The Hanged Man

The Rich Man's Socialism

2008-09-20T19:54:00.000-07:00

Rise up, my fellow oligarchs! Rejoice! The long-awaited day of our messiah is at hand! The work that those before us poured their labors into for centuries has finally begun to reap its benefits, and the fruits are more succulent and appetizing than we ever could have imagined.

The news for the last week has been unavoidable. Bailouts. Bailouts. Bailouts! To the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars! With seven hundred billion more to come.

$700,000,000,000.00! Never in our wildest dreams have we even concocted such a hefty sum.

I want you to stand up, wherever you are, right now, as you read this. Stand up at your plush executive chair, in the board room meeting on the hundreth floor, at the home office in your eigth vacation home on the coast. Stand up with me, brothers, and shout, "The Rich Man's Socialism has arrived!"

I am so glad that the charade can end. It has been truly difficult to play the game, to "free market" this and "consumer choice" that, to belittle the federal government as something that should ultimately be gutted. You, my friends, as well as anyone know just what kind of a rhetorical game of chess it takes to make common men and women support NAFTA as you move their manufactoring jobs to Guam. To make people support trickle-down economics all while inflation reduces their life savings to mere pittances.

Trickle-down. I thought it too harsh a pill to be swallowed, but thank God I was wrong.

Senator Bernie Sanders recently recalled our great harvests this season:

While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top 0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers or nurses.

And now, the senator rages, McCain and Bush have the audacity to claim that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong."

You're damned right they're strong. $520 loafers strong, by my estimate. We'll be getting a free 700-billion-dollar check from Uncle Sam this Christmas.

And the icing is already on the cake. Now that we have the evangelical vote back in our pockets we can ensure that the policies which brought this great windfall upon us remain in place. McCain even wants to extend the same policies recently applied to banking to the health care industry:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

When I read that I nearly spit up my hundred-dollar glass of bourbon. Extending the same "privatize gains, socialize losses" mentality to health care has the potential to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, and deregulation coupled with the guarantee that the taxpayers will end up footing the bill means absolutely no risk of netting losses. As Senator Jim Bunning recently said, "The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America."

And not a moment too soon. I was becoming concerned, what with all of the talk of people wanting to go trust-busting again, people saying that if a company is "too large to fail" than it's "too large to exist." Thankfully we have such a handle on the media, congress, and presidential candidates that that kind of talk will never extend beyond the fringes, and if it does we can just have commentators denounce it as "left-wing hysterics" and remind the religious voters that the gays want to marry and steal their children. Everyone will fall in line and we'll be there to reap the inumerable benefits.

So remember, my fellow 1%-ers, keep playing the game. It's working! We are now almost to the point where everyone below the middle class line will be in constant debt, and with the precedent now being set we can be sure that even if they stop paying we'll have our losses covered by Uncle Sam. And if that's not the greatest economic upheaval since the Bolsheviks, I don't know what is!

"Your Batsh*t Crazy Preacher Said What?!" - Extended Edition

2008-05-05T08:08:00.000-07:00

Nothing says "American political adventure" quite like a rousing game of "Your Batsh*t Crazy Preacher Said What?!", a game where we struggle to identify the most insensitive, intolerant, bigoted, hateful, and downright batshit insane comments and determine which of America's leading religious bullhorns had the gall to spew them.

It's America's favorite pastime, when we all gather around the TV and watch as the latest pasty white news anchor puts on his brown lipstick and tells us why we should feel infuriated at the latest partisan target. Keeping track of who said what and why we're supposed to feel so angry can sometimes be a daunting task, and while I feel bad giving you all a pop quiz with finals fast approaching, this is one that you can't afford to skip in order to play GTA4.

Instructions: Identify which inflammatory statement was boldly spewed from the pulpit of which radical religious figure. Bonus points may also be rewarded if you can identify why some of these statements have never been so much as mentioned on national television.

--

A. Jeremiah Wright (Sen. Obama's pastor; has not endorsed a candidate)
B. John Hagee (officially endorses Sen. McCain)
C. Jerry Falwell (deceased; is assumed to have endorsed McCain from his spot in Heaven or Hell)
D. Pat Robertson (originally endorsed Mayor Giuliani; no subsequent endorsements)
E. James Dobson (once said he would rather not vote than vote for McCain; now half-heartedly endorses McCain)
F. Rod Parsley (officially endorses Sen. McCain; McCain calls him a "spiritual guide")

--

1) __ "God Bless America? No, no, no, not 'God Bless America,' God Damn America!"

2) __ "Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church [cooperated] in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews."

3) __ "I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

4) __ "[The homosexual] agenda includes teaching pro-homosexual [sic] concepts in the public schools, redefining the family to represent 'any circle of people who love each other,' approval of homosexual adoption, legitimizing same-sex marriage, and securing special rights for those who identify themselves as gay. Those ideas must be opposed, even though to do so is to expose oneself to the charge of being "homophobic."

5) __ "(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

6) __ "Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up."

7) __ Believes that the US government is potentially responsible for using AIDS as a means to exterminate the Black population.

8) __ "That every single year, millions of our tax dollars are funding a national organization [Planned Parenthood] built upon that very goal -- their target: African Americans. That's right, the death toll: nearly fifteen hundred African Americans a day. The shocking truth of black genocide."

9) __ "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different."

10) __ "[In regards to 9/11] America's chickens are coming home to roost."

11) __ "[In regards to 9/11] I really believe that the pagans, the abortionists, the feminists, the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

12) __ "[In regards to previous statement] I totally concur."

13) __ Believes that a confrontation with Iran is a necessary precondition for the second coming of Christ, and that the US should pursue military action for that reason.

14) __ "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if [Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."

15) __ "I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

--

Answer key:
1) A
2) B
3) B
4) E
5) D
6) D
7) A
8) F
9) D
10) A
11) C
12) D
13) B
14) C
15) F

Waiter, there's Evangelism in my politics!

2008-05-04T23:59:00.000-07:00

Many have wondered how the more politically-minded of us find stories for our opinions. It involves a lot of anger, a lot of internet trolling, and the not-too-infrequent infusion of alcohol, which seems only to catalyze the two former actions. The result: a general muddling of issues and people and movements such that it all becomes one murky, purple soup inside of your head by the time you're done. It's sometimes hard to keep track of who you are supposed to be pissed off at and who you're supposed to send your money to. Often times it ends up being the same person, though that particular conundrum isn't too uncommon with evangelical Christians such as I.

He may be the Antichrist, sure, but at least he's not some goddamned hippie!

I figure that since this is the way it's always been since the beginning of REAL Christianity (i.e. 1979). So it shocked me to read in the Christian Post that many evangelical leaders believe "the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars."

The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for "using faith" to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
"That way faith loses its independence, Christians become `useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology," according to the draft.

News flash to the writers of this draft: this is America. And in America's political system, useful idiots make or break the election. Why do you hate America so much?

The authors also state that "all too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others while we have condoned our own sins," and they also claim that "we must reform our own behavior." Have any of these pastors ever read the Bible? What part of "love thy neighbor as thyself" don't they understand? If I truly love my neighbor, it is my sworn duty as a Bible-thumping Christian to forcibly correct every minute mistake he/she could possibly make with the hopes that their pitiful souls will one day rise into the Heavens to dwell with the saints!

Am I supposed to stand idly by while my neighbor sends his kids to public schools, where his daughter will without a doubt become sexually active, be told to have wild, unimaginable sex with anyone she can get her hands on, and then go have an abortion? Or am I supposed to de-fund public education, enforce abstinence-only education, picket/burn the abortion clinic, run the doctor out of town and declare his/her daughter a harlot? I think the good, Christian answer is obvious.

And I'm not alone in my fight against this injustice. Luckily the big players in the evangelical movement like Dr. James Dobson aren't signing on to this declaration. This ensures, as Phil Burress puts it, that "it's like throwing a pebble in the ocean" and will have almost no effect at all. And they say that the church can't handle dissent.

These churches no all too well how important the informed values voter is to America's survival, and make sure to remind all of us that God wishes for us to vote, and vote "our values". But what are those values?

It's okay if you don't know how a Christian ought to vote. You're not alone. That's why they the good people at Dobson's Focus on the Family ministries spend millions of dollars telling you how you need to vote on every single issue if you wish to avoid the impending wrath of The Almighty.

It's called CitizenLink, and it's FotF's unabashedly political arm (If Dobson were Goro it would be his upper left arm). These guys cover everything from local to international news, all with a unique Christian perspective unlike anything you've seen outside of FOX News. They're also major promoters of the National Day of Prayer, a holiday meant to celebrate all religious faiths which has been mercilessly hijacked by the religious Right just as President Truman and the Good Lord no doubt intended it to be. It's a holiday that people take so seriously they're willing to organize "prayer flights" over particularly heathen-y cities in efforts to cleanse them.

(Artist's rendition of alleged "prayer flight")

One particularly good section of this website is a weekly video produced by the Director of Digital Media, Stuart Shepard entitled Stoplight. He's one of my favorites, both for his snarky, "I-know-something-you-don't-know-why-are-you-so-dense-that-you-can't-figure-this-out-it's-simple-shit-people-come-on!" attitude, as well as for his unique ability to take complex, thought-provoking and intentionally discussion-inducing issues and manipulate them into "with me or against me" scenarios. Hey, if it's good enough for the DoD, it's good enough for everyone. And nothing brings out the "useful idiot" swing vote quite like a "vote for them and you're aligning yourself with Satan" social issue.

Here's a list of some of my favorites. Hopefully one day I will have the skills and wherewithal that Mr. Shepard has when it comes to breaking down the problems of our time. For instance, did you know:

"Hate crimes legislation is not really about hate or crime. What it's really about is getting the federal government to grant civil rights status to a particular behavior, which is the offramp that leads to the end of marriage and family."
Military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies serve the best interests of the military, because they ensure that men won't have to endure the troubling possibility of de-robing themselves in front of someone who may be sexually attracted to them, which is also why you will never see any military members at beaches, swimming pools, or any other public events where they may be noticed by another human being with anything but combat gear on. Also: "Gays in the military is to same sex marriage, as embryonic stem cell research is to pro life."
If members of Congress don't support funding abstinence-only education in public schools, that means that they are "more concerned about vegetables, whales and extraterrestrials than the mental, physical and emotional health of young Americans." "How could anyone be against teaching children about moral purity," he asks. It's a no-brainer: "Healthy kids don't need liberals."
A government study that shows abstinence-only education has literally no effect on the sexual practices of young adults PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that comprehensive sex ed is failing. (Bonus points if you can comprehend his brilliant analogy)

One wonders just what people are worrying about when they say things like we need to "go back to the root theological meaning of the term evangelical." I don't know about you, but that sounds like goddamn hippie talk to me.

This Article is Not for Gays

2008-04-06T11:04:00.000-07:00

Every writer knows the feeling. When you wake up one afternoon (or evening) and feel the insatiable urge to create, to assuage your mind - that furious organ that, even in sleep, wrestles endlessly with innumerable thoughts and notions - by allowing it to overflow onto the virgin page. Yet despite your best efforts nothing seems to manifest.

When that occurs, I often find that I can reinvigorate my creative side by going back and reading from authors that have inspired me. Poets, playwrights, novelists, and Focus on the Family columnists. One of my personal idols is a man by name of Matt Kaufman, who has written quite frequently for the webzine Boundless. And let me tell you that one of his past articles has affected me greatly. I have felt the hand of God touch me in places I didn't even know could be touched. At least I assume it was God's hand.

The article is entitled Gays Vs. The Garden Guy, and it details the story of a Houston landscaping business that refused to do business with a couple. The reason: the family which runs the small business refuses to work for a homosexual couple.

Upon learning of the relationship when one of the men referred to his "partner," Todd decided to turn down the job. Sabrina wrote the potential clients a straightforward e-mail honestly explaining why. Its contents don't take long to read:

I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us. I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work with homosexuals.

Best of luck in finding someone else to fill your landscaping needs.

All my best,

Sabrina.

Needless to say, there was a bit of an internet scuffle, and Kaufman stepped in to let us all know just who was at fault.

Now in a free society, much less one that was historically Christian, this whole thing wouldn't have been a big deal. The Farbers' choice would be widely understood as perfectly legitimate.

Exactly. In a free society, people are free to choose who they do business with. If I own a restaurant, and someone, say, comes in without wearing shoes, or perhaps with darker skin than me, it's more than reasonable for me to simply refuse service. After all, it's my restaurant, isn't it?

But Todd Farber, the owner of Garden Guy, Inc., is definitely more of a man than me. As Kaufman notes, some Christians may have taken a different path, and decided to do business with them, and perhaps attempt to get them to change their sinful, heathen, God-and-America-hating ways before being sent to a fiery, painful, completely justified eternity in the bowels of Hell. That's, after all, is called being "tolerant".

In fact, Todd had worked for homosexual clients in the past. He stopped, his wife said, because he had grown increasingly "grieved" to see the lives they were living.
Believers can debate among themselves which course they would have taken in the same position. But the Farbers not only had a right to do as they did, they had a serious moral reason: They were trying not to confer acceptance on an inherently illegitimate relationship. For Christians, that's a responsibility — a matter of simple duty.

As a true Christian - that is, a right-wing evangelical Republican - I have often been remiss of my moral obligations. Often times I have tried to respect homosexuals by constantly informing them that their very existence on this earth makes them responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong for this country, including 9/11. But thanks to Kaufman's wisdom, I know now that it is my duty as a God-fearing American to regard them as not even worthy of normal human interaction.

[Gay activists] want society, via the state, to officially confer its stamp of approval. They want everyone else to recognize and honor that status in a host of other ways (benefits, "non-discrimination" laws, etc.).

Forget marriage benefits, and forget equal protection under the law. As Christians we must take it one step further: forget selling them homes, forget letting them live in our apartment complexes, forget letting them attend our schools, our churches, live in our neighborhoods, dine in our restaurants, use our laundromats, or interact with us in any way that may confer to them that their lifestyle is somehow "accepted". The problem isn't that secularists or the liberal media tells them that homosexuality is okay, but that we reinforce that notion by constantly interacting with them as if they were normal human beings.

In the spirit of this new perspective, I officially declare that gays are no longer allowed to read this blog. That's right. If you really desire to hear my opinion, go get yourself a trophy wife, divorce her, re-marry, get divorced again, and get married a third time like every other good Christian who respects the sanctity of marriage.

To ensure that this web blog remains free of gay readers, I will proceed to inundate it with a series of stimuli which, I believe, will so revile the homosexual reader that they will be unable to proceed any further:

If all that rough, grizzled, obscenely masculine patriotism doesn't keep them at bay, than I don't know what will.

Anonymous

2008-03-25T11:16:00.000-07:00

Rarely have I seen such a chilling video as this. At least not since Giuliani attempted to make the nation collectively shit its pants with this stunning advertisement. Now I understand the fear of the tin foil wearers.

What terrifies me isn't so much the errie masses of Guy Fawkes masks lining the streets of Los Angeles, nor is it the fact that I sympathize greatly with the way the Scientologists conduct their business. It's the amorphousness of the organization that really grinds me the wrong way.

You see, I'm a patriotic American who values the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their entirety. That's why I demand that my thoughts, values, and opinions be constantly dictated to me by a third party. I have a full load of college classes and a job to take care of, so I can't always be bothered to come up with reasonable, fact-based approaches to social issues and government policy. I try my best to think outside the box when I can, but at the end of the day unless a pundit agrees with me I'm pretty much lost.

I can't understand how an organization comprised of thousands upon thousands of people can organize a worldwide protest on multiple continents, much less have it all go down on the exact same day. There are no chapter leaders, nobody to officially demonize on the cable news show. How are we supposed to counter these people and their arguments? With facts to be presented on a level playing field, man-to-man? I'm no good at that!

At least with the Code Pinks and ANSWER's of the world, there are leaders to target, demonize, harass, and eventually arrest, and crazy people to laugh at. Police in Atlanta were completely baffled when they had no power structure they could effectively dismantle. The LAPD even resorted to being nice for a change. Just watching the video makes me ill:

More information on the Anonymous protests, as well as upcoming events, can be found at a number of different locations. Anonymous seems to be everywhere, so a simple Google search should get you what you want.

More information and commentary may come later in the day. In the mean time, enjoy the comments section. I have to go close my curtains and buy a dog.

The McCain Citizenship Controversy

2008-03-10T19:32:00.000-07:00

Petty has taken a back seat this political season and let Asinine handle the steering. In a way it is humorous when the liberal MSM has no alternative but to start questioning someone's national origin in a desperate attempt to invalidate their campaign. Lord knows that the political climate is appaling when I have to start doing the opposition's work for them, but there have been a number of issues regarding McCain that could have sparked more controversy than this.

My article was frank, because that's what the issue requires. There's no story here. And even if there was, it would most likely end up backfiring in the Democrats' collective faces. Just because he's a foreigner he can't be President? Sure there's a Constitutional argument clearly made against it, but that rule is so archaic that penning up an amendment would actually be a rather progressive move. It would be a shame if the Democrats found themselves in an anti-immigrant stance simply because it would mean a Republican presidency.

Almost makes me wish they'd try it, just to watch them slowly implode as a party.

Yes, McCain was born in Panama on a military base. And contrary to popular belief, a foreign US military base is not US soil. Read the statute if you don't believe me (7 FAM 1116.1-4). Also take note when it states that "Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of 'the United States' for citizenship purposes. Thus there were varying interpretations. Guidance should be sought from the Department (CA/OCS) when such issues arise." This issue would end up in the State Department, who probably wouldn't really care all that much.

Personally - and I know a number of conservatives also feel this way - this scares me much more than an old white man being born in Panama to white parents:

Shocking.

Nobody cares where McCain and Obama were born

2008-03-09T19:27:00.000-07:00

As Sen. John McCain clinches the Republican nomination, it is important to analyze issues regarding the Arizona senator, which, up until now, have gone largely overlooked. A little-known fact about John McCain is that he was, in fact, not born in Arizona. He was actually born in Panama, on a military base called Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 (yes, he is that old).

Why is this relevant to his presidential run? Because the Constitution makes a clear determination as to who is eligible for the highest office of the United States, and non-natural-born citizens need not apply. Unfortunately for McCain, the Panama Canal Zone has never been an official territory of the United States.

The fact that his father was a member of the U.S. military and he was born on a military base is irrelevant as well. Contrary to popular belief, foreign military bases are not considered to be U.S. soil, and those born there must become naturalized. This issue is addressed specifically by the State Department in 7 FAM 1111.2(c), which states that a child born on a military base overseas “does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

But allow me to be perfectly clear: His status as a United States citizen is not in question. The rights of natural-born and naturalized citizens are equal, as decided by the Supreme Court case of Schneider v. Rusk in 1964, and none of this would have any impact on his status as a senator. But it does raise questions as to his eligibility as a potential president.

McCain’s staff is confident that this is not going to be an issue. The senator ran for the office of president in 2000, losing the Republican nomination to Bush, and they are sure that the issue was satisfactorily investigated then. Theodore Olson, an adviser to the McCain campaign, said in a New York Times article titled “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out,” stated that he doesn’t “have much doubt about it,” but added that he would continue his research.

In the end, this should be the least of his issues. I have yet to see a poll in which “McCain’s citizenship” has been a major influence in how people are planning to cast their ballot come November.

Besides, issues such as national origin are antiquated, and aren’t seriously considered by us conservatives. That’s why we don’t care if McCain was born in Panama, or that Sen. Barack Obama spent four years growing up in Indonesia training to be a Manchurian candidate that will destroy us all.

We don’t reduce ourselves to such lows.

The Mauve Hand - The Homosexual Agenda Invades Soap Operas

2008-03-06T10:59:00.000-08:00

As if As the World Turns didn't give us enough to cringe about, my friends at the American Family Association - the noted defender of free speech for white evangelical Christians - inform me that they have gone so far as to show a gay couple in an open, committed relationship:

The American Family Association is calling on Procter & Gamble to adopt a neutrality policy on controversial issues, especially when it comes to pushing the homosexual agenda on network television.
Procter & Gamble (P&G) owns the long-running soap opera As the World Turns, which features a fictional romance between two young men. In fact, last August the CBS daytime soap became the first to feature two homosexual men kissing.

The Homosexual Agenda is more than a witty name to give your persona in City of Villains. It is a reality that has dominated our nation's discourse and turned this Judeo-Christian nation away from the one true God (the one that Supports Our Troops). Luckily they know just how to respond:

"What Procter & Gamble has done by not having a neutrality policy on any controversial issue [is] they've now put themselves in the middle of this battle between homosexual activists and those who aspire to more traditional family values -- especially on network TV in the public forum," argues Sharp.

The AFA spokesman is hopeful P&G will simply opt not to get involved in controversial topics, such as a homosexual kiss on television, and adopt a policy toward that end. But "the best thing that they could do," he suggests, "is to go ahead and drop these two characters [from the show]."

I will give a great, heaving "Amen!" to that, sister. What many Americans fail to realize is that "neutrality" towards a controversial social issue does not mean "approaching an issue with the intent of dismantling stereotypes and prompting discussion", but means "abhorring the practice completely and damning all who think otherwise."

Americans should contact P&G and express their outrage at this blatant support of the homosexual lifestyle. How can we as a nation conduct a reasonable, rational discussion on gay rights when gays are constantly being flaunted in soap operas as "human beings" who "express genuine emotions" or otherwise attempt to garner our sympathy? The audacity!

And if that wasn't enough, can you believe that they have managed to infiltrate Christian programming as well! Imagine my horror when I witnessed this debauchery:

"The contents don't squirt in your face?"

"A point at the top for ease of entry?"

"Just the right shape for the human mouth and curved towards the face?!"

I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it...

EPA Demonstrates Proper Judgment

2008-03-01T20:47:00.000-08:00

Normally organizations whose titles contain the word "environmental" and "protection" make their way onto my prestigious "List of Objectionable People". I pretty much assume that such groups are in league with America's enemies, be they Communists, hippies, peaceniks, terrorists, Muslim extremists, communist terrorists, hippie extremists, Muslim communists, terrorist peaceniks, or any other mortifying combination of those terms.

But recently the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated that it was willing to defy the snarling of left-wing lunatics, and start doing its job objectively and without influence.

Under pressure from the chemical industry, the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed an outspoken scientist who chaired a federal panel responsible for helping the agency determine the dangers of a flame retardant widely used in electronic equipment.

Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific panel reviewing the chemical a year ago. Federal records show she was removed from the panel in August after the American Chemistry Council, the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to a top-ranking EPA official that she was biased.

If there's one thing that scientists should be, it's objective. We conservatives understand that. That's why when a situation like this arises, we feel obligated to speak out. For too long our environmental policy has been shaped by the misguided notion that the industry should be wholly removed from the process of determining whether their products are potentially harmful to the American people. As if they have something to gain from manipulating the process in order to mask dangerous elements of their products.

The chemical, a brominated compound known as deca, is used in high volumes worldwide, largely in the plastic housings of television sets.

Rice, an award-winning former EPA scientist who now works at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, has studied low doses of deca and reported neurological effects in lab animals. Last February, around the time the EPA panel was convened, Rice testified before the Maine Legislature in support of a state ban on the compound because scientific evidence shows it is toxic and accumulating in the environment and people.

Chemical industry lobbyists say Rice's comments to the Legislature, as well as similar comments to the media, show that she is a biased advocate who has compromised the integrity of the EPA's review of the flame retardant.

Exactly. How are we supposed to trust the panels findings when they are chaired by individuals who have actively studied the effects of the chemical in question? It is absurd that we should expect the EPA to conduct a fair and unbiased investigation into deca when their scientists release scientific findings showing that it has the potential to cause serious damage to living organisms.

EPA officials removed Rice because of what they called "the perception of a potential conflict of interest." Under the agency's handbook for advisory committees, scientific peer reviewers should not "have a conflict of interest" or "appear to lack impartiality."

Luckily this system has its checks and balances. When the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group representing the chemical industry, felt that their product might be getting a raw deal, they demanded that Rice be removed from the panel.

Think of it kind of like the Executive and the Legislative branches of our government, with
the EPA as Congress and the ACC as the President. When Congress looks like they might not agree with everything the President wants them to, the President just starts removing senators he doesn't like. This ensures that the whole process runs as smoothly as possible, and that there are no unnecessary conflicts of interest.

Because the only people truly qualified to determine impartiality in the EPA are the ones who stand to maintain millions in revenue based on their decisions. That's why we call America "The Land of the Free".

Just Be Glad You're Not Dead Yet

2008-02-19T18:48:00.001-08:00

FISA expired. Consider every second since a personal gift from that Judeo-Christian God you probably don't believe in. The Heritage Foundation had an overtime clock going, but it seems to have disappeared from their website. No doubt a result of AQ or NOW or some other sinister acronym. So I've made one of my own. It's not quite up to par with the original, but it gets the job done and sends the same important message...

In Defense of Clinton - Part II

2008-02-16T15:03:00.000-08:00

I wasn't interested in politics around the time that this famous commercial was aired. Most of what I remember in terms of significant public events from the 1990s was the OJ Simpson trial and the emergence of Pokemon.

Yet as national politics begins to slowly and methodically become America's favorite pastime I am becoming more and more interested in the discourse of the Clinton era. French philosopher Henry Bergson once said "the present contains nothing more than the past." And Hillary Clinton is a shining example of that.

Arguably the most aggravating thing about following politics is the general public's complete inability to recall any history past the last episode of Lost. That goes for us conservatives as well as our liberal counterparts. Those of us who pride ourselves in digging through campaign contributions and reading up on past policy implosions often see our hours of painstaking research and analysis go unheeded, as people inevitably flock towards the candidate who will whisper sweet nothings in their ear.

This has also been the case with me. While many in the Republican party are disenchanted with the prospect of running a McCain ticket, most if not all will, without a doubt in my mind, bow down and vote for him regardless. Even the Dobsons of the world, despite their bawling and moaning, will fill in the bubble next to the Mad Dog when November rolls around.

But I am here to offer up a different path, perhaps one thought of as unorthodox to some. For a staunch conservative to toss his support behind a Democrat seems unreasonable, but I have devoted myself to explaining just why this is a step in the right direction for our nation. It is important that Americans, especially conservatives who are seeing their party wane and begin to crumble, vote for the candidate who shares their ideology, regardless of what party they affiliate themselves with.

A letter is a letter, and there are many prominent examples of people for whom the letter "D" means absolutely nothing.

Am I suggesting that Clinton is equitable to Lieberman? Certainly not. We can't wish for the impossible. But she is certainly not someone deserving of the vilification she is often exposed to. Especially on issues such as health care.

The American Health Choices Plan (in pdf format here) is about as moderate and pro-corporation as any platform you'll find. And that pleases me in ways I'm not allowed to describe on this page. What we have here is a reconfiguring of the insurance industry, though fundamentally nothing drastic is being done, certainly nothing on the Conyers/Kucinich level. It's a lot like turning the living room couch to face the other direction, then calling up your friends and telling them you bought a new house.

Easily the most appealing part of this whole plan is the portion entitled Shared Responsibility. Essentially what happens under a Clinton health care system is that everyone is ordered, for fear of punishment, to purchase health insurance, while insurance and pharmaceutical companies have to compete to to provide high-quality, affordable health care.

In short: companies do what they're doing now, but now everyone is required by law to do business with them. If that's not capitalism at its finest, someone tell me what is!

As you read on, you also see some very comforting statistical information from our friends at the RAND Corporation. And let me tell you, nothing woos me quite like an endorsement from the RAND Corporation. This research group has a board of trustees that exemplifies what it means to be "pro-business". Nothing says, "I'm here to provide independent research" quite like a board of trustees that boasts the President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, the former Senior VP of Dow Jones, a former Secretary of the USAF, and a number of former White House secretaries.

That's not to mention my main man, Mr. Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense for Ronald Reagan, who has been a signatory on a number of pro-Iraq war statements made by Project for a New American Century, or PNAC. If you don't know who they are by now, you watch too much MTV.

Some of you will undoubtedly ask, "But Matt, you Irish stallion, this is nothing like what the Republicans are offering. And we all know that big business is in bed with the Republicans." At which point I will flash a devilishly-handsome smile and hand you a copy of a NY Times article by Raymond Hernandez and Robert Pear entitled "Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton". I will leave you with this excerpt, and remind you that for the good of American conservatism and American business interests, I urge you to support Senator Hillary Clinton for President.

As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.
Some of the same interests that tried to derail Mrs. Clinton’s health care overhaul are providing support for her Senate re-election bid. The Health Insurance Association of America ran the famous “Harry and Louise” commercials mocking the Clinton health care plan as impenetrably complex. Some companies that were members of that group are now donating to Mrs. Clinton.
Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, now works with the senator on some issues as president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobby for hospital companies like HCA and Tenet. He describes his battles with the first lady as “ancient history,” and he said health care executives were contributing to her now because “she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue.”
Senator Clinton has received $150,600 in contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which she accused in 1993 of “price gouging” and “unconscionable profiteering.”

(Author's note: Senator Rick Santorum lost his seat in 2006 to Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. This makes Senator Clinton the No. 1 recipient of health insurance donations.)

In Defense of Clinton - Part I

2008-02-14T09:50:00.000-08:00

After the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton at the hands of her opponent, Barack Obama (and an opponent is what he is, despite the friendly rhetoric) in the Potomac primaries, us Clintonoids were feeling a little despondent. The significant lead which the Clinton campaign had been enjoying was finally eroded, the race becoming a dead heat despite her commanding lead in superdelegates. It was time for a shift, and Hillary made the right move by shaking up her staff and ejecting unneeded support.

Not Goldman Sachs or Time Warner, of course. She has enough experience to know that, thankfully, business interests are the one thing you don't want to tinker with, despite what your constituency may think.

But more than issues with staff, I feel that the Clinton campaign has had too difficult a time trying to pander to the "far left" by explaining away Clinton's war record. I will address this sentiment in the Daily 49er soon, but I wanted to take a moment to outline some of the key details here.

The piece that brought my attention to Hillary Clinton's war record blundering was a clip from Countdown. Take a look:

Others have expressed similar sentiment about Clinton's position on the war, feeling that while she expresses a desire to end it eventually and routinely criticizes the current administration, they feel that there hasn't been much of an official apology. When asked to officially apologize for her Iraq vote by Roger Tilton at a New Hampshire campaign stop, Clinton replied that "Knowing what I know now I would never have voted for it."

Valid. Certainly a few of our minor assumptions about the war were a bit misguided, but it's not like anyone knew any better at the time. Cut her some slack, libs! Your poster-boy in 2004 said that he "agree[d] completely with this Administration's goal of regime change in Iraq." You were smart enough to want to put him in the White House, so why not someone like Hillary?

I have said this many times before, but it bears repeating: Hillary is strong when it comes to foreign policy. Not McCain strong; not "Bomb-bomb-Iran" strong. But that's to be expected from the Democrats. It's sort of like when a boy pretends to shave with his dad and uses a tongue depressor to peel the shaving cream off his face. He's got the right idea, but he's not quite ready for the multi-blade. Or, in McCain's case, the K-bar sharpened against the jawbones of his enemies.

Hillary Clinton refuses to back away from her war vote, sticking to her husband's mantra of "strong and wrong beats weak and right." Despite the wail of the moonbats, she remains unwavering. And that is the kind of resolve I love to see in a President. In reality, I believe all Americans, Democrat or Republican, admire someone who will intentionally defy the will of his own people and the restraints of Constitutional law in order to advance his/her own ideological goals.

Clinton has demonstrated that she will do that, and do it she must.

Why I'm Voting for Hillary Clinton!

2008-02-01T17:01:00.000-08:00

I bet you never expected to see that image here, did you? Perhaps there is a pang of fear, a howling, shrieking hurricane of horror tearing its way up the back of your neck and going Katrina on the very nether regions of your soul. If so, you know exactly how I felt only a few days ago.

You see, for many conservatives like myself, the mere utterance of the name "Clinton" has the same effect as shouting "Fire!" in the middle of a crowded room. The only difference being that someone is liable to actually set the building on fire in a blind rage.

I have long been of the belief that Hillary Clinton was a communist, the antichrist, or at least married to him. The guilt-by-association was undeniable proof of everything Ronald Reagan warned us about before he went senile and parked Air Force One inside his library. The Reds were infiltrating, and only the Republicans were the wiser.

In an attempt to better understand the inner workings of this sinister movement, I decided to do some research of my own. What I discovered, my friends, was nothing short of astounding. Not a hammer nor a sickle to be seen. In fact, her record...impressed me.

There was the shock, the wrench of the stomach! No, get a hold of yourself. You're falling in to their clever ruse. It must be hidden somewhere between the lines, between the pounds and pounds of lipstick and rouge. But the more I looked, the more I admired.

My friends, I am here today to tell you that I am officially endorsing Hillary Clinton for President.

Hear me out, my fellow conservatives. Sure, there are a lot of things about Clinton's record that we don't particularly like. But can you not say the same thing of McCain or Romney or Huckabee? You know the answer to that question; nobody running for President has a pure record. And Hillary has the punch where it counts. If she had cajones, I'd tell you they were huge.

First, look at these two quotes. One of them is spoken by our current President, the other by Sen. Hillary Clinton:

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

and...

"Every nation has to be either with us or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or finance them, are going to pay a price."

I couldn't tell which was which either.

The truth is, Clinton has been with us on the most important issues of our time. We've just been too blinded by our hatred of the Clintons to recognize all the good the two have done for our nation as well as for businesses. Did you know that while Bill Clinton was President, not only did the Republicans take back both houses of Congress, but we also saw the passing of the Telecommunications Act which further consolidated major broadcast media, even surpassing the level which Reagan himself achieved?

Clinton also oversaw the creation of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA, which have allowed international businesses to bypass the industry and labor regulations of sovereign nations in the name of global commerce, as well as allow subsidized US agriculture to put Mexican farmers out of work. I cannot think of a single Republican who has done more to advance the interests of global business more than Bill Clinton. Without him, entities like Wal-Mart may not have become the local-economy-crushing juggernauts that they are today (Fun Fact: Hillary Clinton once served on the board of directors at Wal-Mart).

And even if we ignore the work of her husband, Clinton offers us one of the most trustworthy voting records when it comes to national defense. From the liberal trashcan known as Collingwood's:

YES on the Patriot Act
YES on authorizing pre-emptive war in Afghanistan and Iraq
YES on funding for both wars, up until around the time polls showed it wasn't politically viable anymore
YES on funding for a border fence along Mexico
YES on funding for the REAL ID Act
YES on declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization
YES on conformation of Tom Ridge
YES on confirmation of Michael Chertoff
YES on confirmation of John Negroponte

As the moonbat says: "Right away we see a number of votes that, in all honesty, look more at home on the resume of John McCain or Rudy Giuliani than someone purporting to be a liberal." And may that be the last time the two of us agree on something.

So with this in mind, it is my distinct honor to finally offer my valuable endorsement to a presidential candidate who shares my concrete and unwavering vision for this nation. I hereby announce my support for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for President of these United States. May she serve at least as well as her husband, and like her husband, ensure that the Republicans maintain control of the Legislative Branch for decades to come!

The Bush Stimulus Package, courtesy of Bush Co.

2008-01-28T16:59:00.001-08:00

Does your economy have a "growing" problem? It's nothing to be ashamed of. Many strong, healthy economies today suffer from a lack of growth, putting too much strain on their systems which can cause them to perform inadequately.

Economic Impotence (or EI) is a common disorder among large, free-market economies. Common symptoms include depressed housing values, leading to frequent foreclosures, unexpected drops in the stock market, rising commodities costs and rampant inflation. A profound sense of worry and unease may become prolonged due to stress associated with EI. If left untreated, EI can cause serious damage to poor and working-class populations. In some chronic cases, middle-class populations can also suffer.

But now there is hope! Thanks to a new stimulus formula created by your friends at Bush Co., you can again experience the youthful vigor of a rapidly-growing economy in no time. It's called the Bush Stimulus Package, and here's how it works:

Utilizing neo-corporatist ideology and an emphasis on organizational health rather than the individual, the Bush stimulus package provides taxpayers with an instant rebate of hundreds of dollars, along with a proven, decades-old mantra: "Shut up and shop!" Unlike other economic stimuli which attempt to create growth through an emphasis on long-term investments and a strong, fiscally sensible working class, the Bush stimulus package provides an immediate boost to consumers' wallets, encouraging spending rather than savings. As Alex Penelas said just after 9/11: "...it has never been more patriotic to go shopping."

The Bush Stimulus Package also works to curb inflamed gasoline prices by selling tens of billions of dollars worth of advanced weaponry to free democratic societies in the Middle East with no blatant ties to international terrorist groups (like Saudi Arabia). And while other packages may include risks of raising funding for aid programs for the poor, the Bush Stimulus Package promises no increases in Medicaid funding while providing tax incentives for businesses. No other stimulus package gives you corporate-oriented results like that.

Call your congressperson now and recommend that they allow the Bush Stimulus Package to forcibly penetrate the now flaccid economy and provide it with much-needed stimulation, ensuring that it begins to rise at a steady, healthy rate when you need it most. Don't let EI ruin your relationships and send you screaming headlong into unheard of amounts of debt. Act now!

(Warning: side effects of Bush Co. products may include sneezing, coughing, wheezing, loss of life savings, loss of control of the deficit and minor hemorrhaging. In some rare cases spontaneous international incidents may occur based on faulty or fabricated evidence. If left untreated for some time these may develop into serious quagmires, requiring lengthly and expensive treatment. Consult your congressperson if you begin to notice quagmires forming. If economy remains raised for over four hours consider contacting a doctor immediately.)

Roe v. Wade and the Sanctity of Life - A New Perspective

2008-01-25T14:27:00.000-08:00

There are few issues that rile the conservative more than this. What is at stake is the sense of morality and justice that lie at the core of our nation, if not humanity as a whole. To allow something this heinous, this destructive, and this ungodly to continue unabated within our borders calls into question everything that the United States is built upon.

And no, I am not talking about Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

I talk to you today about the issue of abortion. Much has been said about Roe v. Wade in the decades since the court decision took effect, and there will be no shortage of chants of "right to choose" and the transparent, underlying mysogyny in dictating that every woman - regardless of the circumstances and regardless of her economic disposition - is required once pregnant to give birth, while their male counterparts experience no lasting penalty or responsibility for procreating without restrant. Steven Tyler of all people once asked, "If men bled would tampons be free?" He was no doubt a Communist.

No, it is quite clear to me that abortion is the serious, moral issue that nearly every evangelical preacher says it is. But I wouldn't be a good opinion writer if I didn't try to bring some new perspective to the debate, especially one like this which has been raging for over thirty years now. If one wants to find common opinions on the pro-life side of the abortion debate, there are many places to accomodate. I won't reiterate their arguments here.

What cannot be ignored in this debate is the overarching consequences of abortion, not just on the women involved but also on their families, friends, loved ones, and most importantly the economy. Statistics show that there are 1.2 million abortions in the United States every year, with four in one of those women being below the poverty line. Economic harship is without a doubt one of the major justifications; many already have a child to care for and simply cannot afford to support another human being in their household. Adoption helps in that regard, but until it can keep up with and eventually exceed abortion rates, it simply won't be a reasonable solution.

The fact of the matter is that this is 1.2 million potential workers lost every year, the majority of it born into poverty. This is, I believe, an unprecedented example of waste. If for no other reason we should ban the practice of abortion because it is damaging our already weakened economy. The overturning of Roe v. Wade should be a ciritcal part of any serious economic stimulus package.

The advantages of such a decision are undeniable. As it stands American businesses are losing literally billions in revenue paying workers union wages, not to mention other benefits. Worker's rights movements are sapping our economy dry, leaving it a dry husk compared to its former glory. There is no better way to lower the price of labor than to ensure that there is a massive influx of it every year. Banning abortions can do just that.

Many would complain that such a rationale cheapens human life and human dignity. So killing them is more humane? How deliciously ironic. If anything, I am doing these otherwise-unborn children a favor by ensuring that they are born and have an opportunity to compete in our glorious free market capitalist system!

It's simple supply and demand. If there are more jobs than workers, than the price of labor rises with businesses competing with each other to entice labor towards their enterprises. But imagine an additional 1.2 million potential workers entering the market yearly, most of them unskilled. We couldn't create enough jobs to keep up with the demand! Labor prices would drop fiercely as workers struggle tooth and nail with each other to see who will work the most hours for the lowest wages possible. Free trade has created similar conditions in countries such as China and Southeast Asia. It's time that local American businesses benfitted from a work force so desperate for a job that they'll do sixteen-hour shifts making Mickey Mouse slippers if it means that they'll be able to buy a bowl of rice...maybe.

My friends, the time is now. I stand with all of my fellow pro-life bretheren when I urge everyone to write their congressmen and ask that they fight against abortion, and for a brighter tomorrow. Our economy depends upon it.

The Preface

2008-01-21T11:14:00.000-08:00

If you had told me only a few weeks ago that the Daily 49er would invite to not only have a weekly column, but also an opportunity to produce a regular blog on their website, I wouldn't have believed you. In fact, Bradley Zint, the Editor in Chief of the 49er, attempted to tell me just that over most of the Winter break. Only I hung up the phone every time I realized it was him.

You see, I don't trust these journalist types. They always have some kind of hidden agenda, and they're always trying to get my voice on tape. I'm sure it's for something sinister; if there's anything I've learned in my life it's that people with agendas cannot be trusted. That's why I've always been an avid member of the Republican party and read The Weekly Standard more often than my Bible. James Dobson assures me that both publications have essentially the same message.

And that is also why, after days of arduous, complex and often belittling correspondence, I decided to accept his offer and become a weekly contributor for the Daily 49er. I consider it quite an honor, and hope that during my stay I can do away with the hidden liberal agenda of this publication and turn it into the pro-corporation, neoconservative echo chamber that every other American journalistic publication strives to become. And with your help (that is, your blind, unyielding obedience) I can make that dream a reality.

With the dawning of such an auspicious movement, I thought it best to provide my readers with a glimpse into the humble beginnings of one of the most admirable news outlets in the United States: the FOX News Channel, the lone, untainted voice of the news media. The following is a rarely-seen pilot program produced by the network, which laid out the fundamental message of the network and set the underlying tone for all subsequent programming:

People love news that has no ulterior motive. That's why the latest FOX television endeavor, Fox Business Channel is just soaring in the ratings. I only hope that I can follow humbly in their footsteps.