Dirty tricks time in California...

Hispanics living in Southern California received an interesting little note in the mail the other day. It said (in Spanish):

"You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."

Note the use of the word "or" ... if you are an illegal OR an immigrant ... you may not vote.

Of course, immigrants who do become naturalized citizens are legally allowed to vote, just as any other citizen is. But, it would seem, somebody is concerned that they might not vote the right way. These concerned citizens have taken the lead in discouraging those newer citizens from making a mistake at the polls three weeks from now.

The state's attorney general's office is looking into possible felony charges against the sender of the letter. That is, if they can figure out who sent it. The good Samaritan who penned the warning chose to be anonymous. What a surprise.

New: I would like to know what you think of this blog - Please click here to take my reader satisfaction survey!

Tags: voters, elections, Hispanics, immigrants, voting rights, citizens

Is the President Always Right?

Acting Deputy Attorney General Steve Bradbury testified before Congress that "the President is always right." Was he serious? Let's look at some of the evidence of presidential infallibility...



Tags: Bush, Steve Bradbury, infallibility, truth, lies, Iraq, Congress, testimony

Am I a conspiracy nut?

For some reason, I think Friday the 13th is a good day for talking about conspiracy theories, and whether or not I typically believe them. This comes up because of a conversation I had recently about my posting of some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Let's just say for now that I am generally interested in conspiracy theories. Most of them are obvious garbage that don't deserve a second thought, and a few bring up good questions that point out holes in "the official story" or require further investigation.

There are many different reasons why people believe in conspiracy theories...

One is a matter of control. At some level we like to think that there is some order to the universe, and that our world is not in total chaos. It is comforting to believe that the government actually is in control. When bad things happen (terrorism, assassinations) some of us can't accept that it was a lone gunman, or a small cell of criminals. To say that the government must have known, or even been involved, restores our sense of control.

Another major contributor is the question of trust. As much as we like to believe the government is control of the nation, we also have a healthy distrust of power. When a particular leader or government proves itself to be liars (as has the Bush administration) it is only natural to begin questioning everything they've ever told you. "If he lied about WMDs and Saddam's connection to Osama, he must have lied about everything!" It's not a logical argument (one does not necessarily follow the other), but it's one that the administration has opened itself up to.

Let's get away from current events, and I'll let you know where I stand on a few older conspiracy theories:

Did FDR know allow Pearl Harbor to be attacked? To a degree, this is a valid question. Officially, we say we had no idea it was going to happen. I don't really buy that. I think they did have some idea, and did realize that Hawaii was vulnerable to Japanese attack. But what were the choices? 1) Pre-emptively attack Japan - unthinkable until Bush took office, 2) Withdraw the fleet, still leaving Hawaii open, but making us less able to defend it, or 3) Wait for Japan to attack, then declare war. So, yeah, we probably knew more than we let on, but what could we really do at that time?

Did Oswald act alone? No way, man. Oswald could not have acted alone. That doesn't mean he wasn't involved at all, that doesn't mean the CIA killed Kennedy, that doesn't mean Castro and the mob did it either. Johnson was involved in the cover-up, that is a possibility to me. But why? Here's a theory that explains that, without proving he was involved with the assassination: The nation was in shock, their faith in the ability of the government to protect them was shattered, a quick recovery was needed. One assassin was publicly killed himself - let the nation believe that this closes the book and begin the public healing (and maybe deal with any other assassins in private).

Do I know the above to be true? Of course not. They're just some ideas, theories if you will. And I'm the first to admit that they're probably wrong. But they are ways to answer the nagging questions.

Back to 9/11... What do I believe?

I believe the official story. Al Queda, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, planned and executed the attacks. The U.S. government was not involved. Neither were "the Jews" (we are a monolithic bloc you know, we have secret meetings every other Thursday at that Deli around the corner), Saddam Hussein, or the Saudi monarchy.

So, why do I give blog space to the conspiracy theories?

Because a) this administration is full of shit so often it is our patriotic duty to assume everything they say is shit until proven otherwise, and b) there are a few irregularities and questions.

The twin towers were most certainly hit by commercial airplanes, and that's what took them down. What about WTC building 7? It was not hit by a plane, and didn't collapse till around 5 PM. There's more to the WTC 7 story than we know. Not that this proves anything, there's just more to it than what they're telling us.

The Pentagon was almost certainly hit by another commercial airplane. Almost certainly. I don't think the U.S. military planned a missile attack ahead of time as part of a grand conspiracy. But then, why are the video tapes of the plane hitting (which we know exist, but were confiscated immediately following the attack) still classified? Why haven't we been allowed to see this footage, as we've seen the planes hitting the WTC over and over? Again, it doesn't prove anything, but it does require us to ask what's going on.

I don't think Bush planned 9/11. He's not that smart, or that capable. I do suspect that to some extent they may have ignored certain intelligence that allowed an attack to happen, much as FDR did with Pearl Harbor. I doubt they knew the details of the attack plan, and certainly not that the twin towers would each be reduced to dust, but they knew "Bin Laden determined to strike within U.S." and seemingly ignored it.

With all the lies from the administration, and all the attacks on free speech and the constitution, it is only natural that a growing number of people are questioning the entire 9/11 narrative. Where there is one lie, we assume there are two more. This is human instinct. We believe in conspiracy theories because reality makes no freaking sense.

Tags: conspiracies, conspiracy theories, 9-11, terrorism, assassinations, September 11, Bush, lies

The truth about blogging...

Here's how I approach blogging. I see it as different than writing articles. When I post something to one of my web sites (or elsewhere) as an article, I consider it complete. I've written it, re-read, re-written it, thought about it, edited it, and written it again.

But, blog posts, I consider to be thinking out loud. I compose them pretty much with a stream of consciousness approach, and often have no idea where I'm headed when I begin. When I'm done writing, I click the spell check (sometimes) and take a quick look at the preview for any obvious major formatting errors, then I click "Publish Post." And I don't look back.

If something is in error, or I realize that it's stupid, I don't go back and change it or delete it, I just make a new posting that shows the new thinking. This is what I like about blogging; it's improvisational, extemporaneous, and unpredictable.

Blogging, for me, is a welcome change from the overly thought out, thoroughly proofed and edited (by many people) writing that I do professionally for nonprofit organizations (and others).

So, bottom line... Sometimes I step in [**]it, sometimes I have to admit I don't have any answers, and sometimes a reader points it out for me.

Barry Leiba left an excellent reply to my post the other day on Muslim cab drivers refusing fares on religious grounds. Barry took me for task for overlooking an important aspect of the situation: Taxis are closely regulated for a number of reasons. Because there are a limited number of taxis legally available in any given region, anytime one of them refuses a legitimate fare - for any reason - it puts pressure on the system and is contrary to the public good.

Barry made some other points that I don't think are as relevant. For example, he suggests that, "when people's preferences interfere with how they carry out their jobs... maybe they're in jobs that aren't suitable to their beliefs." I agree, but it's not up to any government agency to decide what profession any individual citizen or resident is suited for. This is one situation where the free market should take care of the problem by that person being unable to make a living through turning down customers.

But... the public good argument about taxis being a pseudo public resource... I'll think about that one. As Barry said, where will I draw the line? When a cabbie refuses to carry an unwed mother? When he refuses to carry any woman not covering her face with a veil?

These are different than the situations I wrote about (not carrying alcohol or dogs). In the real life examples I used, it was not the person who was refused carriage, it was their luggage or pets. In Barry's examples, it's refusal to the person, based on their life choices or beliefs. People have rights that can be violated or protected, bottles of booze certainly do not, dogs have some, but in a far more limited way than humans. So, yes, there is a clear line between my examples and Barry's, but still...

No answers today, just more things to think about. The issue is far more complicated than I obviously considered when I posted my initial thoughts before 8 AM Tuesday morning. And that goes along with this week's unintentional theme of growth and changing viewpoints.

Tags: blogging, writing, replies, ideas, growth

Bush and the Peter Pan Syndrome

"When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong." - Jerry Orbach as Dr. Jake Houseman in Dirty Dancing

Yesterday in this space, I came to the realization that a point-of-view I had previously held was wrong. In looking at similar situations, from different sides, I concluded that a position I had taken in the past was not how I feel about the situation today. New evidence convinced me to change my mind on a matter of public policy.

Some might call it "flip-flopping" - others might call it "growth." To me, flip-flopping is going back-and-forth between positions multiple times, based on the audience, with no explanation of how one could support opposing ideas. Growth is a gradual process of discovery, analysis, and adaptation. Growth is good.

There's a psychological term for adults who refuse to grow up; The Peter Pan Syndrome. About the only thing behavior worse for a public servant to exhibit than flip-flopping would be the refusal to grow and adapt ones views, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of the failure of those views. Enter George W. Bush.

Of course, over the past five years, we've seen much evidence of this. There's been the refusals to accept that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, the refusal to accept the evidence that there were no WMD's in Iraq capable of threatening the U.S., the refusal to understand that by occupying a country against their will we might anger a few of the residents of that country.

The latest, glaring evidence of Bush's inability to learn from his own mistakes is his refusal to admit that his policy toward North Korea has failed. The world today is a more dangerous place, thanks to the president's steadfast refusal to return to the one-on-one talks that had started show some progress under President Clinton.

Now, some of you smart-ass conservatives who've stumbled across this blog are about to hit the comment button and write something like, "Yeah, but North Korea bought some of the nuclear technology that allowed this to happen while Clinton was in office." True, but who did they buy it from? A company that included Donald Rumsfeld on its board of directors at the time of the sale!

Not that Rumsfeld has ever made any mistakes that he should have learned from.

Tags: mistakes, growth, Peter Pan Syndrome, Bush, Rumsfeld, North Korea

Religious freedom or discrimination?

I've seen several news accounts lately of Muslim taxi cab drivers refusing to accept fares based on their religious beliefs. Not the beliefs of the passengers, but the beliefs of the drivers.

In one case it was a refusal to allow packages containing alcohol in the cab. In another it was a refusal to allow a blind woman's guide dog in the cab. (Alcohol is forbidden, and dogs considered unclean, in Islam).

In the case of the blind woman and her dog (London), the driver was fined for violating British laws forbidding discrimination against the disabled. In the case of the alcohol refusal (Minnesota), officials at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are considering making Muslim cab drivers identify themselves by placing a different colored light atop their taxi (to avoid future problems or confrontations).

Travelers are upset:

"They're really kind of imparting their religious views on the public," said traveler Katie Patterson of McKinney, Texas.

I'm not sure that's correct, however. Is it forcing your beliefs on another to simply ask that yours be respected? Are they practicing the freedom of religion that the Constitution promises them? Or are they practicing a form of reverse discrimination?

You are used to seeing signs in restaurants and retail shops saying, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." How far does that concept go, and on what basis can a business refuse a customer without violating anti-discrimination laws?

Obviously, if the Muslim business owner were ejecting every Sikh customer, regardless of alcohol, animal, or other impurity, it would be a clear-cut case of discrimination. But if the business owner welcomes people of all faiths, nationalities, creeds, and ethnic backgrounds, but asks that they not carry a religiously banned item, it's far less clear.

There is no constitutional right to carry alcohol on (or in) somebody else's property. The guide dog situation is a bit trickier, but as long as a business owner is willing to make some sort of "reasonable accommodation" and is willing to provide service to the blind or disabled, I'd question whether there's an absolute right to bring the dog in any particular cab.

To force either of these situations would create a situation where the Muslim cab drivers would have a good argument for a discrimination complaint of their own. You can't force people to perform acts (or sell services) that are against their religious beliefs.

Making Muslim cab drivers identify themselves by colored lights on their cabs is also crossing a line. It would allow passengers to openly discriminate against riding in their cabs, whether or not they have alcohol or dogs with them.

Really, what is the difference between making Muslim cab drivers shine a colored light, or making Jews wear yellow arm bands? It is singling out one group to be identified as "different" than any other citizen or legal resident.

Now let's talk about being fair with this precedent. If you cannot force a Muslim taxi driver to perform services that are against his religion, what about a Catholic druggist?

As a good "liberal" I have probably complained about pharmacies that refuse to carry birth control items on religious grounds. Am I a huge hypocrite, or does health care require an exception?

I'm thinking that I'm a hypocrite, and that as long as birth control is available elsewhere, no discrimination or deprivation of rights has occurred by a refusal to carry them by a single pharmacy.

I don't like it. I think it's a public health and safety issue to make birth control available as widely as possible.

But, I'd have to say, you can reserve the right to provide products or services that are against your religion.

You can't force a Muslim cab driver to accept alcohol or dogs, you can't force a Catholic druggist to supply birth control, and you can't force a Jewish medical clinic to stay open on the Sabbath.

Tags: Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, religious, discrimination, disabled, rights, constitution, taxis, cabs birth control

GooTube - Google buys YouTube for $1.65 billion

It's official: Google is buying YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock. This will give YouTube the capital it needs to fix a few technical issues and figure out how to become profitable. Google promises that YouTube will remain an independent entity (in competition with Google Video)... at least for now.

Over the weekend, YouTube was buzzing with the rumors of the talks. Shortly before the sale was announced, I had posted my own opinion and analysis of the rumors on YouTube:



Tags: YouTube, Google, buyout, sale, internet, web sites, business news