Achmed, the little Chemist who could

I don't have time to write much commentary on this one but please just read the articles listed below and ask yourself one question: Who is the real threat in this, as Borat so eloquently put it, "War of Terror"?

Flunky Islamist Jihadist Terrorists get convicted of an impossible crime

Myth Busting a Terrorist Plot

"The United States does not torture"

This is a quote from President Bush that has been repeated many times by himself and his staff, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The original and full quote came from a press conference in 2006 which is on the White House website, "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it." That sounds like a pretty definitive statement, and it has been repeated several times over the years by the administration. Yet again though, we are hearing of more proof that he is lying through his teeth. This story broke late yesterday and underlines that these are not isolated incidents perpetrated by a few renegade M.P.'s at the prison. This is a systematic pattern that has served to inflame passions of anti-Americanism around the Muslim world.

Math can preserve your Liberty, if you care to pay attention

Turns out that taking Statistics maybe wasn't such a waste of time after all. Scott, I am poaching this
link. Sorry man, but I do give you full credit.

"You don't get to understand the statistics of rare events by intuition. It's something that has to be learned, through formal and informal instruction. If there's one thing the government and our educational institutions could do to keep us safer, it's this: teach us how statistics works. They should drill it into us with the same vigor with which they approached convincing us that property values would rise forever, make it the subject of reality TV shows and infuse every corner of our news and politics with it. Without an adequate grasp of these concepts, no one can ever tell for sure if he or she is safe."

What we could learn from the Dutch

Alright, so its been awhile since we have heard from the boogey man, but he finally made himself known. Thanks to BBC, who has the balls to publish his missives in full, instead of commentating on fragments of what he says. Anyway, most of his threats this time are directed at several European entities, including the EU, the Pope and Dutch newspapers, for publishing depictions of the Prophet Mohammed which is against Islamic law. Now I don't care to applaud anyone who intentionally inflames international tensions, but there is something inspiring about how the Dutch newspapers have responded to this threat. The author of these cartoons has had his life threatened and the response was to republish the cartoons, basically a big F.U. to terrorists around the world. The Dutch Government responded by saying that the threat of Bin Laden was not going to change anything about their security measures, saying "its nothing new". In general, it appears that Europe is not terribly concerned about this threat, giving America a dose of shame for crapping our pants every time someone tries to sneak a knife onto an airplane. Let's take a look at how to be brave, from those cowardly Europeans who resisted our invasion of Iraq in the first place.

And you thought you could trust your government

Ok, I hate to keep bringing up the same topics over and over, but if Goebbels taught me anything, it's that repetition will pay off eventually. You may or may not remember that about 1 year ago, the FBI underwent an audit that revealed that they were abusing their powers to spy on law-abiding Americans without just cause. The most blatant abuses had to do with so-called National Security Letters. Basically, the FBI is abusing a power that they should not have in the first place, which is to deny American's to face their accusers in a court of law and every American's right to legal representation. These letters reek of Gestapo-esque activity. So we found out that in 2003-2005, the FBI was breaking the law by abusing the spirit of these subpoenas in order to spy on American's who had not been proved to actually have done anything wrong. What's most interesting to me is that this abuse did not take decades to develop; it happened soon after the FBI - an agency charged with enforcing and upholding the law - got these powers in the Patriot Act.

This is not some abstract theory about the proclivities of law enforcement to abuse power, these are concrete examples. And the treatment that FBI Director Robert Mueller received from Congress for his inability to bring this abuse by his agency under control betrays the true attitude of Congress, which is, "We don't care." Indeed Mueller's audacity is revealed in his recent testimony before Congress in which he tried to direct the focus of the hearing to pushing for Bush's demand for immunity for telecom companies who allowed the FBI to break the law by eavesdropping without a FISA warrant. How ironic is that? This guy should be fired if he won't resign. Only in the Government would such incompetence and flouting of the Law be tolerated.

Some Obama vs. Clinton Headlines

My brother's recently created prObama Blog. Hit 'em up.

Why I am supporting Obama (but voting for Ron Paul)

I know the Caucus is over in my state, and for better than half the country the excitement of the Primaries has gone on to other states like Texas and Ohio. But I continue to voice my support for Barack Obama to anyone and everyone who will listen. What is it about Obama that draws me to him like a college student to free food?

Let me start by saying that I disagree with Mr. Obama on about 95% of his political positions. I am anti-abortion, anti-taxes, anti-union, anti-war on terror, pro free trade, pro gun, anti-universal health care, and I happen to also think that his position on the Iraq war - meaning his plan to immediately pull out upon his inauguration - is not the best option. I want that to be clear, because some people I know have taken my support of Obama as meaning that I don't believe what I say I believe.

So how have I come to support a candidate that I am so distant from ideologically? The fire was started when I heard him give a speech to a religious group known as the Sojourners/Call to Renewal Conference back in 2006. The speech is linked here. I can't find any video of the speech at this time, but with a little hard work, I am sure you can.

What I heard in this speech was not just an analysis of the role of religion in American politics. I heard a man who had the ability to think critically about very complex and difficult subjects. I heard a man demonstrate an understanding of the importance of looking at an issue from all sides and arriving at a position that was sound, though not easily defended. He really put himself out on the line with this speech, which is as religious as anything that G.W. said while he was running for president. Obama showed through this speech that he not only knows a lot about religion (for a politician) but he also knows a lot about politics (especially for a Christian) and is willing to treat each issue with respect and honesty. This is the kind of leader that this country needs right now. We are not the most divided that we have ever been, but we are pretty close. The talk about Red states and Blue states dominates most national political discussions, as does a general disdain for the other side of the aisle, depending on how you identify yourself. If Bush is the Decider, then Obama is the Uniter (note Ms. Susan Eisenhower's statement at the end of the article).

While I understand the idealistic and impetuous nature of my support of a politician that I trust, I feel like I am still young enough to risk these kinds of decisions. I admit that I have been %100 sold on Obama's message of, "The audacity of Hope". It's nice to be optimistic for a change. My support for Obama is for the man, who I hope can become a leader at a time when this country desperately needs one. I know this is a risky venture, and a possible waste of my energy as every politician ultimately lets us down at some point. But I am ready for a change in this country, and though every candidate is promising it, Obama is the only one who seems ready to deliver the kind of Change that we need, a change of tone, a change of ethics, a change of character and a change in style.

There is essentially no difference in the campaining platforms of Clinton and Obama, but Clinton does not posses the qualities that I respect in Obama. I see her as coniving, underhanded, unethical, hateful and devisive. She may have experience, but not the kind I value in a person of character and personal integrity. She is has about as much crediblity as the Bush administration in my opinion, which is like saying that shit has all the tasty goodness of a Godiva chocolate bar. Mccain is a little better, and he certainly shares my views on more issues. But he doesn't posses the naive idealism that Obama espouses (Naive Idealism is meant in a positive sense in this isolated situation). I think Mccain would have been a great president 8 years ago, and I think that he would do a decent job at this time. He wouldn't be a bad second choice for an Independent like myself. I would have major problems with some of his positions, particularly on National Security, but who could be worse than Bush?

So I proudly support Barrack Hussein Obama for president, but my vote will go to Ron Paul. Ok, now that you have had a chance to read it twice, I will explain this statement. I believe strongly in the democratic process and the importance of putting your vote in the most effective bubble (or hanging chad) you can. For me in this election, my vote belongs with Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who is brave enough to truly stand up for his convictions, which happen to line up exactly with many of mine. Of course he has no chance of winning, but every vote he recieves adds strength and credibility to his controversial "fringe" views. The man would not make a good president, I don't think. But his positions need more exposure and in this election cycle, one of the most effective ways to accomplish that is to vote for him. Even though Paul said he will not run as a 3rd party candidate, I will write him in, as I imagine many other supporters of him will do.

I recognize the dilema of voting for one candidate while supporting another. What if Obama and Mccain are running against each other? Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for Obama? I feel my vote for Paul will speak louder to the issues that I care about than if Obama wins or losses. This is a difficult position to defend, I will readily admit, but it fits my understanding of my convictions at this time. One caveat, if Clinton gets the nomination, I will be voting for Mccain; I am that scared of her.

In closing, I encourage everyone to take a close look at Obama, especially pre-campaign, to try to get a sense of who he is and what he is about. I don't think many people will be disappointed.

My absence is over....for now

Sorry for the too long hiatus. It was born of many factors, some that I will admit and some that shall remain a mystery. Anyway, on with the show. The latest lie from your government...

Please, this test is for your safety. Remain calm

Interesting that we got pissed at the Chinese almost exactly a year ago for the exact same thing. Only they didn't pretend that it was for the safety of the public.