Street in a recent speech, which is fine and dandy for this blogger. But it's pretty hard not to see this as an attempt to grab some of the anti-Wall Street sentiment that is even on the right. After all, you'll see a few Ron Paul supporters and libertarians mixed in Occupy Wall Street crowds.

Pander #2: This is the biggie. In case you haven't seen the horrendous video, please enjoy:

 

I won't bore anyone trying to explain the BS and logical fallacies of this ad (The Daily Dish does a much better job of it here). But in putting the ad together it's as if the campaign put a list of hot button items that bother the most extreme cultural conservatives, threw darts at the list, and then picked the ones that the darts hit.  Thud (War on Christmas). Thud (prayer in schools).  Thud (gays in the military). Thud (Obama isn't really a Christian). 

Anyone who reads even just a little bit about Rick Perry would have a hard time believing that either pander #1 or #2 are very close to his heart.

The reason Huntsman hasn't had his moment (and Gingrich is having his)

  

   Pundits have been speculating for awhile as to why Jon Huntsman hasn't had his moment in the polls as the anti-Romney. There's been all sorts of reasons given, from his service in the Obama administration to his views on climate change and civil unions. But the real clincher in my opinion? The man doesn't talk enough trash for GOP primary voters.

  If it was only Huntsman's views then why the heck was Chris Christie forgiven for his lapses from GOP orthodoxy and so salivated over for a month or two during the "will he/won't he" phase of the primary? Because he was a big mean guy with a Tony Soprano-ish presence. Even Romney, the consistent frontrunner and generally reasonable seeming human, has engaged in hyperbole about Obama to try to sound tough. But Romney wasn't rough enough in his criticism. He's smart, and primary voters like smart....actually, let me rephrase that...they like the appearance of being smart. But he isn't a dirty SOB. Shooting verbal bullets at O and sounding like you read stuff, that's the golden combo. Have they found it with Gingrich? Maybe.

  Every answer the man gives in a debate is a mini history lesson and he still manages to get in digs in interviews about Obama's "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior". Dang. Look at that quote. Pure partisan beauty. It's like something Rick Perry would say if he'd read a book or two in his life and could cobble together the brain cells to remember what was in those books.

   If Huntsman had managed a few more of those zingers his numbers would be the ones rising. Of course, those of us who believe there is still some decency hiding in the GOP are glad he hasn't.

New West Memphis 3 article is a waste.

  

  The Democrat Gazette ran a new article on the West Memphis Three case that covered the reflections of two state crime lab workers. The article can be found here.  The only comment on the article, as of the time of this blogpost, pretty much nails my opinion of it. We know for sure that at least one of the men, Mr. Peretti, thinks the West Memphis Three are guilty. We also know that both men from the crime lab feel like their work was unjustly attacked. These attacks were by the defense trying to claim that the causes of the wounds on the victims weren't what the crime lab claimed.

  I'll agree that knowing what caused the wounds is an important element of this case, but this article never once explains why Mr. Peretti is so certain the three men who were convicted of the crime are the culprits. This man handled the physical evidence, the one part of the case that both sides agree is very weak as far as linking the WM3 to the crime. What did he see in his work that convinced him. He's free to talk about it now. Why didn't the reporter get more information?

    Not to be cynical, but I wonder if the purpose of this article is to further the subtle bias the Dem-Gaz has always had against those questioning the convictions from this case. Otherwise, all we are left with is a story that basically says "Two AR crime lab scientists were very sad from the West Memphis killings and think that their work was unjustly attacked." Wow, who would ever be surprised by that?

 Oh yes, and one more thing, the quote by Mr. Peretti, also mentioned by the commentor on the story, is absurd: “They are being worshipped as child killers".  That is what Mr. Peretti thinks of the WM3. I don't care if he thinks the supporters of the Three are wrong, but you'd think he'd be classy or intelligent enough to acknowledge that those who are supporters don't think the three men committed the crime.

BUYcott Black Friday: even more stupid than Occupy Black Friday

  Caught this story about a Philadelphia Tea Party group that encouraged people to "BUYcott Black Friday" to help the economy and to respond to the OWS crowd that wanted people to "Occupy Black Friday". Both ideas are incredibly stupid but BUYcott takes the cake.

    So many Tea Partiers are criticizing the "violence" and "chaos" of Occupy Wall Street, was the Philly group not also aware of the violence and chaos of Black Friday? There have been deaths and severe injuries from shopping frenzy. Also, for a group that prides itself on fiscal responsibility I have to ask, just how fiscally responsible are the ill advised additional purchases that so many people make because they're in the Black Friday zone?

     Look at the pictures of people waiting in the cold or people in a constant state of shopping orgasm with mountains of junk in their carts. A lot of them look like the sort of people that Tea Partiers blame the housing crisis on. I wonder what the average credit score of a Black Friday line at Walmart is?

    So for your viewing pleasure, two great examples of what Philly Tea Party groups want for our country. And by the way, the item those people are scrambling for in the video? $2 waffle makers.

Further thoughts on Ferneau police officer incident.

 This post is kind of a reaction to a response to some comments I made on another blog. I don't know what happened at Ferneau, but then again I've never claimed to know. All I've done is told how things appear to me. This is partially based on my perception of the video and what I find believable about police officer actions. The latter is due to my witnessing the incident referred to in my previous blog post. Still I've never said that the officer should be fired or made similarly disparaging remarks about him, unlike many of those who commented on the Arkansas Times blog post about the incident.

  But I also won't say for sure that the officer was justified. The video appears to show an unarmed man getting punched in the face by a police officer without sufficient reason. It appears to show this. I have no clue what happened before, but it appears to show this. Just as so many people on the AR Times blog were calling for the officer's head, just as many people were saying a stupid drunk got what was coming to him. Both of these kinds of people are blindly subscribing to one view or the other, and knowing nothing of the complete story. I have shared my initial reactions to the video since it's my blog and it's a forum for my thoughts and opinions. But in the end, all I've said is that it's not certain that an officer used excessive force, but it's definitely believable. If you don't even think it's a possibility you are naive.

LRPD Excessive force: not certain, but believable

Many blogs have written about this incident so I thought I'd show this video and discuss my thoughts.

.

 

For anyone who hasn't heard, the above video is of an incident that happened outside the restaurant Ferneau. Having watched the video, the face punching is the one part that to me seems absolutely uncalled for. The rest of the video is hard to see, but I fail to see how an officer is justified in holding an unarmed suspect's neck and punching him in the face multiple times. I have friends who have been or are in law enforcement and this runs counter to all the training and handling of suspects that they have told me about.

I will also add to that a personal experience I had on Cinco de Mayo at El Porton in LR several years ago where I witnessed excessive behavior by an officer working security. The officer approached a man sitting at a table near ours and asked why the man was looking at him "funny". Having been at the front door the officer walked all the way into the bar area to ask that. The man denied looking at the officer any sort of "funny" way and it escalated into the officer asking the man to leave and then slamming the man on the table, knocking it over, and spraying mace. The mace then basically cleared the entire area of the restaurant as everyone started coughing and dealing with burning sensations. So the idea of a Little Rock police officer acting excessively isn't too crazy to me.

Glass Steagall, it's time to bring it back

  

  Caught this blog post from Slate the other day, which mentions both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich basically agreeing that Glass Steagall should never have been repealed. Okay that's great, we agree on that, now what?

  This should be a non-partisan issue. For all the GOP debate talk about repealing Dodd-Frank, there was little discussion of what to do in its place (Huntsman came close in last night's debate with talk of an anti-bailout fund paid by the banks, as well as his touching on the need to "right size" our banks, shoot he even semi-called out Goldman Sachs!). A return to Glass Steagall's separation between commercial banks and investment banks would definitely help protect the assets of America's citizens and make headway into dealing with TBTF. Now if we could only get a candidate to say that onstage...

House of Representatives proves it doesn't have amnesia

The House of Representatives voted recently to reaffirm that the motto of the United States is still the same motto that has been in place since 1956: "In God We Trust"

In other news they also voted to affirm that Abraham Lincoln's face is still on Mount Rushmore and that his position hasn't been usurped by William Henry Harrison...

Is Tea Partier Joe Walsh a "deadbeat dad"?

  Huffington Post carried a story whose implication was that "deadbeat dad" U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (not the totally awesome guitarist who was the only cool thing about the Eagles) hypocritically accepted a pro-family award from the Family Research Council. The story can be read here.

  That Walsh is a child support owing deadbeat has been the spin in a lot of the left leaning media for a little while, but a little bit of further reading shows that it's not that clear. I'm no fan of Mr. Walsh and I definitely think the FRC is full of it and spends most of its time assaulting the liberties of others rather than "protecting the family". But since this is a blog that has no use for spin and smears, even against those with whom it disagrees, it decided to delve into this.

  This story from examiner.com has this section which definitely paints a less black and white picture:

According to Joe Walsh, $2,134 a month is being withheld from his government paychecks to support one teenager.  Two other children are now 20 and 24 years of age.  The three children are from Walsh’s 17 year marriage which ended in 2004. 

The Representative also says that his wife’s allegations have given him a reputation as one of those ‘deadbeat’ dads – a term used to describe men who do not pay child support for their children.  He argues with that label by saying that he has been involved with his children.  In fact, he says that his youngest child lived with him for a time in 2009 and 2010 while his wife was off in Indianapolis making a six-figure salary by being employed by Eli Lilly & Company.  During that time, the Representative claims he only made $39,000 in 2009 and $61,000 in 2010. 

  I don't know the whole situation so I won't make a judgment on the topic.  But based on the above information definitely raises some questions about the spin of the first article...but then again this section from a Huffington Post story (here) seems to call some of the previous article's section into question:

A withholding order currently deducts $2,134 each month from Walsh's income as a member of Congress -- a $174,000 annual salary -- which goes toward his back child support obligations.

Largely thanks to the child support issue, Walsh was named as one of Congress's thirteen "most corrupt" members in a Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington (CREW) report in September. In her December filing, his ex-wife claimed that Walsh said he could not afford to make the payments for their three children while, at the same time, he loaned his own campaign $35,000 and took vacations abroad.

  The time frames and salary figures from these two opposing sections muddy the waters in this whole affair quite a bit. The echo chambers on either the right or left send out messages that fit into the reinforce the preconceived notions of their base. I think digging into all sides of an issue is the responsibility of anyone who has a love for the truth, takes an interest in our nation's politics, and isn't a partisan hack or dirtbag. And if what comes up isn't a clear answer, well, there's no sin in saying "I don't know".  So, I don't know whether Joe Walsh is a deadbeat dad.

Herman Cain's enigmatic ad/comedy extravaganza!!

I don't have anything too serious to share with this post but I have to comment on Herman Cain's ad which has become an almost viral sensation. I was trying to explain it to someone recently, and I found it difficult to speak through my laughter. Here it is:

                                                     

Okay, so did the campaign just suddenly decide "we need an ad, time to break out our secret weapon: Mark Block!"? And the smoking at the end. So perplexing. Is it supposed to be the smoking of the desperate down on their luck, lower class American? A symbol of America's need for a smoke break? Is it supposed to make Mark Block look somehow cooler? Is it a "screw you" to all those liberals and their anti-smoking laws? No campaign ad will top this for pure, almost avant garde, weirdness.