API Rides Again!

Another day, another ... oh, what the hell - another API update!

I'll give this - Fox's denial read that they were not in discussions to PURCHASE the tape. API said very early, we are selling - we are GIVING it away.

We'll see.

In part:

We assure the readers that if Fox News Network does not do as stipulated in the agreement, API will breach the secrecy deal stating that - there shall be no publicity of the details in the agreement page, by any of the parties involved in the deal. If that happens, API will make public all the email correspondences and the whole agreement with Fox News Network.



If things do not go as planned between API and Fox News Network, API will ensure that the contents of the tape will be released one way or another so that the People who have believed in us will continue putting their trust on us. The release of the tape is also important for API’s credibility



So stay tuned and listen to the tape very soon

.

Why I can’t vote for Obama

I moved in 2004. I had to re-register to vote. I had been registered as a Republican my entire life. I changed my registration to Independent.

Why? I don’t bail on friends in hard times. Whether or not President Bush did the right thing in going into Iraq, whether or not he handled the challenges of the post-hostilities era well, whether or not I agreed with his policies, he was still the Republican nominee and the titular head of the party. I felt that based on political expediency, the leaders of the party bailed on him. They looked at the opinion polls and split. Those are not people of conviction. They did not deserve to have me counted as one their registered members.

We elected Bush president. We re-elected him. You go home with the date that brought you. Good times and bad. The nice thing about politics is you can either vote someone out or they hit term limits. You don’t bail on them. There was no criminal or immoral conduct – there were policy differences. People that bail on people because of differences of opinion are weak.

A party so in love in the polls – which are so open to manipulation – is insulting. To bail on a president in wartime is even more insulting.

I watched as the hogs approached the trough for the 2008 anointing. None of them grabbed me – neither party. I listened to Romney and Huckabee. McCain didn’t seem to have a shot, and he was always more of a statesman to me than a fiery politician. I watched with amusement as Hillary plodded through. I always thought her negatives were too high to win anything. I saw Obama as an empty suit –words full of promise, but no clue how those promises could become reality.

No one impressed me. My assumption as late as Spring 2008 was that I would just stay home.

When McCain and Obama won their nominations I began to research both. I knew a lot about McCain because of his Republican affiliation. I learned a lot about Obama through exhaustive research.

McCain comes across to me as a person that wants to solve a problem. While I don’t agree with what he sees as a “problem” and more often don’t agree with his “solution,” he at least has that focus. I liked his dedication to the military far beyond the time when people were probably encouraging him to run for office. What I learned about him was what made him a man. His policies were neither grabbing nor offensive.

I have read a lot of Obama’s speeches. I studied his career. I didn’t view it by asking myself, “Do I agree with [this] policy or [that] policy.” I viewed it purely as I view people that I include in my personal life: “What do they think?”

What I learned about Obama disturbed me. I really could not care less if he is “socially progressive” or a socialist. What I found is a man lacking the temerity to stand up for what he believes. I found a man that would say one thing to one group and shy away from, even refute, what he said to another group. He is pro-abortion. I am not. That difference is fine. But at least vote for the abortion bills – don’t declare yourself “present.” I found a man that is not true to himself.

I found a man that is afraid to say, “Here is who I am.” That disturbs me greatly.

Part of it is his youth and swimming in waters too deep for him at this stage of his life. He has been at the center of a storm ever since the Columbia faculty spotted him. His move to Chicago was in response to a suggestion, not a journey of his own making.

“You can’t be a community organizer in this town without having a church,” he was told. So he found a church. He sought God for expediency? Not in my circle of friends. I would rather someone say, “Church is for people that need bricks and mortar for their spirituality.” He did not. He found a church instead.

Concerning Ayers and Klalidi, Obama has downplayed his relationships with them. The record is replete with years of discussions, years of working together. Why denounce them – or try to distance himself from them? Why couldn’t he say, “These are people whose paths crossed mine. I don’t adopt their views, but I listen. I don’t in horror from views that I find repulsive. I try to understand. It doesn’t change who I am, because here is here I am …” No. He did not. Why? Because Obama feared the public reaction. The very same reason I left the Republican Party.

Now that I see the man, I look to his policies. Everything I needed to learn, I learned last night in one of his commercials. The audio went something like this: “Are you a nurse making $60,000 a year? If so, under the Obama plan, your taxes will go down $1,000. Under the McCain plain, only $150.” The entire ad was buying votes. I find that repulsive.

I was in a test market group for an Obama ad that I have not seen on television yet. He compared himself to Gandhi, Einstein, and John Lennon: “Some people dare to change the world – only those that dare can actually do it.” Oh. My. God. Barry, brother, get a grip. It sounds good. May feel good. But you are so clueless on the realities. Vladimir the Terrible from the soon-to-be-back USSR is going to chew you up.

In the end result, I will vote for McCain. It is probably a three-part vote: Against Obama, for Palin (I think she is a true outsider), and against Biden (he is NOT from Scranton – I am. I detest interlopers. He left when he was ten for God’s sake. What were you doing at ten? “Mommy, I want another a cookie, and I promise to be good!” Joe, just shut up.).

I cannot vote for Obama because I do not believe in the man. I am sure he would be interesting to talk to. So would a lot of people. But if I cannot believe in the man, I cannot vote for him.

McCain it is.

palinize your yard!

[NOTE - this is an old trick been played as long as i ever knew. instead of political signs - as seems to be the norm now - you can light up all sorts of freestanding things! well, on second thought, i actually don't know what i'm doing, so don't follow my advice. that's a warning in the legal sense.]

today we're going to learn how to say "howdy!" to those pesky vermin that like to steal your political signs.

here's a parts list:

a car battery

a set of jumper cable (extra long!)

a McCain sign

and, of course, a yard!

here's a part you will not need (can't giving away the secret!):

the concept is simple. place your sign about four feet off the sidewalk - remember, it takes intent to make a thief! take one end of the jumper cable and attach it to one metal post on the sign. stretch the cable to its full length and find a bush to conceal the next step from the street. take the other end of the jumper cable - be sure to be using the same line that is attached to the sign - and attach that end to the POSITIVE post on the car battery. (note: the other ends of the jumper cables won't be used.)

now, be sure to cover the cable with leaves so that it won't be seen.

here's an overview of your completed system in action with optional plugs so you can disconnect the juice if desired.
(note - i don't understand the "ground contact," neutral," and "accidental contact" things. ignore those. our focus is on the "hot" and the kid with the new 'do.

now, sit back a few feet from a window in a darkened room and enjoy! you may want to focus a video camera on the sign so you can enjoy the fun throughout the coming presidential term!

Who is Chris Dodd? UPDATED Federal Prosecutors on it.

UPDATE - Federal prosecutors are now on the prowl. Chris Dodd is on a perp board! His quote is that he thought "VIP" meant he got special customer service and that his loans were at market rates. Prosecutors have several dem cabinet members (one pub) and the guys form Freddie and Fannie in their sights as well.

When the NBC Today Show is going after a democrat, you know it's gotta be obvious. Original post detailing Dodd's misdeeds throughout his career follows the updated video below.

Sometimes when I am feeling badly – perhaps down on my luck financially or just realized that I made a poor choice a few days ago, or perhaps now it is the flood of headlines that has Democrats telling us how they will reshape America following an election that they haven’t won yet – I try to picture someone else that has it worse than me.

As I lay in bed last night trying to grasp sleep from the steel claws of the moon shining in my eyes, I pictured Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT). An image came to me. I saw him fitfully tearing at his bed linens, the stench of alcohol and immorality filling his hotel room. I saw a partially completed suicide note next to a prescription medicine bottle. It was a note that he realized he wasn’t man enough to finish, so he started to make a grocery list instead; the bottle he realized he wasn’t man enough to open. A glass of water had been knocked onto the floor, its contents evident from the darkened rug. Woman’s clothes were strewn on the bed, but there was no sign of a woman; judging by the “2X” Dress Barn label, I concluded that in his private moments, Chris liked to dress in a way that made him feel pretty.

“Who is Christopher Dodd,” I asked myself. Here is the answer I gave.

Chris Dodd was born in 1944. He attended an expensive prep school, followed by an expensive college. His father was a two-term US Senator. Dodd married at 25 and got his law degree a couple of years later. Three years after that he was elected to the House, and after three terms moved up to the Senate in 1981. A year after joining the Senate, he divorced his wife of 12 years. The divorce was probably inspired by the lewd and salacious lifestyle he came to enjoy with his new BFF, Ted Kennedy.

Lewd? Salacious? In 1985, Theodore and Christopher double-dated. With their dates safely off to the ladies’ room to powder their noses, the two formed a "human sandwich" with a female waiter. With the waitress on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumped on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers. Naturally, the waitress screamed. Teddy got up and laughed. The waitress was not just shaken and angry, she was bruised. The two leaders in the Senate have a friendly argument over the check and leave.

Class acts. There’s plenty of documentation on the incident. Google “Kennedy Dodd Waitress Sandwich,” or start here.

Let’s talk money. In 2002 (referring to a then-current scandal but some 1995 Dodd legislation), Dick Morris went after him for Enron/Arthur Andersen. Now, if Dick Morris is going after you, you know the problem has got to blatant. Dick has all the investigatory skills and nuance of a dump truck.

Dick wrote: While many candidates of both parties have received campaign contributions from Enron and its self-serving "independent auditor" Arthur Andersen, very few have passionately fought their cause in Washington as diligently as Chris Dodd. Dodd has received more money from Arthur Andersen than any other Democrat - $54 843.00 - and has aggressively worked to insulate Arthur Andersen and other accounting firms from liability to defrauded investors in cases like Enron.

Moreover, it was on account of Dodd's tireless efforts that Arthur Andersen was able to act as both "independent auditor" and management consultant to Enron for $100 million a year, a role fraught with conflict -of -interest , that has been identified as one of the major causes of the debacle and an arrangement that makes a joke of the concept of outside auditors to protect shareholders.

In 1995, it was Dodd who jammed through legislation, overriding President Clinton's veto, to protect firms like Arthur Andersen from lawsuits in cases just like Enron. The Dodd bill limited liability for lawyers and accountants for "aiding and abetting" corporate fraud by their clients, making them liable only for their proportionate share of the blame, rather than for the entire fraud. So, if an accounting firm kept secret the true picture of a corporation's finances, it would only be liable for a percentage of the total fraud on the investors.

Dodd sought to protect aiders and abettors of fraud to some at-fault portion of the harm? That’s a helluva thing to ask a jury to figure out. Fraud is a tar baby – in for an inch, in for a mile. It’s what they call “Fair warning, mofo. Don’t go there.” And Dodd lessened the risk to perpetrators of fraud? Dang.

Let’s find out what else was happening during the 1995 period. PublicCampaign.org has scrubbed their website of Dodd and it looks like about everything else (here’s their home page), but good thing for the Internet Archive version of the Dodd page. I note that the Dodd page went away in late 2006, while the site seems to have stopped updating a full year after that.

On April 29, 1998, Dodd was awarded the “Golden Leash” by this organization. The award was inaugurated the month before, with the first recipient being Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL). Dodd was the first senator to receive the award. How quaint.

What is the “Golden Leash”? From the link: Public Campaign's Golden Leash Award focuses public attention on politicians who do particularly egregious favors for their cash constituents, highlighting their captivity to special interests at the expense of average voters, taxpayers and the public at large. Hunh. Sounds bad. Let’s find out what he did to earn the very first senatorial scarlet “GL.”

As examples of Dodd's generosity toward his major campaign financiers, Public Campaign's report cites the following examples: Dodd was an original cosponsor of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and he helped to organize the Senate's override of President Clinton's veto. It ultimately became law in 1995. While the industry said the law would cut down on frivolous securities lawsuits, many say the new law would make it easier to commit securities fraud on unsuspecting investors and more difficult for the victims of fraud to recover their losses.

The National Securities Market Improvement Act, another bill that Dodd fought earnestly for, was supposed to provide oversight of the mutual fund and securities industry. While it contained some good consumer provisions, it ultimately weakened oversight that would have protected investors. And, in October of last year, Dodd lined up as a cosponsor of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, an extension of the earlier securities litigation legislation. The bill was strongly supported by The Uniform Standards Coalition, an ad-hoc group of securities, accounting and high-tech computer firms. Even trial lawyers who opposed such securities litigation legislation, and heavy givers in their own right, especially to Democrats, could not compete with the industry's donations or lobbying efforts.

Rather than beef up consumer protections and enforcement for investors – at a time when more people are investing in stocks and mutual funds for their retirements – Congress is busy protecting Wall Street, with help from Senator Dodd. The Investment Company Institute, the main trade association for the mutual fund industry, reports that Americans currently have more than $1 trillion earmarked for their retirements invested in mutual funds. Most investors lack a basic understanding of financial terms and how investments work. Meanwhile, securities fraud is on the rise.

Of the $910,304 in campaign contributions that Senator Dodd received between January 1993 and December 1997, Wall Street and other investment firms came in as the heavy hitters, with firms like Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley, Salomon Brothers and others donating $523,551 in PAC and individual contributions. The accounting industry – perhaps the biggest winners in the 1995 securities litigation reform law – donated $345,903 in PAC and individual contributions. This includes such giants as Price Waterhouse, Ernst & Young and Coopers & Lybrand, among others. Deloitte & Touche's contributions to Senator Dodd increased nearly five-fold from 1995 to1996 soon after Congress passed the reform law the industry championed. The computer industry – a fairly new player in the campaign contribution field – ponied up $40,850 in contributions.

I always thought the phrase “pay to play” applied to prostitutes. Well, in a way I guess it still does.

That little piece of legislative history came back to bite you in the ass, eh Christopher? Good thing you got paid well for the fucking you gave America. I guess he’s more like a pimp than a working girl.

So Dick Morris nails him to the cross in 2002, the GL in his history, and who knows what has never seen the light of day. The pieces seem to be in place to suggest the boy is a little too close to the flame. Does he sense this and chill for a while? You know, just until nobody is looking? I mean, Enron was a pretty big thing. Not our Christopher.

In 2003, he pops a couple of Friend of Angelo refi’s : A 5-year, $506,000 loan at 4.25 percent on his WDC home, and a $275,042 mortgage on the Connecticut house was for 10 years at 4.5 percent. Must be nice being a friend of a guy that owned Countrywide, which wrote 11% of the mortgages in the entire country. More on this in a moment.

So can he at least shut his mouth? Seems not. In between Angelo Countrywide knee-padding Dodd in 2003, and Dodd assuming the reciprocal position in 2008, check out this intermissio:

In 2004, he vomited these words when speaking of Senator Robert “KKK” Byrd: ''I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment.'' He added: ''He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century.''

A member of the Ku Klux Klan “would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War”? The guy in the white robe and hood, riding a horse, and carrying on the tradition of lynching people based purely on the darkness of their skin?

Someone, explain to me why blacks vote for democrats. I don’t get it. Didn’t Trent Lott have his nuts roasted on an open fire for something approaching but nowhere close to this abomination of a statement? In all seriousness, W.T.F.?

Dodd said he was trying to say Mr. Byrd was a good senator and had not thought of his membership in the Klan or his efforts to derail the 1964 Civil Rights bill. Oh. That explains it.

Back to his Countrywide loans. The WSJ wrote in 2008 that: Mr. Dodd continues to insist that, though he knew he was a "special" Countrywide customer, he didn't think he was getting any special financial benefit. But a $75,000 reduction in mortgage payments is no small matter for anyone living on a Senate salary of $169,300.

It doesn’t stop there. Back to the “Friend of Angelo” link above comes this: Dodd has filed six financial disclosure statements since obtaining the mortgages in 2003. In the five reports he has made to the secretary of the Senate, as well as the 2007 report he filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics as a presidential candidate, Dodd disclosed only one mortgage: the 20-year, 4.8 percent variable-rate loan he obtained from the Allied Irish Bank in 2002 on his cottage on the island of Innishnee in the Connemara district of Ireland’s County Galway.

He didn’t disclose them? Did he forget about that three-quarters of a million dollars in debt?

Back to the WSJ published on June 19, 2008: Dodd announced that he was bringing to the Senate floor a housing bailout sure to help lenders like Countrywide.

How much will Countrywide benefit from Mr. Dodd's rescue? The Senator's plan allows mortgage lenders to dump up to $300 billion of their worst loans on to taxpayers via a new Federal Housing Administration refinancing program, provided the lenders are willing to accept 87% of current market value. The program will be most attractive to lenders and investors holding subprime and slightly-less-risky Alt-A loans made during the height of the housing bubble in 2006 and 2007.

Yeah, OK. But if there’s a real problem – which we have recently found out there was big time – we need the learned people in WDC to write legislation and solve it. I know they are generally a’holes – but they’re our a’holes, right?

But wait. Dodd announced the legislation, but Bank of America wasn’t done writing it yet! “BoA?” you ask, “where do they enter this?” They bought Countrywide. And apparently Dodd.

I’ll give him this – the dude knows who his friends are and he takes care of them.

We’re not even going to go into his defense of all these companies – including Fannie & Freddie – as the collapse became real.

This guy is filthy.

Thinking of Chris Dodd makes me feel better about myself.

A cloud broke the moon’s hold on me, and I drifted peacefully to sleep.

could craig v. scioto prove bambi's undoing?

UPDATE: Berg case (Philadelphia) filed with SCOTUS today.

The Bambi Birth Certificate hearing was this morning. Very interesting summary in this article.

The state's position is this:

"... the allegations in the Complaint are nothing but speculation and inadmissible hearsay. There is no evidence in the Record that Senator Obama was born in Kenya, or that he somehow lost his United States citizenship during his time in Indonesia. Mr. Neal's allegations are anything but 'clear or free from reasonable doubt' ," the attorney general's brief stated.

Mike Schuler and Steven McGann, representatives from the Ohio Attorney General's office, also appeared this morning in Warren County Common Pleas Court, filed the state's brief and said nothing during the hearing.

That's IT?

Read the article linked in the post below this. On the point of "no evidence in the Record" above, see this:

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

The burden is not on the plaintiff according to the quote above. Bambi CLAIMS he is eligible, CLAIMS he satisfies the express requirement of the Constitution. Since when do we have to prove a negative? That he was NOT born here? That is unworkable. He has to prove it.

And where does the state get off setting the standard at "clear or free from reasonable doubt"? That's a criminal standard - used in reverse! It suggests that Bambi is a natural-born citizen merely by claiming it unless a contestant can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not. This is a civil case - not a criminal case. Why even mention a criminal standard?

Do we really think the Founding Fathers intended it to be that way? It seems to me that an affirmative duty is placed upon the candidate to establish to at least a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is qualified to run for office.

The most interesting part to the Ohio case is that the state remained silent during the hearing.

There is one Ohio case I found that is instructive. THE STATE EX REL. CRAIG v. SCIOTO COUNTY, 882 N.E.2d 435 (2008).

The test seems to be three-fold: (1) a board of elections and its members are about to exercise quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law; and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.

The court first looked at the timeliness of the complaint (barred via "laches"), which was asked about in this hearing to (plaintiff said - the Philadelphia case looked like it would solve it, so I wanted until it was clear it would not): "The elements of laches are (1) unreasonable delay or lapse of time in asserting a right, (2) absence of an excuse for the delay, (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the injury or wrong, and (4) prejudice to the other party." The Court went on to say: "The board of elections and its members are correct that an unjustified delay in submitting a protest in an election case can result in laches."

Was waiting until Philadelphia failed legitimate? The question may be answered in whether the statement was rebutted. If it was, it had to be in the brief, because the state was silent at the hearing.

The next issue is the first prong of the three-fold test: Did the Board of Elections exercise its authority to deny plaintiff's request to remove Bambi? I don't have the complaint, and the article doesn't tell us. It's troubling to me that the Board of Elections is not mentioned in the article, just the state AG.

Discussing the second prong, specifically whether the candidate met the requirements to run for the office, the Court wrote: "Craig established the second requirement for the writ by showing that Reed did not meet the supervisory-experience requirement ..." It does not say how he established it - whether through simple allegations or evidence. If allegations, then Bambi is in trouble. How could it be proven through evidence in every situation anyway? Seem slike proving a negative.

The third prong - adequate remedy at law - was tossed aside by the Court. The election was too close, it stated.

The suit won. The candidate was removed from the ballot.

Seeing Bambi challenged and won in removing all of his adversaries from the State Senate race, wouldn't this be sweet?

A decision is due Friday (October 31) at noon.

iowahawk says: play with your own balls

Here's on the best views on polls that I have ever read.

We are seeing polls all over the place - same day, same sample size, vastly different results. How does that happen? I've read about different weightings of dems to pub, different days of the week (pubs tend to be less available on weekends). The structure of a poll to skew the results seem endless.

Iowahawk suggests that there is an urn which contains just red ball and blue balls. The task is to sample the balls by drawing some out, and to estimate the total contents. It's a flawed premise. Yes, we have no other way, but it doesn't make it less flawed.

Iowahawk writes, in part, when trying to count the number of blue balls and red balls in an urn, consider the following:

• What if 40% of the balls have personally chosen to live in an urn that you legally can't stick your hand into?
• What if 50% of the balls who live in the legal urn explicitly refuse to let you select them?
• What if the balls inside the urn are constantly interacting and talking and arguing with each other, and can decide to change their color on a whim?
• What if you have to rely on the balls to report their own color, and some unknown number are probably lying to you?
• What if you've been hired to count balls by a company who has endorsed blue as their favorite color?
• What if you have outsourced the urn-ball counting to part-time temp balls, most of whom happen to be blue?
• What if the balls inside the urn are listening to you counting out there, and it affects whether they want to be counted, and/or which color they want to be?

Read it all here.

finally, a constitutional analysis of bambi's birth cert game

I haven't finished absorbing this yet, but the read was great. Need time to digest it. The first few paragraphs of OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN below. Another link at the bottom.

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Finish reading OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN.

A Democrat explains it all to me: Racist, Redneck, Bitter, Clinging

I don’t understand democrats. They crucify W for telling the world concerning the war on terror that “you are either with us or against us.”

“How unseemly,” they intoned. “How utterly simplistic.” “Mr. Bush just does not understand nuance. It is humiliating to listen to him. Buffy, more Austrian wine?”

Yet here they are espousing the very same logic. If we don’t vote for Obama, it is because we are “racist.” How many articles do we have to read that tell us, “Only racism can defeat Obama now.”

The interpretation to me is this: “If we win, we are right; if we lose, you are wrong.”

Gee, thanks. So why, precisely, am I wrong? So let’s have an imaginary conversation with a Democrat …

“Well, you just don’t grasp the larger issues. First, you are racist. The mere thought of an African-American president gives you pause. Momentarily, perhaps, but pause just the same. The mere fact that you would hesitate for even a second in voting for Obama proves that his skin color is dispositive to you. That is shameful. I wish I could find the words to explain to you the debt that we owe people of all colors. You need to understand the concept of Affirmative Action. We owe Senator Obama the presidency. It will go such a long way in relieving our national guilt.”

But he has no executive experience! He has done little but merely occupy one office while he planned to or actually did run for the next office! Guilt? Slavery was abhorrent. I’m with you. But I feel no guilt about what people did 130 years ago. They hung horse thieves then, too – am I supposed to be against capital punishment as some sort of make-up for those mistakes?

“Please don’t interrupt. Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand your, shall we say, situs. You were raised by rednecks and are only following that course. It is not much different, perhaps, than being raised by wolves and then being expected to understand table manners. I understand.”

You calling my daddy a redneck? Do you even know what that means?

“Shush! Further, this redneck-bias within which you were raised causes you to be, quite naturally, fearful of change. You don’t grasp Keynesian economics, for example. A concept as simple as removing the option for you to exercise your Marginal Propensity to Consume in favor of the Tax Multiplier is beyond your, shall we say, knowledge set. So in your fear, you grab the relics of old – a Bible and a gun. Oh, how I wish you could see yourself!”

I got a mirror right here.

“Don’t you see your insolence? I’m sorry – your disrespect? Please, I am trying to be helpful. Let me see if I can break it down for you.

“Life is a lottery. People win and lose without logic. We need to redistribute wealth from the winners amongst the losers. It is only fair.”

Sounds Marxist to me.

“You’ve read Marx? I am surprised.”

No, I suggest that you are shocked. You see, surprise is a good thing and shock a bad thing. You wish I had not read Marx. In fact, you wish – you presume – that I am illiterate.

“Illiteracy is natural for you. It results from a lack of desire to learn. I don’t mean that in an aggressive manner whatsoever. You are from whence you came. Have you read Dostoevsky?”

Whittaker Chambers?

“Immanuel Kant?”

John Locke?

“Annie Besant?”

Adam Smith?

“Robert Tressell?”

Speaking of rednecks. You referenced John Maynard Keynes. Have you actually read his theories? I think you missed half of them.

“This is pointless. Let’s get back on track. Society is a collective. The power of many thinking and acting with similar goals is desirable. We aim to achieve that by removing individuality.”

Thank you for your honesty.

“Individuality, you see, is the very foundation of evil in society.”

Sounds like you’ve read Ayn Rand. Isn’t evil a recognition of good? Isn’t good a recognition of God?

“There you go. Don’t you see how you so desperately cling to your, and I hesitate to even glorify them with this word, theories? You have this concept of an intelligent being that can read your minds, can change your lives, can help you to overcome your enemies. It’s embarrassingly naïve.”

Count me in.

“Of course. Please stop interrupting. We need to accept that we are all here for the same purpose, which is to achieve a greater common good. It is simply not possible for that to occur with the existing inequities. It is incumbent upon us to correct historical deficits both as a present offering and as an on-going institution. It is beyond any concept of right and wrong; it is just in the most ancient of traditions.”

A surgeon needs to cut before she can heal?

“I am glad you understand.”

Don’t confuse understanding with accepting.

“You are impossibly obstinate. Let me try another tack on the forward sail, shall we? Let’s discuss your love of weaponry.”

Please.

“The homicide rate in America is the highest among civilized countries due, almost exclusively, to handguns.”

So you like England’s model better?

“Much more enlightened, yes.”

Have you checked their rape and burglary rates? 500% to 700% of ours.

“I don’t bother with statistics that deviate from the view I enjoy.”

You ignore facts?

“I focus my research.”

You’re funny.

“I find you humorous, as well, perhaps in a different way. Now, please stop interrupting. I was explaining how a more perfect union can be formed.”

You’re quoting the Constitution?

“No, Senator Obama’s remarks at the Constitutional Center.”

How’s that Kool-Aid taste?

“What Kool-Aid?”

Nevermind

“As I was instructing you, it is our duty to share our personal fortunes with others less fortunate. Surely, you agree.”

I do not agree, and don’t call me Shirley. Here is what I see. I work hard and maybe find some success. Then when I do break through, you take away my success and spread it to people that refused to work as hard as I did.

"Racist!”

Socialist!

“Stupid little person!”

Here’s the card for a plumber when the rose petals you put in your toilet clog up your lateral.

“Thank you.”

Welcome.

African Press International UPDATE.

UPDATE - I post some articles on Real Clear Politics. Folks have been saying that certain anti-O articles have been disappearing. This one just did from RCP. Interesting, eh? UPDATE 2 - And now my username went inactive. This happened to me before with RCP. But I am not violating TOC. I know I am clean. Others have experienced these same issues. The thought is that there is someone inside RCP playing games. I e'd them.

African Press International has just released an update on the alleged Michelle Tape. These guys are wearing thin.

What’s the crack about “security reasons”? It’s a tape of a loudmouth racist who don’t know nothing about national security issues. I’m just angry with these clowns. Just releases the fricking thing. Cram it into an MP3 and torrent the damn things. Get it over with.

A final agreement has been reached between African Press International (API) and Fox News Network (USA) on the dates to air the Michelle Obama tape arising from a discussion Mrs Obama had with the API two weeks ago. The show will take place any day/time from now, with a 15 minutes alert on when it is to take place. Other programmes will be interrupted. This is a precaution taken to avoid interference from any quarter.

In the agreement, Fox News Network will broadcast 39 minutes of the 54 minutes long tape. The whole tape cannot be aired unedited due to security reasons and especially due to the explosive political temperature in the country because of the Presidential elections that is just around the corner, November 4th.
The tape will be aired in two portions by two separate units in the Network. API’s representative will appear live in one of the shows.

The parties have agreed that the information to be released to the public on the agreement will not include the naming of the units at Fox News Network that will air the tapes in order to avoid outside pressure and influence of any kind before the show has taken place. Nondisclosure of the name of the shows that will air the tapes has become necessary due to pressure from groups interested to block the release of the contents to the public.

Due to a huge interest in the tapes shown by some private individuals, groups belonging to some political camp(s) and persons connected to a section of an intelligence network, it has been decided that the 54 minutes long unedited tape is to be kept outside the United States in safe custody of one of API’s Lawyers based in Ontario, Canada.

The day and time schedules of the broadcast will only be announced 15 minutes before the Show begins in order to avoid attempts to block the Show from airing the tapes.

Any pressure from any outside forces that may want to know the exact day and time schedule of the Show before-hand or any other details in the agreement will get no answers to their requests either from API or Fox News Network.

The decision to have the above information public was a difficult one due to the sensitivity of the case and huge interest against, and for, the release of the contents of the tape for public consumption.

((1/s)O *fC ) > ((1/t)M * fP), so what's bambi's point?

UPDATE: Someone at Free Republic suggested reducing this to bumper-sticker size. How's this:

McCain's president is more popular than Obama's Congress

You know how Bambi nails Johnny Mac for “voting with President Bush 95% of the time”? Like it’s a bad thing?

Consider the construction: People do not like “P.” If you want to make “M” look badly, associate him tightly with “P.” Do this by showing a correlation of “M” to “P” through variable “v.”

The resulting equation is this: vM = P

It shows the portion of “M” that is equal to “P.” Through this equation, we just need to change Bambi’s words a little: “95% of McCain is the same as Bush.”

Simple enough.

Now assume there are two competing entities, “M” and “O.” The idea is to create a disparaging association. We already know the direction of “O”: Associate “M” with “P.”

“M” decides to use “C” against “O.” “C” is the democrat Congress.

The resulting equation is this: vO = C

I need to distinguish Mac’s and Obama’s voting correlation variable, so I will change them to “t” for Mac and “s” for Obama.

We need one more piece. The assumption is that being associated with “P” or “C” is a bad thing. But how bad? Let’s add variable “f” for favorably rating.

The equations are now:

tM = fP

sO = fC

Now I run headlong into my lack of statistical acumen. I need the equation to yield an answer! So let’s reconfigure:

tM * fP = X

sO * fC = Y

The result can now tell us if X > Y or X < Y, that is, if Mac’s resulting rating is “better” or “worse” than Bambi’s rating.

I have one more logical issue. The higher the value of “t” (or “s”) leads one logically to presume that it is “more bad.” That is, Bambi states 95% in a way that leads one to believe that if it was 70% it would be better for Johnny Mac. I can achieve this by using the reciprocal of the value of “t.” As Mac’s and Bambi’s correlation of voting with W or Congress decreases, the resulting values of “X” and “Y” will increase.

For example, assume that Mac voted with W 100% of the time, 75%, 50%, and 25%. Assume W’s favorability remained constant at 20%. The equation would yield answers of 20, 27, and 40 (using whole numbers). The less often that Mac votes with W the better; higher the resulting rating, the better.

The final equations are this:

(1/t)M * fP = X

(1/s)O *fC = Y

The next issue is that we want as long a record for “t” and “s” as possible. The more data of voting allegiance, the better, right? So we are going to take the latest information possible. Also, variables M and O remain constant at 1. This leads to the only true variables in the equations being the favorability rating of W and Congress.

Let’s put some data and form to these equations. I am going to use Real Clear Politics for source info, using the “Approve” data, found here for the President and here for the Congress.

The specific values I use for “fP” and “fC” are a straight average for every poll listed by month. For W, the data represents 290 polls; for Congress, 139 polls.

I’ll use Bambi’s claim of 95% allegiance for Mac, and the Open Congress calculation of 96% party allegiance for Bambi. Interestingly, OC claims that Bambi abstains 46% of the time – probably influenced by his running for POTUS since Day 1.

The final equations and fixed values are:

(1/t)M * fP = X

(1/s)O *fC = Y



(1.0526)1 * fP = X

(1.0417)1 *fC = Y

The last step that I want to add is a column that equals Y/X (called “Z”). The thought is that the stronger the argument by Bambi (Mac’s association with a disliked president outweighs his association with a disliked Congress), then the higher the value of Z. The actual calculation is:

(Y/X) * 100 = Z

If the arguments cancel each other out, then Z would equal 100. If Bambi could cast stones because he doesn’t line in a glass house, then Z would be substantially above 100. To the degree that his house is made of plate glass, the closer Z comes to 100 (and perhaps even following below it in the instance when he has shattered glass around his feet in the same manner Bill Ayers has the flag at his feet).

Date	fP	fC	X (Mac)	Y (Bambi)	Z (Y/X)
October 2008	25.7%	15.7%	27.1	16.4	61
September 2008	29.3%	18.9%	30.8	19.7	64
August 2008	30.4%	17.4%	32.0	18.1	57
July 2008	29.2%	18.3%	30.8	19.1	62
June 2008	29.5%	18.5%	31.1	19.3	62
May 2008	29.8%	18.7%	31.4	19.5	62
April 2008	20.1%	21.0%	30.6	21.9	72
March 2008	30.7%	21.4%	32.3	22.3	69
February 2008	32.7%	24.0%	34.4	25.0	73
January 2008	32.9%	24.7%	34.6	25.7	74
December 2007	33.9%	25.0%	35.7	26.0	73
November 2007	32.6%	22.5%	34.3	23.4	68
October 2007	33.5%	24.1%	35.3	25.1	71
September 2007	32.9%	26.0%	34.6	27.1	78
August 2007	32.0%	22.2%	33.7	23.1	69
July 2007	30.8%	27.4%	32.4	28.5	88
June 2007	30.9%	25.4%	32.5	26.5	82
May 2007	33.2%	33.7%	34.9	35.1	101
April 2007	34.8%	37.1%	36.6	38.6	105
March 2007	33.9%	31.7%	35.7	33.0	92
February 2007	33.6%	34.1%	35.4	35.5	100
January 2007	34.4%	34.3%	36.2	35.7	99

Here’s chart of X, Y, and Z. Click to enlarge.


Seems like Bambi’s argument isn’t all that strong, eh?

UPDATE - Post Script - Yes, I clearly could have just said: Bambi votes just as often with Congress, and their rating is substantially lower than W's. But that would not have been any fun. Right?