I Am Progressive

I believe in the separation of Church and State.
I believe in the power of the individual voter.
I believe that, when run effectively, social programs are a vital part of a thriving society.
I believe that the free market needs some regulation, although perhaps not as much as it currently has.
I believe in stronger state's rights.
I believe in labor unions.
I believe in evolution.
I believe that marriage doesn't have to be between a man and a woman.
I believe in a woman's right to choose and that stem cells are not babies.
I believe in government transparency.
I believe in three separate but equal branches of government, not in a unitary executive.
I believe there is too much special interest money in government.
I believe the War on Terror is not a war but should be a police action, as it is in the rest of the world.
I believe in a progressive tax code and the estate tax.
I believe that a strong middle class is the key to a strong economy and that ours is shrinking.
I believe that politics in Washington are very partisan and combative but that is a sign of strong democracy.
I believe the Federal government does have a lot of waste and can be run more effciently, but a certain amount of red tape is desireable.
I believe in some common sense gun control measures but am undecided where to draw the line.
I believe universal healthcare is not socializim and that our society could benefit greatly from it.
I believe that a strong, questioning press corps is vital for a successful democracy and that ours is anything but strong and questioning.
That is what being a progressive means to me.

Iraq

Yes, another one. However, I'm going to endeavor to keep away from the snark and just lay down some general history here.

Long before Iraq was Iraq, there were the Shia and Sunni tribes, or Islam denominations. The differences between the two are religious and have been for a very long time. There is no love lost between the two.

Before WWI the two tribes were at something of an uneasy peace. I believe they existed within the vast Ottoman Empire so there wasn't a lot of competition for resources and the like. I'm not totally sure on this, they may have been beating on each other then as well but it was an internal matter within the Empire.

Anyway...after WWI, the Ottoman Empire was split up into the Middle East as it is now. The borders were drawm up by the western powers and were mostly drawn around oil supplies. The peoples culture was not taken into account (see Israel and Palestine for another example). This is when it all started to go to hell.

Artifical borders were placed around the Sunni and Shia and they were made to inhabit the same land. It is like taking blood rivals and sticking them in a cage match.

Iraq went through a variety of attempted monarchs and other puppet governments of Britain before the Brits gave up and a dictatorship was born. The dictators were able to keep the Sunni's and Shia's from tearing each other apart through some pretty nasty means and by regulating one tribe to second class citizens.

In steps Saddam. Saddam was a Sunni. The Sunni sect is the majority in Iraq and is indeed the largest denomination of Islam. Saddam brutally repressed the Shia minority for years.

Then we step in and kill Saddam. This is where it starts to get messy and ironic. By killing Saddam and attempting to force a democratic government in Iraq, we take the Sunnis out of power and put the Shia minority in power. This happened because the Sunnis did not believe the elections were fair and boycotted them, thus assuring themselves a minority in the new government despite being the majority of the population. Without someone to brutally enforce order the Shia and Sunnis start to shoot at each other. The Shia minority wanted revenge for being stepped on al those years and the Sunni, well who knows. I guess they didn't like being shot out or being kicked out-of-power.

Here is where the irony comes in. The Shia are more-or-less in power in Iraq. Iran is supposedly the next immenient threat. Guess what most of Iran's population is and their entire government? You guessed it, Shia. You see despite Saddam's faults, and there were many, his Sunni Iraq was a counter-balance to Shia Iran. With the Shia now in power in Iraq, and the Shia in control in Iran, and Sunni's running the show in most of the rest of the Middle East...it seems a pretty sure thing that once we leave Iraq there will be a Iran/Iraq alliance of some sort.

That is the pickle we have gotten ourselves in. The deal was done as soon as we invaded. The only thing staying in Iraq does at this point is delay the inevitable and just gets our people killed. There is no way to leave without all hell breaking loose but that was a given the moment we envaded. It is not a justification for staying there.

Dread Then Not

So for the past few months I had this unsettling feeling of dread regarding 2008. I don't know why. It bothered me for a while, even though I tried not to focus on it.

Last week, it went *poof*. It is no longer there. Now I feel excited about 2008.

The changed happened about the same time I decided to stop letting my life continue on its little downward spiral. I have just been going through the motions for sometime now. Heck, not even all the motions. My house is a wreck, bills were piling up, etc. So one day last week I finally got tired of it. I sat down, made a budget that will put me in the black by the end of January (don't expect anything expensive for x-mas this year), made appointments with my shrink, psychologist and a medical doctor (haven't seen one in years) for a general checkup. And I started cleaning the house last night.

This is a general cycle for me but this time it went deeper than usual. That bothers me but at least I feel like I'm on the up swing finally.

Yay me.

Gitmo!

So I was coming into work today and I was listening to CSPAN Radio because they sometimes have some testy stuff that is interesting to me. Today they were listening to the testimony Mark Denbeaux, a professor at Seton Hall. What he and some of his students did was to take the official DoD files on all of the Gitmo detainees and analyze them. Their premise was to take whatever the files said as fact and try to categorize what the population at Gitmo actually looks like. The findings were surprising, to say the least.

There are two statements that are put out into the public discourse that are taken as fact regarding Gitmo. First, that the majority of the population in Gitmo were captured on the battlefield firing at US Troops. Second, that 30 prisoners that have been released have rejoined the fight on the battlefield. The study speaks to the first point, the second he addressed in his testimony.

Regarding the first point - and remember, this is all from the official DoD files - only 5% of the detainees were captured by US Forces. 55% of the total were found not to have committed any hostile acts against US or coalition forces. He testified that only 21 of the combatants were captured on the battlefield. Of those 21, only 1 was actually engaged in a hostile act against US Forces.

Pretty remarkable.

Regarding the second point, 15 of the 30 released cannot be located. Of the 15 that they know of, 3 made a documentary in London which somehow equates to returning to the fight. 7 are in a refugee camp which somehow equates to returning to the fight.

Seems the message and justifications for Gitmo may just be a little misleading.

Here is the report. The testimony should be available at Congresses website sometime later this week. It was in the Judiciary Committee.

Product Lifecycle

This more or less accurately describes the product lifecycle.

Religious Hirearchy

Ok, this one is funny, not serious. The Buddas are what crack me up.

Chris Mathews

To expand on my post yesterday, specifically about Mathews, check out this series of posts for an eye-opening look into this well respected 'journalist'.

You know, challenge your assumptions and stuff.

Politcal Media (and HRC!) Rant

I admit I am torn about HRC. Well the right tries to paint her as a socialist I have yet to see an argument that gets even close to making that case once you look at what she actually said. I do believe that the level of neurotic obsession with Bill and Hillary will make it hard to ever get any sort of respectable reporting out of the media, however...and I don't know that that will be helpful.

Just look at all the bullshit stories about her hairstyle, clothing, cleavage and her laugh and the continued obsession with her marriage. When do we get the adolescent coverage of Rudy's multiple marriages? Or Fred's? Don't hold your breath.

Some of these pundits, even 'respectable' ones like Mathews or Russert, just have this fascination with the Clintons that just doesn't make sense. It is like an addiction and they can't let go. And don't even get me started on Fox 'News'.

Maybe if the media could stop being gossip mongers and actually do real journalism we could start to really get to know the candidates positions, not just what the anchors think about their hair. When the hell did news anchor's go to shit anyway? I have a theory that it was when they started to become stars. Bastards.

Don't construe this post with my support for HRC, as I said at the top I am torn. I would much rather see Edwards as candidate but if it turns out to be HRC as the candidate I'll be behind her versus any of the crazies the Republicans have as possibilities. Honest-to-god, they are trying to out-torture and out-manly each other. It's sad. Rudy can't say two sentences without making something up and he's the front-runner!

Can we maybe get some real coverage on these people's actual policies? I know it doesn't make as exciting television as Hillary's cleavage or Edwards' haircuts but it is a bit more important, I think.

Watch Atlanta Run Out of Water

You can all join in the fun! Just scroll down to the table here and watch the resevoir level slowly drop. Wee!

Hmm..maybe more prayer will fix the problem?

Overhyped Threats

A hostile country led by anti-American ideologues appears close to developing its first nuclear weapon and, as a U.S. election approaches, the president and his advisers debate a pre-emptive military strike. Newspaper columnists demand action to stop the nuclear peril.

Iran? Nope:

The country was China, the year was 1963 and the president was Lyndon Baines Johnson.

However, the same is happening with Iran. Can we get some perspective here? Why are people listening to the same idiots that over-hyped the Iraq threat and are once again beating the drums? Here is the article.

At the risk of pissing of Shana again, can we elect some adults this time?

Mitral Valve Prolapse

Have I written about this before? Well, even if I have, some of this is new.

I was diagnosed with Mitral Valve Prolapse in the mid 1990's after waking up several nights in a row thinking I was having a heart attack. MVP is pretty benign and most people that have it don't even know it. I just happened to show symptoms for it, which mimic that of a heart attack in some ways, so that's nice. My particular level of it is very responsive to lifestyle changes. Basically, as long as I eat somewhat regularly, get sleep and stay mostly away from coffee and the like I don't have any symptoms.

So I was looking into again today for certain reasons and I came across this study that says most cases of MVP have been misdiagnosed. Where they originally thought upwards of 35% of the population has it they discovered that number is closer to 2.7%. And, even better, the association with stroke or heart attack, particularly in those under 45, doesn't hold up. Basically they refined the diagnosis process and are able to achieve more accurate results.

I had an echocardiogram done to diagnose mine originally. The article I linked to has a number to call for a referral to a cardiologist affiliated with this study to be re-evaluated. I'm thinking maybe I should do it?

Suitcase Nukes

On noes! If we don't bomb Iran, day give da terrorists a suitcase nuke! Oh noes!

Or maybe not.

Why The Writers Strike

UNIVERSAL: Well, in a Nutshell...
"Every day after picketing, I come home and work on my long, elegant essay articulating why we're on strike. It's meant for the general public and attempts to summarize the issues. But today, I overheard something that took care of my essay in one fell swoop.

Guy (into cell phone): The writers are on strike out here.

[PAUSE]

Guy (into cell phone): Because the corporations are dicks.

I don't need to finish my essay. Instead, I can rest up for picketing tomorrow.
-Irving Belateche

From here.

Myers-Briggs Personality Test

I meant to post this a while back with the left brain/right brain stuff. This is the famous Myers-Briggs test that gives you your four letter personality code.

Take it here. Ignore their descriptions and go here for a much more in-depth description. Select your type and start reading. At the bottom there are career and relationship descriptions as well.

When you take the test go with your first impulse when you read the question. If you analyze it you may change the result. Also, the degree to which you are a particular type can change depending on your mood, etc but you will almost always be the same type or close to it. For example, I just retook the test and ended up as an ESFP, when I took it two weeks ago I was ENFP. However, both times degree I was a N or an S was very low (16% N the first time and 1% S this time) so I straddle that particular type. The other three are pretty strong and don't change much, although I was introverted when I was younger.

Anyway, here is my type:


ENFP
Extraverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
33 12 50 67


Last week:
ESFP
Extraverted Sensing Feeling Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
E S F P
56 1 100 56

NOTE: ENFP is my usual type. I don't know what was going on when I came up ESFP, particulary that 100% Feeling thing. The ENFP numbers are about what I usually come up as.

What is yours and does the description match how you perceive yourself?

Phone Calls

I hate them. Never been a fan of them. Its something about talking to a disembodied voice that makes it hard for me. I pick up _alot_ from visual clues when talking that helps me process what they say in the proper context of what they actually mean...you know, mood, attitude, gut feeling...that sorta thing. But on a phone, I just can't do it. It makes me feel...self conscious.

So I prefer email or face-to-face. Mostly email when it comes to business because I can think out my reply (you know, let the emotion go) and have a record of it.

Outside of business relationships I prefer face-to-face because that is when my personality really comes through. It is hard to make sarcasm work in email.

Byzantine Process

Just what is a "byzantine process" anyway? Wasn't Byzantine an empire? How can an empire be a process?

As far as I can tell it is a process that excludes newcomers. I guess that makes some degree of sense.

Anyone have a better definition?

Post Secret

What an incredibly awesome idea! Gives me chills just reading it.

Income Tax and that Top 1%

So I've always been torn by the arguement that 'the top 1% pay the majority of taxes' and the arguement for a flat tax. I came across this article that fills in the what is left out.

Federal income tax alone for 2005 brought in 45% of the federal governments income (2.143 billion). It is true that the top 1% (average salary $1.6 mil/year) paid about 40% of the federal income tax part of the pie. However, what is often left out of that arguement is payroll taxes, which is where the middle class gets fucked and the rich don't. Payroll taxes (Social security and the like) are capped one you hit $94,200/year in salary. Anything above that isn't taxed. Social Security taxes made up 37% of the entire federal income in 2005. 37%. That's 37% coming from the first $94,200/year of salary. Do you make more than that?

So to put it another way, for someone earning exactly $94,200 their effective tax rate is 6.2% for payroll taxes. For the average 1%er at $1.6mil/year, their effective tax rate is around 0.36%! Wow, no wonder they leave out payroll taxes when making that arguement.

A lot of the 'raise your taxes' stuff is talking about raising that cap on payroll taxes and making it an actual progressive tax. When the right rolls out the 'they will raise your taxes' boogyman, if you are in the middle class making under or around $94,200 you won't see a dime more taken out. If anything, alot of the plans circulated by the left lower taxes on the middle-class. Stop voting against your best interestes and research this stuff.

Challenge your assumptions.

Daylight Savings

Despite popular beliefe, daylight savings time has nothing to do with farmers.

This is a pretty good run down on the history.

In fact, farmers generally oppose daylight saving time.

I was surprised to see that.

Challenge your assumptions.

OMG OMG OMG OMG

Bruce Campbell, of Evil Dead, Bubba Ho-Tep and anything-Sam-Rami-has-ever-directed-fame, has a new movie coming out called My Name is Bruce.  The plot sounds awesome if you are fan of Evil Dead (or know anything about it):

The plot revolves around Campbell, playing himself, who, after being harassed and mistaken by fans to be a character much like Ash from the Evil Dead series of horror films, is abducted from his trailer park home to fight against Guan Di, a Chinese war deity.

This is so up my alley.  I can't wait!