Too Much to Debunk or Those Who Don't Fact Check Should

This is the single worst article I've ever read. I'm not joking.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/29/is-obama-losing-his-grip-on-reality/

Paragraph 1:
The phrasing here posits that the only correct answer for the President to make is to admit that he isn't a valid President due to the place of his birth; if it isn't true doesn't he have the right to speak out against a lie?

Paragraph 2:
“Childish Rant of a compulsive thug who bamboozled...” only applies if you believe he isn't a valid presidential candidate. This is empty rhetoric, it's written to evoke a set of thoughts and emotions.

Paragraph 3:
Of course the man is aware that people don't think he was born in the United States. He only has to address his invalidity to the position if he is indeed stating his invalidity (which he is not).

Paragraph 4:
Hawaii doesn't release the original copies ( http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf )
Oil spill, what is Obama supposed to do? Swim to the bottom of the gulf and plug it up himself, but more importantly, at the time of their vacation the oil was no longer spilling. There is much cleanup to be done, but what is Obama going to do about that? Whisk it away with his African magic?

Paragraph 5:
see paragraph 4 notes above.

Paragraph 6:
Beyond the wild, unfounded conjecture of this paragraph sits a bold faced lie, that the President, called a cheater, “in his own words knows that he is ineligible to serve as president and realizes that he is over his head because the American people will demand the truth about him.” No where in the Brian Williams interview does he say anything remotely like this.
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38907780/ns/nightly_news )

Paragraph 7:
Is a single line that makes a very good point, unfortunately, it continues to invoke an idea that his little basis in fact.

Paragraph 8:
Barack Obama cannot control the free speech of his “former” pastor, whose remarks have already caused the President grief during his Presidential campaign.

The only thing Barack Obama supports about partial birth abortions is a clause to allow them in situations where the mother's life is in danger. Abortion is legal in the United States, as for his “pandering to killers such as Planned Parenthood” he is a “Pro-Choice” politician, it's a part of his platform to support a thing that is allowed by the laws of the land, abortion (though any citizen is allowed their opinion on it's morality). As of 2003, partial birth abortions are banned in the United States; the ruling of the supreme court upheld it in 2007 as well. However morally reprehensible one may find the idea of partial birth abortions, support for the idea does not make one a criminal or unfit to lead. Dissent is part of what makes this country great.

The hyperlink to his “upbringing” shows a very rational response (in newsweek) to the myriad of influence he encountered in his international upbringing, which may be bizarre but the link to his “bizarre and dysfunctional” childhood is simply a link to his mother's wikipedia page. “Devoid” has to do with hosting his grand-mother's funeral service at a Unitarian church, and his bouncing from church to church. The man calls himself a Christian, who is anyone to say he isn't? Isn't that between the individual and the God that he believes in? The “Christianity” link is to an indonesian site, that supports the Kenyan birth idea and if anything, explains his lack of religiosity as a child as well as the reason why he was registered as a muslim in the indonesian public school system (because his step-father was a Muslim and the father's religion determined the religion for the records).

Kenyan Birth Certificate debunking:
( http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/feature/2009/08/03/birthers_kenya )

The “become” link again references the above linked newsweek article (which is a pretty good read I might add).

the final link in paragraph 8 leads to a conspiracy/UFO website that has plenty of 9/11 truth information on it. 9/11 “truthers” believe conspiracy theories about US complacency or involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Signing the 9/11 Truth petition is what got Van Jones in so much trouble as being unamerican. Although I don't believe in “poisoning the well” I have a tendency to doubt information coming from the same sources as 9/11 truth BS. And as somewhat of a non sequitur, logically if Barack Obama is so horribly anti-American, why would a site associated with such unamerican things as 9/11 truth be outing him, as someone who suffers from “narcissistic personality disorder,” which is, I might add, not being done by a trained psychologist after a proper amount of sessions and perhaps a peer review – just a poster on a comments area of the site.

Paragraph 9:
the link that highlights, “groveling,” is a link to his constitutional support of the the constitutional right to freedom of religion. While the sentence continues without basis with,” at the feet of those with terrorist ties,” though possibly an Ayers reference, I'm confused as to the connection the author is attempting as the remainder of the paragraph deals with Arabs and Islam – Rauf perhaps? But Rauf's refusal to denounce HAMAS as a terrorist group doesn't make him someone with “terrorist ties.” Rauf has a track record as a bridge builder, in not denouncing HAMAS he is keeping a connection with borderline muslims who would take his denunciation as proof of his westernization (which translates as roughly with the ignorant and uninformed of the muslim world as anti-islamic as muslim translates to anti-american to the ignorant and uninformed here).

Barack Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia. People do that to kings. Our last president held his hand. If he's bowing to his “saudi masters” it's not because he's a Muslim, it's because our country is, and has been, in too tight with this repressive regime with the extra deep pockets.

The Clintons had an Eid al-Fitr (end of Ramadan) dinner in 1996; Bush started the Ramadan iftar tradition following 9/11. I'll throw that one back at you again, Bush started the Ramadan iftar tradition following 9/11, and continued it throughout his presidency. If you have a problem with it, it's not with Obama, that's just a scapegoat move.

Paragraph 10:
A single line, containing another linking to Obama's support for partial birth abortion, without stating his view of the matter, his defense of partial birth abortions when the mother is in danger. It' also contains some of his less stellar political moments. He's a politician, just like every other politician on the hill – to put my own value judgement on it: he's better than some and worse than others – just like the rest. A Christian is allowed a personal relationship with the God he or she believes in, Democrats have traditionally been pro-choice, and yes this is a very touchy and uncomfortable choice for any believer to make, but ultimately – he's a democrat, that's the platform they support and that is politics.

Paragraph 11:
A single line suggesting he's mentally ill with a link to the Mayo Clinic's definition of narcissistic personality disorder. No ties to Obama beyond the conjecture the reader may choose to draw.

Paragraph 12:
Well, thinking that you get the powers of what you eat is a little crazy, otherwise, who cares?

Paragraph 13:
A single line questions his parents... Aren't his parents, namely his Kenyan father, the one of two parts to the case of the whole “birther” movement? But just to play along, check google and look at the pictures, or look here:
( http://www.obamamagazine.com/?p=88 ) I'm no expert, but I think there's a resemblance – especially with the Barack Sr. pipe photo.

And, if you really want to read about Frank Marshall Davis being Barack Obama's father, check here:
( http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-real-father-connecting-dots.html ) it's way easier than trudging through the nine minute video the author links to (which, BTW, includes a casting of Davis' astrology chart(s)). Lastly, communist or not, Frank Marshall Davis was an American citizen, born in Arkansas – died in Hawaii.

Paragraph 14:
Showing a photo ID to vote constitutes a poll tax, which just so happens to be unconstitutional.
( http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/4873 )

The link “opposes” links to the same site as referenced in paragraph 10, then continues into rhetoric about how “illegals can vote for socialists like him who will allow them to stay in the country,” because illegals are here to take money from? Taxpayers I suppose is the connection I'm supposed to make, but I'm not sure how they do it. More importantly, America, land of opportunity is full of hard working immigrants who are here both legally and illegally, making a life for themselves and their families. Do I agree with illegal immigration? Nope, but it's a fact of life and until people stop hiring them it's not going to stop. So when a corporation of some sort hires an illegal immigrant at an illegally low wage who's money are they taking? (the implication is that Americans don't work for that little, 'cause they don't.)

As for the Huddle study, yup, those illegals sure do cost the tax payer some dough: ~$67 per year (20 Billion divided by 300 million). Also, you don't have to be, but I am for public education. I think we could do it better, I think the system needs updating and … dare I say, regulating? And I don't care who goes to it. The more education a group of immigrants can get, the more “american” they're going to be in fewer generations.

Also, I am a firm believer that if our national guard is to be taking on any additional duties, being called into active service, it shouldn't be to fight wars on the other side of the world, but to observe and protect the borders of the country – especially with violence spilling in from the drug cartels and their ties to both terrorism and human smuggling (which I think are far more important than stopping the flow of drugs to American streets).

As for, “bankrupt the country” (the huddle link), what about our exorbidant military budget, or the fact that we're in two costly wars in other countries, and two invisible wars around the world (on drugs and terror)? How much do those cost?

Paragraph 15:
Conjectures about Brian Williams's thoughts are something we can all think about, but none can know. As for why did Obama bring up his Christianity, Williams prodded him to do so with his remarks about the recent PEW servay that sheds light on the opinions of the people of the US by taking a slice of their opinions, specifically regarding the religion of the president. (this time it's the “Christian” link that directs the reader to the well written newsweek article from July 2008)

the link, “continues to lie” takes the reader to an AP article that is simply quotes from the Williams interview, with little explanation or extrapolation.

the next link, “says” takes the reader to the same AP article that is simply quotes from the Williams interview, with little explanation.

Paragraph 16:
I don't know anything about Hawaii's “Obama File” but the link goes to a website that calls itself “an historical archive” and to its benefit has apparently been selected by the library of congress to be archived, http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/ which really only means that it's seen as a cultural artifact.

That said, the idea of dual citizenship is AS close as I think it gets to questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, that said, however, he is not a dual citizen, and has not been for over twenty years. He didn't have to take any classes to be a citizen of the US. I'm not a lawyer, but if there is anything that rings true in this article, it's this, but no one is hiding this. It's on a government web page.

Paragraph 17:
see paragraph 16 statements above.

Paragraph 18:
More empty, one-sided rhetoric.

Paragraph 19:
“The country can move on once he is removed from office for ineligibility, election fraud, wire fraud, racketeering, and extortion.  Now let’s get past all the foolishness and oust him from Washington, DC, along with all the congressional and judicial bad actors who contributed to this ghoulish charade.”

except for ineligibility, all of those crimes have been committed (in some combination) by our last two presidents (at least). But seriously, racketeering? Extortion? Wire fraud?

Election fraud? Well, maybe... but did HE do it, was it his idea? (same for Bush II)

best part about this article is that it's done. 19 paragraphs, 3 hours of my day and hardly even a half truth out of the whole damn thing. I did get to read a pretty well written newsweek article though.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html

Oh what a day.

I have a heavy heart tonight. I'm having a really hard time with things that are going on in the world at large, and my little world is feeling rather topsy turvy. I'm reading, "the gospel according to Jesus Christ" by Jose Saramago and it is some powerful stuff. Real sensitive subjects for me. Fatherhood, innocence, innocence lost, the mistakes we make as people; the pain of wondering about forgiveness and if it can ever be achieved. Echoes of the interplay between faith and works and the conversations I have with my dad. The book is f'n brilliant. I've got homework to do and I can't put it down except to come down from the emotional high Saramago gives his readers.

otherwise, great day off. My cousin is sick. If you read this and you do this kind of thing, pray for him.

an end to political advertisement

I want an end to political advertisement on television. I don't ever want to see and hear another commercial for or against candidate X, or any one he/she/it is running with or against. Twisting arguments, twisting sound-bytes, pictures in motion to make someone look at least as foolish as we all hope they're not all for price. The price to make the commercial is raised by the cost of the air-time required to show it.

Somehow I've got to find a way to show a.) that advertisement shouldn't be covered by the freedoms of the second amendment, or at least hope for a way for us to all just agree that political advertisement is a waste of time and money.

Fuck. Why can't we just agree to keep political advertisement off the air? Who wants to see this shit. This money is better suited for other things. Build a homeless shelter, a food pantry, invest it in local education, give it as scholarships to institutions of higher education, plaster a name all over it - name it and claim it for all I care - just get it off the airwaves.

Yes, I'm basically against advertisement in general - I can't shake the feeling that the money is better used elsewhere - but if political ads are refused airtime, THAT money can be better spent. State campaigns and campaigns for the houses of representatives on the national level, governor races - let journalists rake the muck, let the internet handle the meme takedown, let the campaign funds show more than just trumped up and dumbed down charges for or against a candidate. Put that money in the street.

If there aren't TV advertisement needs:
1.) little candidates don't need deep pockets - the people can get a field of candidates to choose from
2.) big candidates don't need AS MUCH investment and don't get as indebted to their contributors

think of it this way, if four candidates are buying air time from a station that financially supports one of them, three candidates can be considered to be paying for the fourth's campaign. How dumb is that?

to pass through as a traveler

there is an idea in Ibrihimic faiths (specifically Christianity and Islam) that we should, in the words of Jesus (UHBP), "____________" and be in the world, but not of it. There are ahadith attributed to Mohammad, PBUH, where he recommends to "be in this world like a traveler or a wayfarer."

In regards to Christianity, I feel like this has been used to keep Christians out of politics and creating beautiful change in the world. And similarly for Muslims. However, if you think about it, another aspect of traveling, of uninvolvement has less to do with say, participating in politics, than just taking sides in general. If our intentions, if our actions are not in line with what is right, good and true, if we're picking sides - but both sides are wrong, or not all right - everything is basically the same.

Whether you're a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist or anything else, really, choosing one side to the detriment of another is something a traveler rarely does - and something a resident does regularly. It's as though the temperance of uninvolvement with doing good has been lost. Is there really anything ever wrong with trying your best to do the most good for the most people? It's not about political parties, or fighting wars, or even fighting oppression - just do the good, keep yourself focused on right action, keep your conscience clear and your intentions pure.

To me, this doesn't mean stay out of the good fight, it means that picking one over another, damaging one in the name of another can be just as damaging either side you pick. So pick the side of awesomeness and quit being so ethnocentric.

Science is Really Awesome or World Weather Systems; what was once the hand of God is now the domain of Men

I've spent my last evening before the big move awed into a stupor reading about the jet stream, the dust bowl, the fires in Russia and the floods in Pakistan. Last night, one of the most amazing Thunderstorms blew through my state, no threat of a cyclone but 60+ MPH winds, one gust actually shook my apartment building - or perhaps we were hit by lightning, either option seems a little unbelievable to me - needless to say I am really curious about the weather today. Especially since the weather is one of the few things that actually scares the excrement out of Maddy (fortunately not literally).

I started today's journey by looking into the weather forecast for the rest of the week and looking into the phrase "active jet stream" that somebody on the weather channel mentioned, but did not discuss while I was reading the severe weather warnings for my area last night. Apparently, the jet stream dipped in June and is now doing some kind of weird things to the weather in the American Midwest. So then, I thought to myself, well if the jet stream is doing weird things here - what is it doing elsewhere? And after what felt like a ridiculous amount of looking (as apparently the only jet stream that gets talked about, even on the world wide web, is the part of it that flows over these United States), I found this video.

In my initial research, I had stumbled across a NASA based, historical research into the effects of the jet stream on the "Dustbowl" of depression era fame (link here). To summarize the article, fluctuating temperatures and a weakened jet stream were responsible for the meteorological effects of what was to become known as the Dust bowl (the other part had to do with poor farming methods to the extent of, basically, abusing the land).

Now, as much as I find the idea of global weather/climate change(s) to be fascinating, I am not a meteorologist, and my knowledge of weather and patters and the jet stream is all pretty much just from a couple of science classes spread over about fifteen years, and what I've looked into today. What I find to be so interesting about all of this has more to do with wild conjecture on my part than basis in any sort of actual factuality.

It seems to me that these weather phenomena may have incredible lasting effects - and that this hasn't been mentioned much, to my knowledge in the US media's 24 hour news cycle (probably because it's all wild conjecture on the part of one person, me). However, that this could be a threat seems to be alluded to when the weather guy in the video says something about how the phenomena above Pakistan "shows no sign of budging right now."

Now, obviously, this isn't the same matter as the cause of our depression era dust bowl, this is a split jet stream (not a weakened one, though I can't find any data on whether or not a splitting can weaken either fork of a split jet stream) and although similar trends (a cooling tropical pacific - el nino; a warm Atlantic) may be taking place, this seems like it would be what we in the US would need, not so much what would affect weather abnormalities for North-Eastern Europe and the Indian subcontinent. So I did some looking into water temperatures, and found this map, which doesn't show fluctuations or really describe them much, but shows plenty of warm water in places it'd be expected (shallower ocean areas & the equator) - and then I found this, describing unusually warm waters in the Baltic sea - which seems to my untrained self, to a much lesser degree of course, to mimic fluctuating temperatures of the pre-dust bowl oceans (especially if you compare this map to the oceanic overview above).

Kind of knocked my socks off. Mostly, because it seems that either the weather never really was the "hand of God" as it was seen to be for so many millennia of our human existence, or we're just really, really capable of seeing all the factors that go in to this ancient weapon of God's wrath. Or, better yet some would suggest that this is all the action of HAARP, and by inference, these United States (positive rebuttal of all points here, here and - best for last - here).

Though I am no expert, and this is going to sound like a fortune teller's prediction - we (the world) are experiencing either a one time shift in weather patterns due to a fluke jet stream phenomenon, a new, dangerous, possibly stationary, trend, an old weather pattern finding new life with new effects in a new area, the greatest weapon man has ever wielded, or simply the effects of a changing environment. In any of these cases, I find it absolutely fascinating and wish there was more coverage of things like this, but I also find the loss of life staggering and horrifying and although I'm sure plenty of aid will occur in these areas, I wonder why we can't do more for each other instead of simply pursuing profits - taking advantage of crisis situations to, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." (he was referring to the Economic downtown, and subsequent government action, but I feel it holds true for our track record; re: Katrina, 9/11, the economic downturn; shock doctrine)

additional reading:
http://factoidz.com/all-about-the-santa-ana-winds/
http://factoidz.com/chinook-winds-the-snow-eater/

sweet photojournalism/ Russian fires:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/30/russia.wildfires.heat/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10891244

sweet photojournalism/ Pakistani flooding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10903426

stop posting that crap on your wall!

a hundred and fifty years ago in my country we had an addiction to slavery, specifically to African slaves, about ten years and a war from abolition.

Some slaves were house slaves, treated to a kinder life of indoor tasks (but slaves none-the-less). Some slaves were field slaves, worked hard, in the weather regardless. Needless to say, there was some resentment, and differing feelings for the white slave master.

We have a two party system. Two parties dominate our the running of our government, but all the individuals involved are politicians, some with and some without experience - and ulterior motives - and nobody gets into office without a lot of work (mostly dodging questions and shaking hands) and a lot of money. When one party is in office, the supporters of the opposition party are (rightly) unhappy with the policies and actions of the dominant party, protests and inflammatory speech ensue. One of the parties in the US is seen as a party of liberal elitists who are selling our freedoms for government control and a socialist agenda (with wall-street cronies to back them, and control of our systems of media and higher education), and the other a party - conservative hypocrites who push a corporate agenda that cares more about profits than about the damage it does to the planet and the inhabitants thereof (with plenty of big corporate sponsorship). The same party that was actively pro-slavery in the 1860's was actively pro civil-rights and for integration in the 1960s, so things are fluid. Both parties are actively influenced more by well paid and funded lobbyists than to their mostly inactive and uninformed constituencies, of which predictable demographics vote, and others stay uninvolved while the youth act as an on/off, hard to call wild-card. Cities often vote opposite the surrounding countryside, with the individual states being a winner take all contest.

Our president changes every four years, but the same man can be elected twice - a maximum of eight years.

Currently, we have our first African American president, Barack Obama, he ran for the pro-slavery/pro-civil-rights party, their symbol is a donkey. The other party's symbol is an elephant.

Before him we had a president from the other party. He invaded two countries, perhaps one for each plane of the September Eleventh terrorist attack on New York. Some people say a lot of different things about that attack; some say we attacked ourselves to start an oil war. Either way, a lot of people have died. Soldiers from my country are killing people on the other side of the world for a worn out reason that wasn't very solid to begin with. Meanwhile, the nation was inundated with pro-America, patriotic propaganda. It really started showing the outwardly nationalistic signs of what I imagine fascism looks like.

At the end of his eight year presidency (doubts and contestation occurred in both elections that he won; first against the former Vice President of the preceeding administration when he lost the popular vote, but won the winner take all contest of states and was installed by the supreme court; then against a member of the same college fraternity, who came close enough to cause the election to remain contested, but did not contest) the country voted in a landslide to elect Barack Obama.

There were many protests during the wars by the out of party power-base, by which nothing was really accomplished. There were many insults thrown at the President, his cabinet, and anyone associated with the administration. Even the representative bodies were seen as being under the control of the President, granting him unconstitutional, and unprecedented powers (though their lawyers were constantly arguing to the contrary; the presiding Vice President went so far as to call the Constitution, "Just a peice of paper."). These powers were not reversed by Barack Obama, though he alluded as much during his lengthy, but spotless campaign (most campaigns are mauled by the constant media coverage, sooner or later, every makes a big enough mistake to be seized upon by reporters and the pundits and the twenty-four hour news cycle.

But this is how it all relates, our modern poor, the working and impoverished may be free-men in the sense that they do not have bonds, or guards. It is however, in this country, far too easy to find oneself stuck in a world of repetitive action from which escape is nigh impossible. It is the life of a modern slave. 16+ hours of work, 5-7 days a week for an hourly pittance, as the labor is typically unskilled.

These laborers, other poor and many others who have no one to fight for their interests, sometimes wind up caught up in party politics. Some, find the limited socialism, programs and tax breaks for the poor appealing and join our Democratic party. Others find the liberal elitism and government intrusion unappealing and take more of an every-man-for-himself approach, siding with the Republicans.

Neither party really does all that much for the working poor, in many ways, as unfortunate as it is to say, I'm not sure what can be done for them without help from those in this country who have more money than they need. The trouble is, they are under no obligation to help and any talk of the imposition of such an obligation brings the fire of anti-socialism to the surface. During this day and age, cold-war sentimentality lingers rendering any idea associated with communists unappealing. Some of the most fervent opposition comes from working poor. Poorly educated, misinformed by low quality journalism( with a penchant for sensationalism over quality), these loudest mouths are actually supporting policies that work against them.

How do you tell a house slave he's still a slave?

When the presidency flips over, the dynamic shifts, the house slaves become field slaves, and the field slaves become house slaves. The old house slaves grow ever more indignant, and they have their media channels to funnel, fuel and misinform them right into a frenzy. Meanwhile, the new house slaves look out the window at the seething fury of the other yet they can't but bask in the comfort, just for a short time, one never knows how long his stay in the house will last.

But this time, the people who are unhappy are people who have a history of supporting violence. Two wars, stay the course, the country needs to fight to be free, and now how long will it be until they fight for their freedoms again. What's sad, is that they aren't fighting for freedom, they're fighting for the other agenda that doesn't care about them, and doesn't do anything for them - and against the one that is trying to help.

Too bad the help doesn't come in an acceptable method, I just hope it doesn't take violence to solve it.