talent

Rick Warren?

Rick Warren hates gays, women who chose choice, and probably a few other groups of people. But that's not the real problem with him. The problem is what he preaches - a philosophy that gives individuals and churches the authority (presumably from God) to meddle in other people's lives, take power in Government to wield it as God's power, and circumvent the law to enforce what they interpret as "God's law."

Check out his website. It's basically an eight point treatise on why the church should be in power rather than the government (as well as how it can accomplish this). Point number six, which covers the authority given to individuals by the church (to "take on" leadership) is really really troubling. Using the church to save the environment, fight disease and poverty, etc. is great. But using the church to enforce semantic based rules on people's lives, or enforce the saving of someone else's soul based on something they don't even believe in is completely at odds with everything our government stands for.

Can good things come out of religious people in the government? Absolutely. But Rick Warren preaches divine authorization and divine administration of people's lives. He is less than a step away from theocracy, and now Obama is inviting him to the steps of Capitol Hill. Can Obama justify this to his loyal following? Andrew Sullivan actually has a great suggestion. Personally, I hope Rick Warren gets booooed so loudly from the audience that no one can hear what he has to say.

Scared Christians Can't Say the Word "Gay"

An article in the LA Times today says:

"Leaders of the new Anglican Church in North America said they took the extraordinary step to unify congregations and dioceses that had fled the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada over issues of Scripture."

The issue is sexuality, not scripture. Why can't anyone say the word "gay?"

Congressional Whine

Congress is angry that the Treasury Department doesn't have enough oversight over the use of the bailout money.

Well, congress approved what many called a 'blank check.' Now they're whining because they didn't have the foresight to realize the Bush Administration wouldn't properly spend taxpayer money.

Hey Congress, remember the last eight years??

HRC - Prom Queen, not Valedictorian

HRC just released their Buyers Guide - a survey (loose term at best) of gay-friendly companies which social equality-minded people should patronize. BP and Chevron are both year-long Silver sponsors of HRC, and Shell is a Bronze sponsor. All 3 companies and their subsidiaries* are highlighted at the top of the guide with perfect scores. As part of their criteria for the scoring of companies, HRC includes the vague term "external practices." In other words...funding HRC happy hours, cocktail parties, yearbooks, popularity contests, pep rallies, etc... How much of the BP, Chevron, and Shell money went to fighting Prop 8 in California? Considering HRC spent only $3.4 million on Prop 8, I'm guessing the oil money didn't make it past the bar.

In 2006 (the most recent data I found) the HRC spent twice as much on "Membership Mobilization" (mail postage, phone calls, premium member events/galas) than they did on fighting Prop 8 this year. It's easy to see why HRC has become a non-factor in the civil rights movement.

*correction made from original post, where I thought the subsidiaries were actually competitors not receiving equal treatment.

White House Doctoring Iraq War History

...and they're using the Web to do it!

Keep a close eye on the White House over the next several months. Most agree that we'll see a lot of new truths coming out.

When a Constitution is used to strip a person of rights he already has, it is the Constitution, not the person, that is perverted.

Prop 8...Still a Chance?

No on Prop 8 is not giving up.

Absentee and provisional ballots (about 3 million outstanding) have not been counted, and could possibly reverse the 400,000 majority currently in favor of prop 8. The Associated Press reports this as well.

Most under reported counties are redneck, so the chances are slim...but there is a chance.

An Expat Reaction

A close friend of mine who spends 6 months out of the year abroad wrote this to me this morning.


Yours for a better America, where diplomacy is the first response and war is a last resort, where people sit down and talk to each other --and LISTEN --, where the religious right does not decide what is taught in schools or control people with a dogma of fear and hatred, and where the US President can actually speak in complete, cohesive, literate sentences!

Pitiful

6 Days Left

It's been a while, and boy oh boy is there a lot to write about over the past week (and coming week!).

The biggest frustration in my view this week comes from the Obama Campaign. According to Nielsen, 33.6 million people watched his infomercial (not me...I was busy playing pool). The 30 minute prime time spot cost Obama nearly $4 million.

This is the same man that originally promised to run a publicly funded campaign, then backed down from that promise. This is the same campaign that raised more than $272 million since January 2007 (twice as much as John McCain), and still has the balls to email me today saying they are stretched too thinly, "without a safety net," and need more of my money.

There is a lot I like about Obama, and I truly think he'll make better decisions than McCain. But backing down on his promise of public funding has set a nasty and expensive precedent for future candidates.

Obama not exactly helpful to small businesses

On his website, Obama writes, "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will help small businesses by cutting health care costs, improving access to capital and investing in innovation and development." But in the majority of cases, this is just not true.

His "improving access to capital" promise is not applicable to many small businesses: "...citing IRS data, the campaign notes that "56.8% of total small business income is earned by businesses in the top two [tax] rates, which Barack Obama has pledged to raise." Full article here

In essence, since most small businesses fall into the top two tax rate brackets, most small businesses will be taxed more heavily than they are currently being taxed. The counter-argument is: "shouldn't business owners making $250,000+ per year be able to afford a little more tax?" The answer is "yes," if the business owner has no employees to pay.

Let's look at a small start-up business making $500k per year. If that start-up has 6 employees then we are now looking at 6 individuals sharing that 500k revenue. For the sake of argument, let's forget about business expenses and just consider all 500k revenue to be split evenly. Each employee would earn ~$83,000 per year, putting them well in Obama's "non taxed middle class," so they should see more money in their pocket, right? Wrong. If the business gets taxed higher, the tax expense is passed on to the employees so they may not see a salary raise in the next year, or they may find their benefits reduced, or they may have to start paying for parking. In this example, I'm being very generous in assuming that this start-up business has no expenses and no investors. Add those realistic factors into the mix and the small business which makes enough to pass the $250k threshold, but not enough to be considered a money pit, suffers even more.

Obama is good at the "us against them" pitch between classes, but his tax proposal would actually increase taxes on many small businesses which would force business owners to tighten up on salaries and benefits for the "us" part of his equation.

When Obama tells you he's going to reduce taxes on small businesses, be wary. His definition of "small business" is misleading to a great extent.

Obama's not allowed to lie either...

McCain to Letterman: "I screwed up."

Joe the Plumber

...won't actually be hurt by Obama's plan. He's "not even close" to making that much money. Even if he becomes more successful than any other plumber in Ohio by making more than 250k a year, his taxes will increase by only 3%...cry me a river.

Acorn and Voter Fraud

Here are the facts (after all, this blog is about truth!)

Acorn verifies the legitimacy of every registration its canvassers collect. If they can't authenticate the registration, or it's incomplete or questionable in other ways, they flag that form as problematic ("fraudulent", "incomplete", et cetera). They then hand in all registration forms, even the problematic ones, to elections officials, as they are required to do by law. In almost every case where you've heard about fraud by Acorn, it's because Acorn itself notified officials about the fraud that's been perpetrated on them by rogue canvassers. Most officials who run to the media screaming "Acorn is committing fraud" know all of the above but don't bother to share those facts with the media they've run to. None of this is about voter fraud. None of it. Where any fraud has occurred, it's voter registration fraud and has resulted in exactly zero fraudulent votes.

You'll hear that Donald Duck, Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, Mickey Mouse and (new this year) the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team have all had fraudulent registrations submitted in their names. That's true. And we know this, why? Because Acorn told officials about it when they followed the law and turned in those registrations, flagged as fraudulent.

This Acorn "fraud" business is just a republican media scam. Don't believe me? Ask the Brits.

CNN Defends Palin! Or at least stops lying about her

Good article about email rumors and how hard they are to combat.

The Truth About Obama's Tax Cuts

I was asked by a self described Conservative Jeffersonian friend to respond and give voice to a Wall Street Journal Article on Obama's "sleight of hand" tax cuts. The article appears in WSJ's opinion section, and utilizes an Obama Tax Increase graphic from the American Enterprise Institute which discusses tax rates, but not tax credits which offset the tax rates under Obama's plan. The tax credits which are highlighted and deplored in the text of the opinion, but ignored in the AEI graphic, are not leftist policy as the WSJ suggests. (Tax credit is actually the crux of McCain's healthcare/tax solution).

The opinion criticizes Obama's plan, calling it a "clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%." Well, this is nothing new or clandestine. Obama has been very upfront about opposing tax cuts for the top 5% (who won't feel it in their everyday life), and providing more economic help to low income Americans. McCain, unfortunately, supports a healthcare tax credit which doesn't give enough to Average Joe, but provides tax cuts to the super wealthy which perpetuate the favors given to the top 5%. By comparison, Obama appears to be a Robin Hood-like figure. Is it welfare for the poor? Is it a tax credit, cut, or handout? Whatever verbiage you use, you cannot deny that Obama is making an effort to help those who need it. McCain's effort to help those who need it is lacking. Lacking in his rhetoric, in practice, and in the WSJ opinion piece. In fact, there is only one mention of John McCain's efforts to help normal Americans in the entire piece. I count seven different efforts on the part of Obama in this piece to help normal Americans.

So what's the point here? It's partially a political rant, but moreover, this is more evidence to be careful about what you read! Compare multiple sources, don't be afraid to question the writer/publisher, and be sure to educate yourself. Don't rely on others with their own agendas to educate you.

I Heart Rachel Maddow

Tonight on Rachel Maddow's show, conservative David Frum criticized Maddow, essentially saying that the humor and sarcasm on her show is equivalent to the shouts and jeers of McCain's campaign supporters about Obama...the likes of "kill him," "he's a terrorist," etc.

Maddow had notes and questions for discussion of issues, not discussion of the tone and format of her own show. Nonetheless, she responded quickly and directly, saying that the tone and humor used in her show is a method of delivering news, but is in no way comparable to actual violent threats that are made by McCain supporters and which are left un-denounced by McCain during his rallies.

Personally, I have been more angry over the past couple months than I can ever remember as a result of what's going on in the news. Maddow's humor actually allows me smile on occasion in the face of ethical, political, and media failure, without forgetting that these failures are serious and cannot be sustained. Thank you Rachel for helping me not feel so alone in this ridiculous, maddening, and sometimes unbelievable time.

Outright Lie.

Friday: A legislative investigator found that Palin violated state ethics laws and abused her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.

Saturday: "I'm thankful that the report has shown that there was no illegal or unethical activity there" - Gov. Sarah Palin

WTF?

McCain's foot goes missing...is found in his mouth.

This weekend, John McCain vowed to "whip" Obama's "you know what" in the final debate on Wednesday. Hmm...old white dude promises to publicly whip young black dude. Really?

Though McCain has dishonorably criticized Obama for being a Muslim, a Christian, and an Arab all at once, he's not stupid or racists enough to harken back to the days of slavery discipline when saying he'll "whip" Obama in the debate. It's just a lipstick on a pig figure of speech.

Even though McCain's not a bigot (really...I don't think he is), it's just not wise to say he'll "whip" his younger black opponent in public. Once again, McCain displays a Joe Biden-like quality of gaffing in his rhetoric.

My advice to McCain: slow down, breath, think, think again, revise your sentence, speak.

Debate

During the second question, one thing really struck me - when not behind a podium, John McCain's age is more apparent than ever. Last night, millions of Americans saw him hunched over, walking and gesturing slowly. McCain's age and health have been pretty well ignored throughout this campaign, but I think last night's performance, coupled with Palin's increasing publicity, could bring these issues out.

Betty Boop Palin

I'm in Disbelief

Our economy is the worst it's been in 70 years, and we're fighting a war in Iraq, while contemplating re-starting another in Afghanistan. These are facts.

Last night, Sarah Palin very notably smiled her way through a vice presidential debate. At times she winked at the camera, and yes even laughed. Is her physical affect a true representation of her assessment of the health of our country? If so, she is more out of touch with her constituents than even I believed.

More on Fox News

Orwell's Internet

Interesting story in Newsweek. Even though the Web lends a more democratic voice to Average Joe in developing countries, the regimes in power are actually using it in a big brother-like way to monitor and stifle speech and expression.

Debating the Truth

For anyone who watched the debate tonight, one thing that stood out was Obama constantly saying, "that's simply not true." Let's keep our research hats on over the next few months and make sure we investigate for ourselves what the campaigns, media outlets, and bloggers are feeding us.

We are the only ones responsible for what we believe.

McCain Wins Debate! Wait...what?

Yesterday, McCain wasn't even going to debate. Now his campaign is running ads that he wins the debate. I'm so confused...and so is the Washington Post

The Joker Meets the Decider

The UK Perspective

Check out comments on the debate debate from BBC's website. I'm glad to see that the usually biased BBC is not censoring comments. It's also a nice surprise to see a number of American blokes commenting.

I agree with Brandon Seyferth. If McCain thinks we should stop everything for the sake of the economy, then isn't it justly important to tell the American public how you're going to deal with today's crisis? Change the debate topic to the Economy, because as McCain has so dramatically pointed out, that is the most important issue this week.

How Web Rumors Spread, and How FOX News Snubbed Me.

For the hell of it, I was perusing FOX News' website yesterday and saw that the second headline from the top on the homepage was Biden Dropping Out? Rumor Thrives on Internet. Naturally this got my attention.


As is expected, the first paragraph of the article completely debunks the rumor, saying, "It’s almost certainly just a case of the telephone game gone high-tech." Then the article goes on for 28 additional paragraphs to explore why the Obama campaign might have made this decision (but they didn't) and what would happen if they had made this decision (but they didn't). Essentially, a FOX News web editor used premium headline space, 29 paragraphs of copy, and hundreds of thousands of viewer impressions for a story that is entirely fictitious. Fortunately, the social web allows us to respond and comment on this kind of stuff so that the public isn't mislead. Oh wait, this is the socialist web we're talking about...

Okay this is where I get really angry. When I saw the article last night, I wrote a "comment" suggesting that the decision of Biden to drop out was clearly bogus and I asked FOX News to please vet their stories before printing rumors on top, front page headlines. This morning when I woke up, my comment did not appear, but several other pro-Republican comments did appear. I checked back in a few hours and there were a few moderate to left leaning comments, but most were still republican. My comment still did not appear. So I wrote another comment:

"This is a rumor. Rumor's are not true. If Biden were really going to be dropping out then McCain would be all over it. This is a bogus rumor from the far right, trying to stir up the Republican base because Obama's poll numbers are higher. Welcome to politics."

There is nothing "unlawful, threatening, libelous, or obscene" that would prevent my comment from being posted according to FOX News' editorial guidelines (unless you consider poor grammar libelous). In fact, I affirmed the article's headline. Yet, several hours later my comment is still not published. The site entreats, "FOX News encourages you to participate in this discussion" but clearly this is a lie. Thank you FOX for knowingly spreading a rumor, and crushing any effort to hold up the truth.

Feed me your lies

Let's hear 'em. Comment or send me the most outrageous lie you've told, been told, or heard told (anonymous is okay).

I'll start. When I was 13 and getting contact lenses for the first time, I spilled a little gas on my shoes while filling up my mom's gas tank on the way to my eye doctor appt. At the doctor's office, other people started to smell gas and I was too shy to speak up so the police and three fire trucks were called. Firefighters walked all over the office building with air sensors trying to find the gas leak and I nearly pissed myself worrying that their detectors would lead them to my shoe like some kind of divining rod for liars. The office was closed for the rest of the day.

McCain can't pat his head and rub his tummy at the same time

McCain is postponing his campaign until congressional consensus is achieved on financial market legislation (likely by Monday). He is calling on the Obama camp to delay the first debate which is scheduled to be this Friday. He's apparently putting his country before himself.

Kudos Mr. Senator for deciding to help Americans only on the day that poll numbers have dropped you 9 points lower than Obama, your greatest deficit yet in the White House race. I suppose you would have put the country first when this crisis unmasked itself 10 days ago, had you known there was even a financial crisis going on. I suppose you would have put the country first when you rallied congress for deregulation of Lincoln Savings and Loan during the Keating explosion, had you known you would get caught.

McCain knows that most swing voters in America make their decision immediately after the first Presidential debate. He also knows that he is currently down in the polls significantly as a result of his inability to make sounds decisions regarding financial markets. He also knows that the financial markets are increasingly linked to foreign affairs, so this subject will come up in the debate on Friday.


In all fairness, McCain's move is bold and shows initiative. He appears sympathetic to the Nation by reigning in his own ambitions for the good of the country. But let's be honest here. McCain will go to Washington to rally congress to immediately pass this bill giving Bush and Paulson a blank check, unquestionable power, and no oversight. Bush wins, McCain appears bold, and Average Joe owes Congress $700 billion from his own pocketbook. Remember the Wizard of Oz? Bring him out from behind the curtain and suddenly he's not so benevolent.

I Love Arianna

Last week I was very fortunate to hear Arianna Huffington speak at the Web2.0 conference in NYC. What I like most about her is her passion! She feels so strongly that media should represent the people, not preach to the people. She deplores misinformation in the media, and welcomes feedback on her own writing. The Huffington Post is always on the lookout for new writers so if any of you have an opinion, speak up!

Washington Times meets Starship Trooper?

Has anyone seen the layout of the Washington Times Homepage? It looks like the control panel of a spaceship.

Pocket Google

Google announced its new mobile phone software, ensuring that the money loving company can generate ad revenue anywhere in the world.

Well, not anywhere. The biggest downside of the new Google enabled phone is that it will only be released in markets where T-Mobile's 3G network is available. The software can't run on slower networks. The software is being released on T-Mobile's G1 phone.

The coolest thing about the software, built on the Android platform, is that it is open, so anyone with the know-how can create an application for use on the software. This isn't particularly new (thank you Apple) but it's certainly pushing the philosophy of openness out to the rest of the world.

truth-0-meter

cool site

Truth is what you get other people to believe!

Thank goodness for friends. I didn't know what I was going to write about today, but I opened up gmail to find that my friend Balika saw my blog and the idea of "truth" struck a chord with her. She sent me the text of an acceptance speech by Tommy Smothers at the Emmy Awards this past weekend:

Tommy Smothers, accepting an award commemorating the "Smothers Brothers" comedy hour, quickly turned to politics.

"Freedom of expression and freedom of speech aren't really important unless they're heard," Mr. Smothers says, clutching the Emmy and wearing a purple tie. "So the freedom of hearing is just about as important as the freedom of speaking. And it's hard for me to stay silent when I keep hearing that peace is only attainable through war." (Mild applause.) "And there's nothing more scary than watching ignorance in action." (Loud applause.) "So I dedicate this Emmy to all people who feel compelled to speak out, and not afraid to speak to power, and won't shut up, and refuse to be silenced."

He seemed to be about to leave the stage, then returned to the microphone to add "one last thought." The word truth exists in every language, he says, and adds: "Truth is what you get other people to believe."

Talk about drama...but of course, it is the Emmy's! Seriously though, his comments on freedom of expression and freedom of speech are noble, idealistic, and naturally I couldn't agree with him more. Problem is, he undercuts himself in that last line, "truth is what you get other people to believe." So essentially, we all have the freedom to say whatever we want (and with the Internet, we truly do!) and regardless of efficacy, those preachers, reporters, writers, bloggers, etc. who are more convincing will have their ideas rise to the top as truth?

I actually don't agree that truth is what you get other people to believe. Most people's beliefs are ingrained in them by the time they're adults, so you're not likely to change anyone's beliefs. Instead, I think truth is when you say something that most people agree with. Example: Barack Obama is a Muslim. 19% of rural Americans believe this statement is true. So in a town like Findlay Ohio, Barack Obama is a Muslim. " It's a fact, my dad told me so." But in Washington, DC, my own town, Barack Obama is clearly not a Muslim. I'm not suggesting that Washington holds the high ground on truth, but this just goes to show you that truth is what most people believe, and that truth looks very different depending on where you are.

Truth vs. the Web

I like truth. I seek truth. Which is why I hate the web.

Well...that's not true, I don't hate the web. On the contrary, my job is the web. What I hate is how people are using the web. For instance, my uncle recently sent me an email about Barack Obama saluting the National Anthem. These are Barack's "words:"

"It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it."

Clearly a vetted presidential candidate did not say this (it's actually a satire from blogger John Semmens). Nonetheless, someone published this somewhere on the web, someone else linked to it or emailed it to a friend, and suddenly it's gospel. That's the problem with the web. Information spreads SO quickly that it's taken as fact before it's validated.

So, a customer could write scathing remarks about you on blogs or discussion boards faster than you can debunk or respond to their complaint. On the one hand, this empowers average joe to be a participant in society (writing about political candidates, writing about cable companies, writing about poor service at a coffee shop). Empowerment is great! Especially after tiresome decades of having news/information fed to us by large politically motivated media corporations.

Empowerment is also very very dangerous, in the case of my uncle who sends "news" around to his friends and family without verifying it. For some examples, lookup the keywords "barack," "palin," "mccain." Then check out the page count for any of the bogus looking posts to see just how many people are reading bogus information.