~C4Chaos

The McCain Campaign Should Get a Medal for Jumping the Shark Every Week

Just when I thought that John McCain had jumped the shark, he and his campaign still manage to surprise me.

Here's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow riffing on the latest McCain moment. Rachel Maddow's observation is spot on. Barack Obama draws big crowds when he makes his speeches, while John McCain slips into big crowds and makes of fool of himself (and unfortunately, his wife, too).

Paris Hilton's response to John McCain is more intelligent and funnier. Hilton made it look like the McCain campaign is the dumbest campaign ever.

Vincent Bugliosi @ C-SPAN Book TV

I just finished watching Vincent Bugliosi, author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, on C-CPAN Book TV. (Note: You can also watch the entire video on Hot Potato Mash).

"Vincent Bugliosi argues that President Bush and his administration are responsible for murdering thousands of U.S. soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians in Iraq.  Mr. Bugliosi says that by taking the country to war under knowingly false pretenses, President Bush has committed the most serious crime in U.S. history.  He spoke at an event held at the Venice Center for Peace with Justice and the Arts in California." [read more]

This has got to be the most explosive news that mainstream media continue to downplay and ignore (while distracting us with senseless election trivia). Why? FEAR -- fear of the powers that be, fear of being implicated in the greatest crime in American history. American journalism had succumb to fear, corruption, and the stupid notion of patriotism in the coverage of the Iraq war. American journalism died with over a million Iraqi casualties and the thousands of American soldiers who lost their lives See the other meaning of WMD - Weapons of Mass Deception.

So here's my request. If you're a (lowly) blogger (like me) or a social media superstar, check this and this. If the message speaks directly to your soul, then spread it far and wide the internet. The only way that mainstream media would be forced to pay attention is when this news spread like wildfire in cyberspace, like some stupid viral video on Youtube.

Olbermann and Stewart Showing Democrats How to Grow Some Spine

Everyone knows its election season. But Democrats (hello Ms. Pelosi!) should stop playing politics and grow some spine. Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart are shining a flashlight at the dark open spaces in Bush administration. Yet accountability seems far in the horizon. And the political media circus goes on and on...

P.S. Speaking of accountability, Olbermann and Stewart, ballsy as they are, are still not ballsy enough to put Vincent Bugliosi on their program. Go figure.

Bugliosi is Kicking Ass in the "Imperial Presidency" Hearing

I'm currently watching the "Imperial Presidency" hearing on C-SPAN right now. This is very serious stuff. Activists are getting kicked out of the hearing. There are Left and Right political posturings. Lotsa smokescreen arguments. Blah, blah, blah, mahna, mahna.

Why the mainstream media is not even covering this no longer surprise me. But I've got to hand it to Vincent Bugliosi for being outspokenly ballsy. Here's a video snippet from the hearing. Hint: It's not the WMD, stupid!

Here's to taking the Iraq war debate back into first principles.

UPDATE: CNN's coverage of the hearing is a cop out! This hearing is very important and all CNN managed to do was end the report with a quote from Trent Franks! "amuses our terrorist friends greatly" Talk about excellent journalism! For those who are interested with the details, follow me into the dark side of the rabbit hole - http://bit.ly/2IgWwo

UPDATE 2: Hats off to Countdown with Keith Olbermann for giving some media attention to "Imperial Hearing." Olbermann interviewed Presidential candidate Bob Barr (yes there are two more presidential candidates in this election, the other one is Ralph Nader). MSNBC showed snippets of video of the hearing including a snapshot of Bugliosi, but disappointingly, there's no mention of his book and his passionate accusations on George W. Bush during the hearing. Even NBC is not (yet) ballsy enough to put Bugliosi on highly-rated mainstream TV program. Go figure.

For more videos on the "Imperial Presidency" hearing proceedings, check out this rabbit hole -> http://bit.ly/CF6zE

Pop Quiz: Who is worse, Charles Manson or George W. Bush?

Check out Vincent Bugliosi's answer to this question.

Speaking of which, it seems like there's now a Congressional interest in prosecuting George W. Bush for murder. Unfortunately, it won't be until after this election. Too bad. Going back to first principles on the Iraq war debate could very well seal the deal, in favor of Obama. That's how disruptive Bugliosi's book is. That's why it's getting the media blackout treatment.

Do yourself a favor. Read Bugliosi's book before voting this November.

Desperate McCain Campaign is Now Talking Nonsense

Here's McCain's latest TV ad blaming Obama for high gas prices. As you can see, the desperate McCain campaign is now reduced to talking blabbering nonsense.

I understand that both the Obama and McCain campaigns are out there to bend the truth in favor of their respective candidate, but, boy, the McCain campaign is really stretching it. I'll leave it Factcheck.org to dispel this idiotic nonsensical TV ad.

FactCheck: A Full Tank of Nonsense

McCain's new ad accuses Obama of keeping gas prices high, all by himself. That's absurd, and McCain knows it – he has said repeatedly that our current problems were "30 years in the making."

The ad also tells us that gas prices are high because "some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America." Not true. The federal government's estimate is that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply and prices.

For the same reason, it's simply not true that drilling more now will "rescue our family budgets." [read more]

And here's another case in point that the McCain campaign is a "straight talking" weasel. See FactCheck.org: The Truth on Troop Support?

"The McCain campaign is running a TV ad attacking Obama with statements that are literally true but paint an incomplete picture.

"It says he "voted against funding our troops." He did – exactly once. Obama cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills before voting against one last year after Bush vetoed a version that contained a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

"It says he "hasn't been to Iraq for years." He was headed there at the time the ad was released, however, and had been there in 2006." [read more]

Ah well.... Anyway, speaking of oil drilling, I'd rather pay attention to what T. Boone Pickens has to say.

Eat Your Heart Out, Scott McClellan! Bugliosi Got Bigger Balls!

Wow! I just ordered the book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, yesterday from Amazon via free shipping, but it was already waiting in my mailbox this morning! That's as fast as Netflix. Sweet.

The TV networks and mainstream press jumped all over Scott McClellan's memoir, but mainstream media continues to ignore this book. Talk about spineless.

And so I'm putting my money where my heart is by ordering this book. All the debates about the Iraq war and foreign policy in this presidential election are political distractions. Let's go back to first principles.

Michelle Obama is (sadly) Not Off Limits

In a world of ethical political campaign and mainstream media, I agree with Obama.

"SENATOR OBAMA: It's infuriating, but it's not surprising, because let's face it: What happened was that the conservative press—Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk—went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way...and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans. And I've said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. Because essentially, spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll. If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in day out, that'll drive up your negatives." [read more]

But the reality is, ethics and fairness take a backseat in the political media circus. Like Jesse Ventura said, politics is "the dirtiest business in the world." So the Obamas, unfortunately, better get used to it, suck it up, and continue to focus on their campaign, while fending off stupid propaganda.

The bigger issue here, however, is the current state of mainstream media journalism, which seem to have lost common sense, ethics, good judgment, and moral compass.

"Journalism, by nature, is not difficult. It really isn't. Most of the key attributes for solid reporting and editing come naturally to most people; fairness, hard work, and -- most important -- common sense.

"News judgment, for instance, consists mostly of editors and producers using common sense to determine, based on the limited resources at hand, which breaking events and stories should be covered, and which ones can be set aside as less important." [read more]

Btw, if you're one of the people who are buying, justifying, and perpetrating this stupid propaganda against Michelle Obama, shame on you. McCain made a similar boo boo. What say you?

The Internet had already called the election for Obama

In my previous post I've implied that McCain's internet illiteracy doesn't matter that much. Allow me to clarify more on that.

What I really wanted to say is that, McCain's internet illiteracy matters little for a McCain presidency, but it's crucial for a McCain candidacy. McCain's internet illiteracy reflects the internet (or Web) illiteracy of the people running McCain's campaign.

The battle for attention (and fundraising) in cyberspace is what the McCain (and Hillary Clinton) campaign had failed to win over. Obama beat them on the internet. The Internet called the election for Obama during the Democratic primary and it would continue to do so in the national election.

However, with great technology comes great responsibility. Team Obama had succeeded on getting online attention by capitalizing on social networks, but this exposure makes it easy for people to gang up on the Obama campaign. Case in point: FISA protest on Obama's website. In fact, I felt so strongly about FISA that I started my own Barack Obama blog. Fortunately for Obama, the people running his campaign understand how to deal (or rather forced to deal) with the reality social networks. Team Obama was quick to acknowledge and respond to the protest by posting Obama's explanation for his decision. The keyword here is "acknowledge." Those who understand social networks know that acknowledgment and quick response is good PR on the Web.

Clay Shirky has more to say on this. See FORA.tv: Clay Shirky on Social Networks and the Obama Campaign.

 

Should Obama win the election (which I think he will; you don't have to take my word for it, just follow the data), then let this be a lesson to future political candidates, it's the Internet, stupid.

McCain may be Internet illiterate but it doesn't matter, Does it?

Personally, I prefer a Commander-in-chief who is technologically literate when it comes to computers and the Internet. This is one of the reasons why I don't resonate with John McCain.

However, Andrew Romano makes an excellent point.

"McCain's computer illiteracy doesn't reflect a lack of curiosity--it reflects a lack of necessity. Over the past 10 years, most adult Americans have encountered and explored computers primarily in the workplace, where the ability to communicate and find information on the Internet has gradually become a required skill. But McCain's job in the U.S. Senate--where all communication and information has to be filtered through staffers--has actually made fluency more difficult to achieve (or at least less necessary). When aides are responding to your messages and briefing you on every imaginable subject, the incentive to get online sort of disappears."

"..."normal" Internet ability is completely pointless from a policy perspective. That's why you hire and consult with experts, just as you would on farming or immigration issues."

From this perspective, McCain is the ultimate outsourcer! He's more efficient than a productivity guru like Timothy Ferris who considers outsourcing email as a holy grail. By relying on other people to filter information, McCain can focus on doing his job and have extra time to sip piña colada, all the while avoiding information overload and hyper-attention deficit disorders (not to mention porn, spam, computer virus, and in-your-face advertising) that plague those of us who are constantly plugged online.

In short, if Google is making us stupid, then McCain is staying smart. Nice. So let's keep that in mind before we go into a frenzy on bashing McCain for his internet illiteracy. Let's focus on local and geopolitical policies.

That said, I think McCain's internet illiteracy is reflected by his campaign. Just look at the data on Google 2008 U.S. Election Trends. If Obama wins this presidential election, a crucial part of it will be due to the Internet. And that's the downside of McCain (and his campaign) being internet illiterate.

Barack Obama Ought to Be a Buddhist Named Lama Obama

Lama Surya Das riffs with Stephen Colbert in this hilarious segment on the Colbert Report.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Obama were Buddhist this would be his slogan.

Jesse Ventura's "Third-Way" Politics

Jesse Ventura tells it like it is on Larry King Live. Too bad he's not running. This is another case in point that straight talk in politics is a pipe dream.

"VENTURA:...I think, in many ways, federal politics is very much like pro-wrestling. In front of us, the public, they pretend they're angry with each other and they pretend to not like each other. But in the back rooms, they're all buddies and cutting deals. And I think that's what the two parties do today at the federal level.

KING: So that's why you think the public...

VENTURA: It's very much like wrestling.

KING: And do you think the public is aware of that?

VENTURA: No. I think the public believes it, just like they did for wrestling, you know, that they really don't like each other, that they're really against each other, when the reality of it is that both parties are bought and sold by the same lobbyists.

If you go to both national conventions, you'll see the same lobbyists at each one, where they're buying their influence right there. So it really doesn't matter fully to them who wins and who loses, because they have their base covered." [read the transcript]

Now that's what you call straight talk! Unfortunately, in the current political climate, a candidate can't win an election as President if he talks that way in the media. Pandering and playing along with brain-dead politics comes with the territory. It's up to us to sift through the political media circus.

Just the facts on Tax Cuts

Here's another case in point that straight talk in politics is a pipe dream.

via Factcheck.org

"McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure.

"We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.

"McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down." [read more]

So whenever you see McCain smiling on TV blurting out with a smile that Obama would raise taxes, you don't have to worry unless you're as rich as (or richer than) Scott Adams.

Why the Phil Gramm incident is not the same as the Rev. Wright issue

I've had my reservations with Obama during the primary, but now that he's the presumptive Democratic nominee, the choice boils down to just Obama and McCain. I do my best to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, but the more I dig into his issues and get to know the people around him, the more I get wary about a potential McCain presidency.

Here's a case point: Bob Herbert's recent op-ed on the NYTimes.

"John McCain, whose Straight Talk Express ran out of gas long ago, tried to paper over the implications of Mr. Gramm’s unseemly outburst this week about the very real suffering that has descended on millions of Americans. “Phil Gramm does not speak for me,” said Senator McCain. “I speak for me.”

"But the truth is that Mr. Gramm, a close friend of Senator McCain’s for many years, has had a very loud say in the economic policies of the McCain presidential campaign. And those policies are an extension of the G.O.P. orthodoxy that is threatening to sink the ship of state, even as the very wealthy are dancing mindlessly to the music of another Gilded Age. ....

"What does it say about John McCain’s judgment that this guy was one of his top — and possibly his pre-eminent — economic adviser? What does it say about Mr. McCain’s judgment that in 1996, he believed Phil Gramm was the best choice to be president?

"The biggest failing of both parties in this presidential campaign has been the unwillingness to be forthright with the public about the true extent of the crises facing the country. The federal government and ordinary Americans are up to their eyeballs in debt. Much of the financial sector is in deep trouble, with previously blue-chip companies wobbling along on legs as rubbery as a bad check." [read more]

I don't believe in choosing the "lesser of the two evils" in this election because neither of them is evil. Neither of them is perfect. Neither of them is the messiah. Neither of them is the radical change that they promise to be. But it's obvious to me that one of them is better than the other. At least that's what my political brain tells me.

Jesse Jackson, I wanna cut your mic off!

I'm neither black nor white, but it seems to me that Mr. Jackson doesn't know the difference between "talking down" and criticizing with passion and compassion. Shame, shame, shame, Mr. Jackson.

Rev. Jesse Jackson sorry for crude Obama comments

It's just fitting that your racially-charged chatter goes to the Apology Hall of Fame.

Obama's Flip-Flop, Shifts, and Red Herrings

Andrew Romana @ Newsweek blog, Stumper, has a pro-Obama take on the alleged "shift." Here's the relevant quote:

"To sum up: one flip-flop, two shifts in emphasis and two red herrings. To me, that's hardly shocking (and certainly no worse than McCain, whose own mutations, unlike Obama's, have had the politically inconvenient effect of moving him further from moderation). Of course, Republicans have every right to pounce on Obama's post-primary record, and to try to link these lurches to his non-ideological maneuvering on public-financing and joint town halls. But the only way objective observers will take offense is if they fundamentally misunderstand who Obama is. Unlike the Times ed board, I've never considered the senator "a man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games." Instead, I tend to agree with David Brooks, who recently wrote that the Democratic nominee is "the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades."" [read more]

Good point. Obama's move to "shift to the center" may have been exaggerated. But one thing is for sure: Obama is on the defensive.

Speaking of FISA, read this and weep.

The Rise of Immigrants in a Post-American World

Obama and McCain are now pitching their immigration policies to Hispanics. It's good to see that Obama and McCain are now butting heads on real issues instead of pandering and responding to America's brain-dead politics, such as who is more patriotic or whatever.

The issue of immigration is key not only in this election but especially in America's future. Why? Because immigration is intertwined with Issue #1: the economy. Here's an excerpt from The Post-American World that riffs on this topic.

"The native-born, white American population has the same low fertility rates as Europe's. Without immigration, U.S. GDP growth over the last quarter century would have been the same as Europe's. America's edge in innovation is overwhelmingly a product of immigration. Foreign students and immigrants account for 50 percent of the science researchers in the country and, in 2006, received 40 percent of the doctorates in science and engineering and 65 percent of the doctorates in computer science. By 2010, foreign students will get more than 50 percent of all Ph.D.'s awarded in every subject in the United States. In the sciences, that figure will be closer to 75 percent. Half of all Silicon Valley start-ups have one founder who is an immigrant or first-generation American. America's potential new burst of productivity, its edge in nanotechnology, biotechnology, its ability to invent the future -- all rest on its immigration policies. If America can keep the people it educates in the country, the innovation will happen here. If they go back home, the innovation will travel with them.

"Immigration also gives America a quality rare for a rich country -- hunger and energy. As countries become wealthy, the drive to move up and succeed weakens. But America has found a way to keep itself constantly revitalized by streams of people who are looking to make a new life in a new world. These are the people who work long hours picking fruit in searing heat, washing dishes, building houses, working night shifts, and cleaning waste dumps. They come to the United States under terrible conditions, leave family and community, only because they want to work and get ahead in life. Americans have almost always worried about such immigrants -- whether from Ireland or Italy, China, or Mexico. But these immigrants have gone on to become the backbone of the American working class, and their children or grandchildren have entered the American mainstream. America has been able to tap this energy, manage diversity, assimilate newcomers, and move ahead economically. Ultimately, this is what sets the country apart from the experience of Britain and all other historical examples of great economic powers that grow fat and lazy and slip behind as they face the rise of leaner, hungrier nations."

Exactly.

So next time you see "pundits" on mainstream media arguing over (non)issues like patriotism and nationalism, just sit back and enjoy the political freak show. But keep in mind that the United States is, and has always been, a nation of immigrants, from colonial America to post America-centric world.

Taking Action on FISA

Everything you need to know and how to TAKE ACTION on FISA.

I just emailed my representatives here in the state of Washington.

To Mr. Obama: Get FISA right!

McCainomics 101: Budget Whopper

Here's what Robert Reich has to say about McCain's economic policies:

"Supply-side economics is one of those unfortunate half-brained theories actually to have been tried in practice, and failed miserably. Now we have a candidate for president of the United States who says to the American people, in effect: I know you know supply-side economics is a crock. Well, I’m going to do the biggest supply-side tax cut in history, mostly for corporations and the well-to-do. And I’m going to tell you I’ll balance the budget. If you believe this, you’ll believe anything." [read more]

Like John McCain, I'm not an expert on economics. I have no delusion that Obama is either. But from what I've read so far, it looks like Obama's economic policies are more realistic. Then again, maybe I'm just saying this because I don't belong to $250,000 a year income bracket that would get hit by Obama's tax increase.

But if Obama is good enough for the Oracle of Omaha, then he's good enough for me, at least when it comes Issue #1. Looking forward to Obama and McCain butting heads on the economy.

Sam Harris On Pseudo and Mischievous Atheists

Remember the anomalous Pew survey which showed that 21% of American atheists believe in God or a universal spirit?

I thought the inclusion of the "universal spirit" screwed up the survey resulting in cognitive dissonance in some of the respondents. Sam Harris has an excellent take on this.

"According to a recent Pew survey, 21 percent of atheists in the United States believe in “God or a universal spirit,” and 8 percent are “absolutely certain” that such a Being exists. One wonders if they were also “absolutely certain” they understood the meaning of the term “atheist.” Claiming to be an atheist who believes in God is like claiming to be a happily married bachelor. Rarely does one discover nonsense in such a pristine state. Still this hasn’t stopped many people from concluding that there is a schism in the atheist community.

"The inclusion of a “universal spirit” might have muddied things for some of these putative atheists, but this would not account for the 6 percent of them who rejected such a spirit in favor of a “personal God.” Granted, it is not clear what the phrase “personal God” might mean to men and women who have wandered so far from the plain meaning of words, but we can only assume that they believe in a God of the sort that 71% of Americans worship: a deity who can hear earnest and blameless prayers—as for the remission of childhood cancer—and fail to answer them, while granting those of far lesser gravity nearly every day (I rely upon the reader to insert here the most mortifying expression of religious awe ever uttered at the Grammy Awards)." [read more]

Exactly. Sam Harris and his team has a better survey that makes more sense. Here's one (not very surprising) result.

(via Sam Harris: Survey Results: Personal Data and Attitudes Towards Science, Journalism, Politics, Etc.)

Obama's Self-Swiftboating

Lawrence Lessig is a vocal supporter of Obama. I have a high regard for Lessig's opinion on politics, intellectual rights, privacy, and technology. So I've been waiting to hear from Lessig about his take on Obama's shift (er, flips) in some of his policies (e.g. public funding, FISA). Here's what Lessig has to say:

"I am not saying that Republicans are consistent and Democrats not. I am saying something very different: that Republicans believe appearing consistent/principled/different is the key to victory, where as Democrats (apparently) do not.

The Obama self-Swiftboating comes from a month of decisions that, while perhaps better tuning the policy positions of the campaign to what is good, or true, or right, or even expedient, completely undermine Obama's signal virtue -- that he's different. We've handed the other side a string of examples that they will now use to argue (as Senator Graham did most effectively on Meet the Press) that Obama is nothing different, he's just another politician, and that even if you believe that McCain too is just another politician, between these two ordinary politicians, pick the one with the most experience.

The Obama campaign seems just blind to the fact that these flips eat away at the most important asset Obama has. It seems oblivious to the consequence of another election in which (many) Democrats aren't deeply motivated to vote (consequence: the GOP wins)."

...

"This is not the time for governing. It is the time for making clear precisely what kind of President Obama will be. But in making that clear, it is critical to keep a focus on how actions are perceived. Will they signal a triangulator? Or will they signal a strong, principled man who stands for what he believes."

[read more]

Good points. This is an excellent example of constructive criticism. Team Obama would be very naive not to heed this warning.

I'm Neither Patriotic Nor Nationalistic

My blogging buddy Bill (of Integral Options Cafe) has recently reacted to Jonah Goldberg's views on patriotism. Here's what Bill has to say:

"Goldberg seems to think we are already a great nation. But has he ever lived in poverty, barely getting by with enough to eat while making minimum wage? Has he ever been a minority struggling with intolerance? Has ever been a woman whose right to determine the fate of her own body is continually threatened and reduced? Has he ever been arrested for "driving while black"? Has ever had to join the military to have any hope of paying for college and then be sent to fight a war entered into through lies and manipulations of the American public? Has he ever had to worry there won't be any Social Security when he retires? I could go, but I'm sure you get the idea." [read more]

And here's an excerpt from Golderg's article.

"Definitions of patriotism proliferate, but in the American context patriotism must involve not only devotion to American texts (something that distinguishes our patriotism from European nationalism) but also an abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the American nation. We might need to change this or that policy or law, fix this or that problem, but at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is." [read more]

I don't resonate with Goldberg's view on patriotism either. It's too limiting and too ethnocentric for my taste. Maybe because I don't identify as a liberal or conservative. Maybe because I didn't grew up in the U.S. Maybe because I didn't get my education here. Maybe because I'm not well-versed in American political history as "real" Americans are. Maybe because I don't care too much about politics. Or maybe, all of the above.

But I do have a concept of loving a country and embracing its ideals. I may not wave flags or put my right hand over my heart while singing Star Spangled Banner, but I love (the idea of) America just the same. Otherwise, I won't choose to be a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Fareed Zakaria articulates my point more succinctly.

"...every now and then I get an angry note from someone who adds with ferocious pride that he is a native-born American ("and proud of it!" the last such missive thundered). The idea is that with my "foreign-sounding" name I could not understand the true patriotism of a son of the soil. Actually, it's the other way around. Native-born Americans don't understand an immigrant's love of country. "After all," I've thought of writing back, "what did you do to become an American, other than happen to be born here?" For us immigrants, becoming American was a choice, marked by sorrowful partings and tough new beginnings.

"What keeps an immigrant going is faith in his new country. This might not always look like patriotism because it doesn't take the familiar forms--Fourth of July picnics, the fluttering of the Stars and Stripes. Instead it's likely to show itself in a quiet dedication to work, family and friends. But this is the oldest form of American patriotism--a belief that in this New World you can make your own new world."

Exactly.

Obama may have a patriotism problem for Goldberg. Maybe Goldberg is right from the perspective of his fellow conservatives who look at the world the way like he does. But I hope that Goldberg doesn't forget that there are millions of immigrant (naturalized citizens) voters out there who probably don't care what he is arguing about.

For me, I don't care whether Obama or McCain wear their lapel pins or wave the U.S. flag in front of the camera every time they make a public appearance. That kind of shallow display of patriotism is easy. Anyone can do that. I care more about the issues. I care more about the candidate whose intellect appeals to me and who shares my values. I would guess that's also true for millions of voting immigrants in America. We immigrants vote with issues that are important to us. We vote with our guts. For better or for worse, like all voters, we vote with our political brains.

So, does this make me a liberal or a conservative? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. I'm an immigrant who sees America as a glass half-full, who believes that America should recapture its greatness by constantly addressing its national problems, as well as its image problems around the world. The day that we become complacent that America is "good as it is", is the day that stagnation and collapse begin.

Uncle Scott Tells It Like It Is

via The Scott Adams Blog: Ignorance is Underrated

"When it comes to picking our next president, I can't decide if I prefer the smooth-talking, inspirational candidate who promises to give my money to people who don't work as hard as I do, or the old, short, ugly, angry guy with one good arm who graduated at the bottom of his class and somehow managed to shag a hot heiress and become a contender for president. It seems dangerous to underestimate that guy."

Word.

Everybody Lies, Including Our Brains

"Everybody lies," is a classic House M.D. aphorism. It's scientifically true. Even if we think we're being truthful there's still a chance that our brains are lying to us. This is called source amnesia. And political campaigns are more than happy to exploit this scientific fact.

Read: The neuroscience behind swiftboating.

So let this be a warning to all of us. Our human tendency to categorize (Platonicity) and explain the causes of everything with theories (narrative fallacy) backed up with partial evidence (confirmation bias; fallacy of silent evidence) while concocting models of reality (ludic fallacy), coupled with a brain that lies to us, make us blind to the truth.

Fine. So what is there left to believe?

I don't know. All I know is that I'm aware at this very moment of both truth and lies, and everything in between. Ignorance is sooo underrated.

Political Media Circus: McCainomics 101

Flip-flopping should not be a handicap as long as it's for the better and you take responsibility for it. But outright denial is so uncool, especially if you're caught in the act and there are videos to prove it. Here's a case in point from MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: John McCain and his knowledge of the Economy.

I don't fault McCain for not being an expert on the economy. Economics is similar to quantum physics. If you think you completely understand it, then chances are you don't. But I wish McCain would just own up to his own words. He'll get more respect for it.

Perception is everything. Right now McCain is not looking good when it comes to economic issues. So it's better to look at his economic advisers. I'm not saying that Obama is an expert on the economy, but at least he's more articulate (or better with rhetorics) and has a better image when it comes to tackling economic issues. Whether Obama's economic plan will work remains to be seen. I'm looking forward their one on one televised debate on the economy. I'll put my money on Obama. Let's see.

That said, it's obvious that MSNBC is pro Obama, while FOX is pro McCain. So I keep flip-flopping between channels to see what's the latest dirt on each candidate. I now feel so dirty as I watch the political media circus unfold. But hey, it's good entertainment. I also watch CNN, Hannity & Colmes, Glenn Beck, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and even Papa Bear. So there. I'm guilty as charged.

Politics on the mainstream media is more entertainment than educational. If you care about issues then go and watch C-SPAN, CNN Issue #1, Charlie Rose, Fareed Zakaria GPS, or fire up your browsers and surf the internets. But surfers, beware. There is such a thing as information overload. Even if we keep up with the issues, chances are we'll be slaves to our political brains anyway. So don't forget to breathe some fresh air and get a life.

Christopher Hitchens Gets the Waterboarding Treatment

Some people who hate the guts and polemics of Christopher Hitchens might be glad to know that he got the waterboarding treatment. But don't worry, he willingly subjected himself to it to test if waterboarding is indeed torture. All I can say is, duhh! At least Hitchens is empirically ballsy.

"The "official lie" about waterboarding, Hitchens says, is that it "simulates the feeling of drowning". In fact, "you are drowning - or rather, being drowned".

"He rehearses the intellectual arguments, both for ("It's nothing compared to what they do to us") and against ("It opens a door that can't be closed"). But the Hitch's thoroughly empirical conclusion is simple. As Vanity Fair's title puts it: "Believe me, it's torture.""

For the sadist in all of us, we can watch the video here.

Thanks to Boingboing for the heads up.

UPDATE: The video is already up in Youtube. That was fast!

Straight Talk in Politics is a Pipe Dream

If you're like me who's been following the presidential election on cable and news sites, then chances are you're grossly irritated by now with all the political dirt tossing which have nothing or very little to do with actual issues in this election.

Attacking McCain's patriotic record in this campaign is not a good strategy. It gives the McCain campaign more talking points and media exposure. At the same time, the McCain fear-mongering strategy is a bad idea. It would only tie McCain even more with the GW Bush administration, which is one of the biggest weaknesses in his campaign. And besides, the American people are tired of the state of fear perpetrated by the government.

As for flip-flopping: Yes, Obama had flip-flopped on some issues. But so is McCain. Keith Olbermann even dubbed this as The McCain Double Talk Express. So let's face it. Both candidates are flip-floppers. The question is: Who's the flip-flopper you can live with?

All in all, however, the real issues (economy, war, health care, alternative energy, foreign policy, etc.) are getting drowned by the sideshows of shallow bickering on non-issues. And the mainstream media, as well as our own propensity for trivia, are accomplices to this. Instead of focusing on issues and educating the masses on the crucial issues, mainstream media continue to feed us nauseating political media circus.

I admit, I am sometimes entertained watching political talking heads from left, right, and center talk their heads off on non-issues, like Obama's religion and McCain's patriotism. But watching this a couple of times make it really old and tiring. I'm just saddened by the fact that these non-issues are the focus of mainstream media. Please! Enough with the freak show!

It's times like these that I'm reminded of Michael Crichton's assessment and prediction on mass-media.

"Crichton believes that we live in an age of conformity much more confining than the 1950s in which he grew up. Instead of showing news consumers how to approach controversy coolly and intelligently, the media partake of the zealotry and intolerance of many of the advocates they cover. He attributes the public's interest in Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to its hunger for a wider range of viewpoints than the mass media provide."

Exactly.

I'm not expecting a change in media coverage anytime soon. But it's enough for me to accept that even if we understand all the issues, we're still slaves of our own political brains. And the people behind the political campaigns understand this more than we do. That's why straight talk in politics is only a pipe dream. 

It Was Oil, All Along

All I can say is, "Duh?!"

"Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction. But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire, and ashes. And now the bottom turns out to be....the bottom line. It is about oil.

Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, “…Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” He elaborated in an interview with the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war."" [read more @ Bill Moyers Journal]

So, why is impeachment off the table again, Ms. Pelosi?

Leave it to Ahnold to stick it to proponents of offshore oil drilling.

The Dysfunctional Unity of the Democratic Party

Jack Cafferty riffs on the Obama and Clinton unity. Here's a key quote:

"But how close-knit is this family really? The fact is each is forced to rely on the other as the general election ramps up. Obama needs Clinton to help convince her supporters to vote for him in November. And Clinton needs help in paying down her campaign debt, plus she wants to know that she’ll be treated as a top surrogate throughout the campaign and at the convention.

"Fine, but there are sticking points. Aides describe the relationship as one that’s “slowly thawing” with a lot of unanswered questions. As we told you in the Cafferty File yesterday – they’re reportedly using a high-powered Washington attorney to negotiate some of these issues.

"And then there’s Bill. The former president and Obama have not spoken since Obama wrapped up the nomination. Wouldn’t you think the last sitting Democratic president might want to talk to the party’s presumptive nominee? There may be less here than meets the eye."

Exactly. I think it's time for Bill to swallow his pride. In the meantime, Dave Winer says to Obama: "I'm not an ATM."

Gaggle of Douchebags @ The Daily Show

Leave it to The Daily Show to use intelligent humor to point out the absurdity of the political circus in the U.S. It's good to see that Obama is getting his fair share of the parody. Watch the whole thing and laugh out your frustrations.

When it comes to energy, is Obama Dr. No?

Looks like the McCain campaign's straight talk is not so straight when it comes to representing Obama's position on energy. Here's the latest ad (mis)representing Obama as Dr. No.

Nice ad, btw. Very retro. But here's what FactCheck.org has to say about that ad.

"Sen. John McCain's campaign announced the new Web-only ad on June 25. It portrays Obama as "The Dr. No of energy security." We find that some of the claims in the ad go too far and misrepresent some of Obama's positions." [read more]

Bottom line: Straight talk is a pipe dream in politics. Don't be an echo chamber of dirt tossing. Reflect on your own personal bias and check the facts. Witness the political circus, and relax.

Bush Likes Filipino Cooks

Is it just me or is it every time Bush opens his mouth he say something stupid? Here's another case in point of how classy George W. Bush is.

(via The Huffington Post)

---

PRESIDENT BUSH: Madam President, it is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Oval Office. We have just had a very constructive dialogue. First, I want to tell you how proud I am to be the President of a nation that -- in which there's a lot of Philippine-Americans. They love America and they love their heritage. And I reminded the President that I am reminded of the great talent of the -- of our Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the White House. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Yes.

PRESIDENT BUSH: And the chef is a great person and a really good cook, by the way, Madam President.

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Thank you.

---

See also the video on Countdown with Keith Olbermann where Olbermann ripped on the lame duck President. And rightly so!

I wonder what was going on in President Arroyo's mind behind her polite chuckle. But in fairness to Bush, he did help out with two U.S. Navy ships (thanks!) and it's so true that Filipinos are awesome cooks. Hmm. Miss ko na lutong Pinoy!

Hang in there fellow Filipinos, Americans, and Filipino-Americans. It's only a few more months before we finally wave back at Bush and cheer, good f@%$ing riddance!

P.S. As a Filipino-American, I'm not really that offended with Bush's joke. It's actually a compliment coming from Bush. I don't even take it as a racist comment like some people are insinuating. However, Bush's ignorance and lack of class continue to floor me. First, when you're referring to actual people the correct term is "Filipino-Americans," not "Philippine-Americans." Second, as one commenter on the LA Times said "offensive or not, it's pretty stupid and unpresidential." Exactly.

In a lot of ways Bush reminds me of former Philippine President Joseph Estrada. They're both subjects of stupid jokes because of the stupid things they've said and done. Both of them are excellent examples of bad leadership. One big difference: Estrada was impeached. Filipinos are more gutsy than some Democratic leaders.

 

Obama and McCain On Corporate America

Is Obama good for business and the U.S. economy as a whole? Read FORTUNE's exclusive interview with Obama on his economic policies.

"He slammed big companies and free trade in the primaries, but Barack Obama insists he just wants to show corporate America some tough love. We go behind the scenes to see how he plans to make the U.S. a land of opportunity once again." [read more]

Looks like Obama is friendly with Warren Buffett and the people in Silicon Valley. We'll see.

Or is McCain better? See in-depth article on John McCain, The Evolution of John McCain.

"As a maverick Senator, he took pride in just saying no to everyone's wish list. But as a presidential contender, he's become a tax cutter and defender of home mortgages. The inside story of how the candidate is shaping his plan to fix the economy." [read more]

Beware of Using Google Trends for Location-Based Stereotyping

So I was reading the New York Times today and I encountered this article.

"...In a novel approach, the defense in an obscenity trial in Florida plans to use publicly accessible Google search data to try to persuade  jurors that their neighbors have broader interests than they might have thought.

"In the trial of a pornographic Web site operator, the defense plans to show that residents of Pensacola are more likely to use Google to search for terms like “orgy” than for “apple pie” or “watermelon.” The publicly accessible data is vague in that it does not specify how many people are searching for the terms, just their relative popularity over time. But the defense lawyer, Lawrence Walters, is arguing that the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that interest in the sexual subjects exceeds that of more mainstream topics — and that by extension, the sexual material distributed by his client is not outside the norm." [read more]

The defense is using Google Trends. This service allows users to compare search trends in a given time, and also in a given area. So I decided to play around with the service and did some *naughty* searches.

It's so easy to do location-based stereotyping using Google Trends. If irresponsibly taken to another level, people can make broad cultural generalizations. For example, searches for "nude women" are very popular in India and South Africa, while searches for "nude men" are popular in the Czech Republic and the Philippines. Hmm. What does that tell us? Note that you can drill down to each city and find out which cities these searches are more popular.

Here's another example. Let's say we want to know what countries are more interested with "New Age." The result shows that people in South Africa and Italy are interested finding more about New age. But if we drill down on the United States, it's surprising to see that most "New Age" searches are coming from Kentucky. Obviously, this proves the popularity of New Age in those locations, but what the data don't tell us is how many adhere to New Age beliefs. So let's be mindful about stereotyping people in Kentucky as "New Agey." For now it's enough to know that certain search keywords are popular in certain locations.

Google Trends can also be used to determine the popularity of certain people in certain locations. For this example, let's see whose more popular worldwide, "Barack Obama" or "John McCain".

On the domestic front, Obama is more popular, especially in Washington D.C. This proves that, at least on the internet, Obama gets more publicity than McCain. No surprise there since the Obama campaign has been using the web to its full potential. However, based on the worldwide results, John McCain is only half as popular as Barack Obama. All in all Obama beats McCain in all search trends categories! We can interpret this as follows. From a geopolitical perspective, there is more interest in Obama than John McCain. Whether those domestic and foreign interests are favorable or otherwise, who knows? But it's logical to say, at this point, that from a geopolitical perspective, the people around the world are now more familiar with Obama than with McCain. Heck, Obama is more popular than George Bush (even if we don't include the W) and Al Gore. So draw your own conclusions. Then again, Obama is still no match for Hannah Montana.

That said, Google Trends is a fun and nifty tool. But let's be mindful when using it. As much as possible, let's resist the temptation of making very broad cultural and location-based stereotypical generalizations.

Barack Obama Says No To Public Financing

Here's the video of Obama's announcement. Which leaves McCain in a dilemma.

Obama may have flip flopped on this issue, especially with the Amazing Money Machine on his side. Nevertheless, this is still an important precedent in political elections. And there are times when a flip-flop should be no handicap.

Baracknophobia: Irrational Fear of Hope

Hilariously funny, witty, kind of sad, but true.