Category: Politics

Ah, c’mon, Lois, isn’t “bribe” just another word for “love”?

Remember how Janet Jackson almost ruined America? Parents Television Council president Brent Bozell hasn’t. And he’s mad because Congress, specifically the Senate, has. Consider:

“This should have happened a long, long time ago,” said L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, an entertainment industry watchdog group. “The House continues to do its job and the Senate continues not to do its job.”

Last year the Senate bill was held up and eventually scuttled by Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, D-S.C., who wanted the legislation to include a requirement that the Federal Communications Commission study violence on television. This year the issue has been bottled up in the Senate Commerce Committee.

Is it safe to consider this a situation in which our un-oiled wheels of government encountered the friction of common sense and ground to a halt? (Did I take the metaphor too far?) I would like to believe that the bill hasn’t passed the Senate because enough senators are smart enough to understand this:

“What has become clear is this really isn’t about protecting kids. This is about changing television,” said Jim Dyke, executive director of TV Watch, an advocacy group funded in part by the entertainment industry. “A politically active, savvy group of Americans has figured out a way to make TV in their own image.”

Unfortunately, I don’t believe our senators are that smart. Remember, the Senate’s Majority Leader, a medical doctor (dare I say “scientist”) recently backed President Bush’s call for Intelligent Design lessons in America’s science classes. This is also the same Senate Majority Leader who initially failed to correct ridiculous claims of how HIV can be transmitted so as not to discredit scare-mongering nonsense from a few radical conservatives. So, no, that’s probably not it.

So what is it? What could be the reason? Perhaps this is an answer:

Lanier Swann, director of government relations at Concerned Women for America said the panel’s chairman, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, “needs to answer for the reason that he isn’t helping move this forward when it’s something that the American public would really like to see.”

Stevens hasn’t said why two indecency bills pending in his committee have yet to get a hearing. He has advocated stronger indecency rules for broadcasters, and has complained about vulgarity on cable. His aides say he is not ignoring the issue and is crafting his own legislation.

Committee staff director Lisa Sutherland said Stevens would use the House bill as a framework, but would make changes. She did not detail them, but said Stevens was exploring how parents with cable television can protect children from indecent programming.

Senator Stevens is crafting his own legislation, which I think implies that he’ll use this to gratify his ego, since he’s already spouted off about regulating cable. Perhaps he’ll name it after himself. I hope he does, because history will not be kind to that. Another possibility is that he is determining, with other senators, ways to bury pork in the indecency bill. Perhaps he could fund a free television, with V-chip, for every citizen of Alaska. I would complain, but I vow to stop complaining if he offers one of those televisions to Mr. Bozell.

Shut your mouth, funny guy, and make it.

I’ve taken on the potentially misguided task of refuting liberal media bias claims by partisan hacks over the past few months. I’ve tried to make it clear that I can accept bias in individual media outlets, but for every liberal bias, there’s a corresponding conservative bias. My argument, even when poorly stated, is that bias is bad, regardless of its blue or red tint. The facts are what matters. Anyone who claims otherwise isn’t interested in learning, just propagandizing.

Perusing through the Internets (I’m making the Ha Ha there, people) this morning, I stumbled upon an interesting article relating to the perpetual nonsense that is the media bias argument. Consider:

Pardon me for being either ignorant or naive, but isn’t a reporter’s first responsibility the finding–and publishing–of the truth? And isn’t it at least possible that this drive “to make the world better” is at the core of the media’s current malaise? My point here is that if one goes into a job with a zeal to transform the world, instead of a zeal to tell the world’s stories, isn’t it more likely that one would search for and “find” those stories that serve to support and reinforce one’s own prejudices?

I’m not abandoning my underlying assumption that bad news sells (“if it bleeds, it leads”), but yeah, I think that paragraph highlights a contributing factor. Report on facts with a view of how the world “needs” to be and the reporting will slant to a bias. That’s as true for conservative media outlets as it is for liberal media outlets. Any journalistic notion disappears when facts become soapbox-support.

I may be reaching here, but I consider myself sufficiently intelligent to understand what’s going on. I don’t care about non-stories. Blather on about how America is run by imperialistic, capitalist pigs and I’ll turn away from your news. Shock me with the latest missing pretty blonde and I’ll turn away from your news. Give me the facts because that’s what I want. Then, because media is a business, sell me an extension (news) product, such as interviews, features, or even something radical with a blogging mentality. Give me a reason to stay tuned. Call-in radio shows succeed for more reasons than just the opportunity for listeners to shout “Baba Booey” over the phone.

However, make certain that there’s a difference between the two. The first, I can get anywhere, or better stated, elsewhere. The rest is the part that gets my brain going and makes me a (semi-) participant in the process. Treat me as though I’m intelligent and I might not hate media outlets. Educate me without pandering to a lowest common denominator mentality, or what some blow-hard thinks I should think, I might even stay tuned.

(Hat tip: Donklephant)

I can’t wait to read the new Google searches

Who knew America could offer such overwhelming concern for our culture? Consider:

The Internet’s key oversight agency agreed Tuesday to a one-month delay in approving a new “.xxx” domain name after the U.S. government cited “unprecedented” opposition to a virtual red-light district.

Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, had stopped short of urging its rejection, but he called on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [ICANN] to “ensure the best interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered.”

The department received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails expressing concerns about the impact of pornography on families and children and objecting to setting aside a domain suffix for it, he said.

Wow, 6,000 letters from 300 million Americans. That’s a lot. It’s good to know so many (probably) one group cares so much. And wants the rest of us to understand so little.

Oppose porn? Fine, oppose it. But answer this simple question: why would porn sites convert to ‘.xxx’? That would allow the porn filters to block them with one simple edit to the filter. Ah, but the 6,000 concerned Americans know this, I would think. Perhaps not.

“Pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography through the .xxx domain. The .xxx domain will increase, not decrease, porn on the internet,” [Family Research Council] said.

This is a blatant scare tactic. Hide the women and children, the porn is taking over. Except, as I’ve just stated, internet filters exist. Add ‘.xxx’ to the filter criteria and, although the porn has increased, the user’s exposure has not. This isn’t about families being exposed to more porn. If that were the case, the Family Research Council would have no opinion. Instead, it’s about access to porn by willing adults. The FRC essentially spelled this out in its press release.

“Selling hard core pornography on the internet is a violation of federal obscenity law so the Bush Administration is right to oppose the ‘.XXX’ domain. The Bush Administration should not, in any way, be seen to facilitate the porn industry which has been a plague on our society since the establishment of the internet. The ‘.XXX’ domain proposal is an effort to pander to the porn industry and offers nothing but false hope to an American public which wants illegal pornographers prosecuted, not rewarded.

“The ‘.XXX’ domain was never intended to force the porn industry to leave the ‘.com’ domain, which has been a cash cow for pornographers. Indeed, any law attempting to force pornographers to relocate to ‘.XXX’ would be constitutionally suspect and not likely to be effective. Instead, if the ‘.XXX’ domain were established pornographers would keep their lucrative ‘.com’ commercial sites and expand to even more sites on ‘.XXX,’ thus becoming even more of a menace to society. Pornography violates the dignity of the women and men involved, destroys marital bonds, and pollutes the minds of child and adult consumers.

“The Family Research Council supports Attorney General Gonzales’ major new prosecution initiative against the porn industry, announced in May. We are confident of his determination and of his ultimate success. The pornographers, instead of expanding their presence on the internet, would be well advised to get out of business all together right now before they are called to court to answer for their crimes.”

A few quick observations.

— I have no idea if selling hardcore pornography is illegal, but the claim seems dubious, at best. I suspect it has more to do with what the pornography depicts.

— The American public wants “illegal” pornographers prosecuted. What about the legal pornographers? And I suppose those 6,000 letters constitute the American public. And the billions of dollars spent on pornography are clearly stolen from customers.

— Why bother to (unconstitutionally) force pornographers to switch from ‘.com’ if their businesses are illegal? Wouldn’t it make more sense to shut them down and prosecute them? Or is that also constitutionally suspect?

— Who’s to say porn violates the dignity of the women and men involved? I tend to agree, but I acknowledge that as opinion, not fact. If you make a statement like that, prove it.

— If the pornographers are committing crimes right now, how will getting out of the business prevent them from being “called to court to answer for their crimes”? If I embezzle money, but stop before being caught, am I no longer eligible for prosecution?

Technology is robust enough to block the overwhelming majority of porn from Generic Internet User’s computer. Install a firewall and anti-spyware software and, with minimum diligence, porn will not sneak up and expose itself to Generic Internet User. It really is that simple. If Generic Internet User is an ignorant Ludditte, learning how to protect his computer is the solution.

But groups like Family Research Council aren’t interested in that. Without pretending that the threat is scary, overwhelming, and pervasive, they wouldn’t gain sufficient political clout to pursue their true objective of Puritan nanny-statism. Instead of working to show porn consumers how it’s a detriment to a happy, productive life, groups like the FRC seek governmental control over the actions of all. We can have any freedom we want, as long as no one is against it.

Is the idea of freedom and personal responsibility really as dead as it seems?

He’s not a person, he’s a suit! You’re mailroom. No consorting.

I’ve written a little in the past on the liberal media and possible alternate explanations for the mass conspiracy that many conservatives want to see there. In the beginning I posited the idea that “bad news sells” is a better explanation. I’ve since refined it to include liberal bias, but only in the context of specific media outlets. Smear The New York Times with a liberal bias claim and I can accept that. But I’d same the reverse about Fox News. The back-and-forth could go on a long time. Information, with whatever desired slant, is available in a multitude of forms. The old, entrenched media is liberal? Fine, read, watch, or listen to something else. Changing technology has a way of flattening the market of competitive dinosaurs. It’s Capitalism 101. Accept it.

Because of that, whenever I hear or read “liberal MSM”, I suspect that the speaker/writer merely wants to spew an ideological point to score points. It’s little more than stereotyping to diminish. My idea of reporting, writing, and thinking is that facts win. If there’s a bias, I rely on my intellect to decipher truth. I don’t need a political party to filter my perception. Not to mention that the ideal world would have no bias, not a non-liberal-so-it-has-to-be-conservative bias. So I stand by my theory.

Luckily for me, the news media provided an example earlier this week. (I’m not happy that the actual events happened to prove my point. I wish it hadn’t happened and all that hippy blah, blah, blah.) So, consider this headline:

Marc Cohn shot in head during car jacking

I was horrified. I like Marc Cohn, so I clicked the link. This is what followed:

A Grammy-winning musician and husband of ABC news reporter Elizabeth Vargas was treated at a hospital and released Monday after being shot in the head during an attempted carjacking following a performance.

Right, so the headline gave no indication of that. Now, a few days later, the sub-headline does, but search the headlines and, even now, half still lead with only “Marc Cohn shot in head”. Is that liberal bias? Or is it “bad news sells” bias? I clicked. And that’s what the news media, whether MSM or not, want me to do. Again, it’s Capitalism 101. If people weren’t buying, the MSM wouldn’t be selling. More to the point, aren’t those people who link to and write about liberal bias in the MSM clicking and reading and discussing?

Solution? Keep questioning the “liberal” media. Technology makes that possible. But also question the people who bitch about the “liberal” media. Your brain makes that possible.

People can be so base

This story is “interesting”. Consider:

The science and business of sex identification took yet another quantum leap forward recently with the Pregnancystore.com’s release of the Baby Gender Mentor Home DNA Gender Testing Kit. Now, a pregnant woman can know her child’s sex shortly after she discovers her pregnancy. As soon as five weeks after conception, she can prick her finger, FedEx a blood sample to Acu-Gen Biolab in Lowell, and have the sex of her sprouting embryo e-mailed to her faster than Netflix can send her next movie.

Seems like a nice, harmless little bonus for horribly impatient people, right? That’s what I thought, until I read further, discovering one potential issue I hadn’t, and hopefully never would have, thought of. Consider:

Ultrasound and amniocentesis cannot accurately determine a fetus’s sex until at least four months into pregnancy and sometimes not until month five — a point at which virtually all expecting mothers have already chosen to continue their pregnancies to term. Since the state has no legal interest in a fetus before its viability (usually at 24 weeks), there has been a legal and technological gulf separating a woman’s choice to continue her pregnancy and any knowledge of its sex.

This is no longer the case. With the Gender Mentor Kit, a new issue enters many prospective parents’ minds: Do we want to have a child of this sex? Or should we try again?

Just what the hell is wrong with people? I understand that some cultures value male children more than female children, but, and this is an important point, we’re not supposed to be one of them. Any couples who want to choose the sex of their children should keep their zippers up and adopt.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh… This topic is too disgusting; I have nothing more to say.

(Source)

Let’s build one big pipeline with a faucet in every home

This editorial from The New York Times is amusing. The author speaks of bottled water and how it’s, among many apparent faults, not socially responsible. His logic is boring. Consider:

Bottled water is undeniably more fashionable and portable than tap water. The practice of carrying a small bottle, pioneered by supermodels [my note – Huh???], has become commonplace. But despite its association with purity and cleanliness, bottled water is bad for the environment. It is shipped at vast expense from one part of the world to another, is then kept refrigerated before sale, and causes huge numbers of plastic bottles to go into landfills.

Of course, tap water is not so abundant in the developing world. And that is ultimately why I find the illogical enthusiasm for bottled water not simply peculiar, but distasteful. For those of us in the developed world, safe water is now so abundant that we can afford to shun the tap water under our noses, and drink bottled water instead: our choice of water has become a lifestyle option. For many people in the developing world, however, access to water remains a matter of life or death.

More than 2.6 billion people, or more than 40 percent of the world’s population, lack basic sanitation, and more than one billion people lack reliable access to safe drinking water. The World Health Organization estimates that 80 percent of all illness in the world is due to water-borne diseases, and that at any given time, around half of the people in the developing world are suffering from diseases associated with inadequate water or sanitation, which kill around five million people a year.

Widespread illness also makes countries less productive, more dependent on outside aid, and less able to lift themselves out of poverty. One of the main reasons girls do not go to school in many parts of the developing world is that they have to spend so much time fetching water from distant wells.

I agree, clean water is a major issue and much suffering would cease with easy access to it. But… Illness alone does not make developing countries more dependent on outside aid. Tyrannical dictatorships make developing countries more dependent on outside aid. Illogical foreign aid policies by the developed world, in support of said dictatorships, makes developing countries more dependent on outside aid. The United States gives money to countries all around the world. Why aren’t they improving? Why do we see the same issues over and over?

And yet, the author continues with this:

Clean water could be provided to everyone on earth for an outlay of $1.7 billion a year beyond current spending on water projects, according to the International Water Management Institute. Improving sanitation, which is just as important, would cost a further $9.3 billion per year. This is less than a quarter of global annual spending on bottled water.

What if, just maybe, the incompetent, willfully negligent governments in developing countries misappropriate those additional funds. What then? Perhaps the palaces of Iraq could possibly verify such a radical theory. Regardless, as long as there are non-caring, bottled-water guzzling fashionistas, I’m glad that there are people smart enough to remind me that throwing more money at the problem is the answer. Brilliant!

(Hat tip: Radley Balko)

I’ll ignore that the Congress should deal with bigger issues

Now that I’ve moved a considerable distance from my previous residence, I’d assumed that I’d be free of the insufferable disgrace that is Congressman Loose Cannon&#153. When I checked a few days ago, just out of curiosity, I couldn’t believe the gerrymandered nonsense that enabled me to remain within his representation. Thus, I preface this entry with an acknowledgement that I will continue to write about him as a matter of constituency rather than spite. The spite is there, but it wouldn’t be enough to sustain me. Regardless, I’ll be very busy during next year’s Congressional campaign season.

Everyone has by now heard that Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for steroids. It’s a bit shocking and a disgrace for Major League Baseball. Hopefully it’s nothing more than a sign that testing is serious and will not be blind to the bigger names of the game. It’s all wonderful.

The amusing aspect of the story is this:

“As a practical matter, perjury referrals are uncommon. Prosecutions are rare,” House Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., said Wednesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

“But this is a high-profile case, so I think it will get an honest look-see. I don’t think anyone can avoid it.”

I’m not going to attack Congressman Loose Cannon for this. As much as it pains me to say it, his basic point is right. Mr. Palmeiro represented himself one way and the facts, after his testimony, may discredit his original testimony. His innocence is still assumed, but any rational person would question his truthfulness. So, despite Congressman Loose Cannon’s obvious posturing and the complete idiocy of the original hearings, I can’t fault him for shoveling deeper in the hole he’s dug for the House.

I can, however, point out his additional comment on the matter.

And then Davis added: “If we did nothing, I think we’d look like idiots. Don’t you?”

Sometimes it’s so easy that it’s not even fun.

Will liberals have to speak French, since they’re not really Americans?

Hey, look who’s back in the friendly orange-and-maroon glow of RollingDoughnut.com, it’s Michelle Malkin. But this time, I’m not so much disagreeing with her as I am pointing out a subtle intellectual sleight of hand that she shares with many conservatives. It’s even something I’ve written about in the past. So, journey with me to Ms. Malkin’s latest Townhall.com column. Consider:

Where are they? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the supermen of the civil rights establishment — able to leap tall buildings in a single bound to get in front of a picket line. When victim politics calls, the demagogic duo leap into patented action: March. Boycott. Shakedown. Repeat.

But the raging reverends are nowhere to be found as a scandal involving the liberal radio network Air America and a Bronx, N.Y.-based inner city charity for poor children brews. Why the silence?

It’s all about the Benjamins, as they say.

Right, okay, fine. I’m intrigued and so far, not disagreeing. Can you believe that? I might be intellectually open enough to not spew one party’s lines on every issue. Hmph. And shocker, Michelle Malkin isn’t always wrong. Wow, it just shakes my political brain into little more than the aftermath of ice in a whirring blender. No intellectual sleight of hand so far. Let’s continue.

First, a summary of the financial fiasco that the liberal media won’t touch: The New York City Department of Investigation has been probing allegations that officials of the nonprofit Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club and one of its affiliates, Pathways for Youth, approved “significant inappropriate transactions and falsified documents that were submitted to various city agencies.” The charities receive large portions of their budgets from local, state and federal government grants. At the center of the controversy is Evan Montvel Cohen, the disgraced former chairman of Air America, who was in charge of the liberal radio network at the same time he was serving as Gloria Wise’s director of development.

Where to begin? Right, so Air America allegedly stole money from charity. Worse, they allegedly stole money from kids. Worst, they allegedly stole money from black kids. Ack. Can’t trust those liberals, can we? They’re nothing more than bastard people. Let’s all say it together. You bastards!

And yet, I missed the memo that said if one liberal allegedly steals money, all liberals are guilty of said (alleged) crime. And it’s especially heinous because no conservatives ever stole money. Of course, it still must come back to one point, which is in the column, as well as virtually every post Ms. Malkin has written in the last few months. I don’t even think it’s hidden well, but I’ve gotten used to spotting it in almost every rant from Ms. Malkin. It’s that phrase, the “liberal media”.

I admit, though, I’d expected to see MSM written in the article. Every argument seems to focus on the dangers of the liberal mainstream media and its unhealthy, unpatriotic bias against America. Blah, blah, blah. There’s a truth that conservatives such as Ms. Malkin, the ones who gleefully toss out “MSM” at every opportunity, want everyone else to ignore. Their perfect world would include only a media with a conservative bias. None is suggesting an unbiased media, just one that doesn’t skew left. I fail to see how that is better than their current complaint.

In the past I’ve written that there is no inherent liberal bias in the mainstream media. I’m afraid I haven’t been as micro-focused as I should have. There is most certainly a bias at specific mainstream media outlets. Organizations such as the New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post all possess some degree of it. And I’m sure there are countless others that individuals on any location of the right will name. Go for it, but what does it achieve?

In an earlier post, Ms. Malkin writes this about the Air America scandal:

Despite the near-total MSM blackout, this story just keeps getting more and more interesting.

Yet, she can legitimately write this in her Townhall.com column:

The New York Sun’s David Lombino reported this week…

Wait, there’s a media outlet that isn’t liberal, or at least is willing to report this story? Holy crap, Batman! I wonder how Fox News and The Washington Times have treated this story? And maybe Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity? I bet they’re doing nothing more than presenting the facts.

Every time someone complains about the MSM, it knocks the credibility of all news/media outlets. What happens when we need them to serve the most important purposes of journalists? (Yes, I may be assuming a lot in imagining that journalists can focus on real issues rather than the latest missing woman.) There is a difference in attempting to reform bias, liberal or conservative, and throwing verbal Molotov cocktails of derision at anyone with a microphone or printing press who dares to share a liberal opinion. The former is a necessary safeguard in the advancement of freedom and truth. The latter is little more than planting a partisan wedge of mistrust in society for the extension of a rigid ideology.

I wonder which choice the newly idealized version of our founding fathers that Rick Santorum so cheerfully invokes would choose, if offered the decision?

I’m going to miss Queer As Folk

President Bush made some interesting remarks to a group of Texas reporters that’s achieved some mileage in the blogosphere this week. Consider:

Q I wanted to ask you about the — what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I think — as I said, harking back to my days as my governor — both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

That’s the extent of the issue I’ve seen in many places. It’s important, but it cuts out some of the context. The back-and-forth continued with this:

Q Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.

That’s getting closer, I think, but it’s still not complete. The bloggers doing their best to defend President Bush push all the way to this:

Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

As is obvious, the question and answer was about intelligent design. The topic has many facets and can be argued for or against with various tactics. His response was fundamentalist, bold, out of touch with reality, nuanced, whatever, all depending on who offered the commentary. All of which I find to be tedious and pointless, if only because I’m not motivated presently to debate the religious aspects. Yet, President Bush’s remarks are useful, so allow me to repeat his last sentiment.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Hmmm, interesting. Really? No kidding? He could’ve fooled me. But perhaps we can hold him to his valid theory of education, at least when read exactly as the words were spoken. Ignore the subtle back-pedaling focus on one issue that I assume he meant to engender and he offered something useful. Could what he said, just perhaps, be applied to homosexuality, as well?

He wants schools to teach intelligent design, a theory that is scientifically unverifiable, yet he has no problem directing our government to pretend that homosexuals don’t exist? Forget even proving whether or not homosexuality is biological. The topic of homosexuality must not find its way into education in any way, lest children have an agenda pushed upon them. Shame on society should a defenseless child see something as perverse as a homosexual couple with kids in a textbook or an instructional video. It could lead them to acknowledge the existence of those we’d rather not acknowledge.

But I forget, it’s all about the children.

The entry where I send my four readers elsewhere

Anyone who reads this site can decipher that I enjoy the writing process. I have a few favorite topics that appear repeatedly, but I’ll write about whatever interests me at the moment. Unfortunately, today I don’t have enough time to focus on news commentary. Instead, allow me to point you to two interesting pieces from around the Internets that fascinate me.

First, from Kip at A Stitch in Haste discusses the idiocy of Congressional Democrats and their new proposal called AmeriSave. This is the basic summary of the program:

AmeriSave Match: Help middle and working-class families achieve retirement security by matching dollar-for-dollar the first $1,000 contributed to an IRA, 401(k), or similar plan. The AmeriSave Match will not involve creating a new type of account; instead, it builds on a successful model of 401(k)s and IRAs by increasing incentives to participate. Individuals would receive their AmeriSave Match after they filed a tax return, at which time the funds would be directed to their 401(k) or other plan.

Kip responds accordingly.

This new matching scheme is apparently meant to deflect from (i.e., continue the absolute obstruction of) private accounts within Social Security.

It is also a total fraud. The matching plan will have little or no impact on national savings. It also, by definition, does nothing to address the Social Security crisis (understandable since Democrats lie by insisting that there is no crisis anyway).

He gives a detailed, point-by-point explanation for why AmeriSave is an idiotic, pandering non-solution. Remember, when the government offers us anything, we’re paying for what’s offered. It’s shameful when politicians treat us as if we’re too stupid to understand this. Unfortunately, I fear they may be right with many, though. (Yes, I’m speaking of the further left liberals, the ones who imagine that socialism is a good idea not yet given a fair chance to succeed.) Either way, read Kip’s post. It’s good and worth the short time investment. (As is the rest of his blog.)

Next, I didn’t write about the scandalous sex included in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. This type of issue is important to me, as I care most for the First Amendment and the surrounding free speech/intellectual property implications in today’s society. Unfortunately, politicians saw this non-scandal as a chance to jump up and pretend to lead. (Yes, I’m speaking of you, Senator Clinton.) I’ve read a few news reports, but I already understand the issues. If I’d had the time, I would’ve written about the stupidity surrounding the whole mess. Instead, read Timothy’s take on the topic at The One-Handed Economist. He wrote what I wish I’d written. As a bonus, I laughed out loud. Consider:

I have little to no patience for this kind of crap. Look, if you’re too goddamned stupid to not buy your child a game clearly based on violence, you don’t really have the luxury of demanding that the game company did something “irresponsible”. Hidden content is the bread and butter of gaming, that stuff has been around since the advent of computer games. Those of us familiar with the subject matter call them Easter Eggs.

Furthermore, the goddamn game is called GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS, what did you think it was going to be about? Quiet strolls in the park collecting flowers? How can you not know this stuff, parents? If you refuse to “protect” whatever perceived innocence your precious little children have, then it certainly isn’t my job to do it for you. It also certainly isn’t the governments, and you certainly don’t have the right to ruin fun for everyone else.

Read the whole thing. It’s not just funny, it smacks everyone deserving of a good smack.

As a side point, for what it’s worth, I followed a link to The One-Handed Economist when Timothy defended me in a comment spat at Jeff Jarvis’ BuzzMachine. I use my intellect when I comment on other sites, but not everyone can be expected to follow the same on the Internets. When some kind folks attacked me for not being an ideologue with only sycophantic, partisan intentions, Timothy backed me up. I’ve never met corresponded with him, but I checked out his site and liked it a lot. I recommend it.