A View From The Basement

I'm Retired

2006-03-22T19:16:00.000-05:00

Finito.

Censure

2006-03-21T00:36:00.000-05:00

The Republicans are lawbreakers, but the Democrats are idiots. Not backing Feingold's censure resolution, pretty much the only thing we can do at this point to hold the president accountable for his potentially lawbreaking actions, is a completely political move that will completely backfire.

Democrats have become so accustomed to attacks at the hands of Fox News, Newscorp, and the rest of the right-wing media that they have become afraid to do anything politically.

OF COURSE the censure resolution will make waves. That's the point!!! The Republican majority congress is too afraid to investigate this program, so they've chosen not to. Without pushing this program into the spotlight time and again, this program will NEVER be investigated, just as prewar intelligence, and the potential fabrication involved in the buildup to war, has NEVER been investigated 3 years after the fact.

If elected democrats aren't willing to question this president's actions and do whatever's necessary to check his power, then we'll elect people who will. And if we can't, we'll become disillusioned and you will lose to a republican.

Fuck if I care if democrats, who only care about political ramifications and not constitutionally mandated oversight, lose to republicans. The republicans are doing what's expected of them; the democrats are not.

It's fucking pathetic.

Redskins Update

2006-03-17T13:24:00.000-05:00

Well, the Redskins got every player they targeted in free agency. Brandon Lloyd, Antwaan Randle El, Adam Archuleta, Andre Carter, Todd Collins, and Christian Fauria are all Redskins now. Khary Campball and Cedric Killings have been re-signed.

I like most of these acquisitions. The most valuable, by far I think, is the signing of Andre Carter. He's tremendously talented, but was going to waste on a bad 49ers team. Signing him gives the Skins the depth they desperately need on the defensive line. Renaldo Wynn will now be a top reserve, and he'll be a great one. Hopefully, signing Carter won't keep us from re-signing Demetric Evans, a good young player.

I like the signing of Antwaan Randle-El and, to a lesser extent, the trade for Brandon Lloyd. Randle El can do so many different things, and simple receiving statistics do not account for his entire effect on a game. He's also very mature and motivated. Lloyd, I'm not sure about his character. He seems to want to be a rapper more than a football player. He's also very slender, and could really serve to bulk up and gain muscle. He's very talented, though, and if he matures, could develop into a top receiver. I'd rather have had Antonio Bryant than Lloyd, though.

The signings of Christian Fauria and Todd Collins are good ones. Fauria will replace Robert Royal. He's on the downside of his career at 35, but he is a cheap replacement with 3 championship rings. He is a solid blocker and won't drop as many balls as Royal did, either. Collins will be the 3rd quarterback and his most important job will be to mentor Jason Campbell. Nobody knows how good he can pass, since he hasn't had much game experience in years, but he knows Al Saunders' system, and is apparently a genial guy. His signing signals the end for Patrick Ramsey.

That brings me to Adam Archuleta. He's a talented guy, but I don't like this signing. He got more money than any other safety has ever gotten in the history of the NFL. He simply isn't worth that money. He's pretty fast, and is in great shape. He can hit hard and intimidate, but he isn't the best tackler, and his cover skills aren't very good. Most disturbing, though, is his tendency to get injured. He seems to miss 2 or 3 games every year. He'll be 29 in November and is no spring chicken. I'd have much rather signed Ryan Clark for less and brought him back than sign Archuleta for this incredible amount of money.

Hopefully the Skins aren't done in free agency though. Rumor has it that they are working to sign Jeff Mitchell, center/guard who could backup the middle of the toffensive line. They're also apparently interested in Jamar Fletcher, a former first round pick who has been a bust so far but is only 27 and could revive his career as a nickle corner. The Skins probably also need to sign some help at linebacker after losing LaVar Arrington. And, of course, they continue to attempt to trade Patrick Ramsey for a late pick this year.

We'll have to wait and see what happens. Free agency is always exciting around these parts.

Free Agency!!!

2006-03-11T03:23:00.000-05:00

Free Agency is finally here. Despite my earlier proclamation, the Redskins are not doomed. The new CBA saved them, and they will have enough room to work under the cap and make some improvements.

In fact, according to this article from ESPN, the Redskins plan on bringing 4 players to Redskins park within the next 24 hours, presumably with contracts signed. I'll copy the relevant portion of this article here:

"The Redskins came out swinging. They made contact after midnight Friday with 49ers defensive end Andre Carter, Rams safety Adam Archuleta, Chiefs quarterback Todd Collins and Steelers receiver Antwaan Randle El and have them flying in as early as Saturday.

The Redskins are also working on a possible trade for restricted free agent Brandon Lloyd of the 49ers. Lloyd was given the first round tender, but the Redskins have initiated trade talks that could give the 49ers two mid-round draft picks. Lloyd agreed Friday night to make a visit to the Redskins on Sunday. There is a good chance Lloyd will come to an agreement with Redskins for big money before the end of the weekend. The plan for the Redskins is to sign Antwaan Randle El and Lloyd."

I wouldn't put it past Daniel Snyder to sign each and every one of these guys. He has the money, he has the will, and he has the smarts to make it all fit under the salary cap of 102 million. Assuming he signs all these players, what will happen??

Well, Archuleta would presumably start where Ryan Clark started last year, assuming Sean Taylor isn't incarcerated following his trial in April. Archuleta is very talented and probably faster than Clark, but he has a tendency to gamble too much. I don't like this signing too much; Clark would be cheaper than Archuleta, he knows the system, and is younger. This is a name signing more than anything. If Taylor is incarcerated, though, we could still re-sign Clark and start him opposite Archuleta.

Signing Andre Carter would be a good move, provided we don't overpay. John Abraham is too expensive for us, our draft picks are too late to get any defensive end help, and the only other guy who could have helped us, Aaron Kampman, re-signed with the Packers today. I'm assuming we would play Carter at defensive end, which is where he has been more sucessful, but he has spent some time at outside linebacker as well. His signing would strengthen our defensive line depth all around. Both Phillip Daniels and Renaldo Wynn can play defensive tackle too, so with Carter in the lineup, one of them (Wynn probably) will rotate in and out of the line. I'd still like to re-sign Demetric Evans, as he was a valuable reserve for us, but signing Carter will give us a speed threat from the outside.

The Todd Collins signing is a no-brainer, I think. Once we trade Patrick Ramsey, we will have only two quarterbacks on the roster in Brunell and Campbell. Since Campbell is the qb of the future, getting a young qb to fill the third QB role wouldn't make much sense. Collins has spent a ton of time with new offensive coordinator Al Saunders, and knows his system. He can help tutor Campbell and is a good locker room guy. Best of all, he'll sign for the veteran minimum probably.

Finally, we get to the wideouts. The revelation here that the Redskins plan on signing both Brandon Lloyd AND Antwaan Randle El really surprises me. I'm not surprised they would go after both, but I would have thought that if they signed one, theyd lose interest in the other. If they sign both, Randle El and Lloyd will have to compete for the second wide receiver spot opposite Santana Moss; I'm guessing Lloyd would have the edge here, since Randle El has already proven his worth as a third receiver out of the slot. Randle El would become the primary punt returner. Getting Brandon Lloyd, who is a restricted free agent, would likely cost us our second AND third round draft picks this year, making our draft class negligible to the extreme. Lloyd was tendered a first round tender, but since we don't have a first rounder, we would have to negotiate with the 49ers on an alternative deal.

I don't really like the signing of Lloyd. He has a tendency to go for one handed grabs when he doesn't have to. His talent is good, but he has a tendency to get banged up, and he has never played on a winning team before or proven his mettle in tough situations. Randle El I like, though I'd be surprised if he signed to only be a third receiver.

If we sign both receivers, its likely curtains for David Patten and Taylor Jacobs. James Thrash will probably stay because of his versatility, and see more time at H-back. A guy like Jimmy Farris would be the fifth and final receiver and be inactivated for games.

Another guy we have been rumored to be interested in is Maake Kemoetu, a huge defensive tackle who has played in Baltimore the past few years. Signing him would make less sense for us than a signing of Andre Carter, though, since Cornelius Griffin and Joe Salave'a can't play outside, while Daniels and Wynn can move inside. He's definitely a good, young player, though.

Also, one position these signings would neglect is the outside linebacker void created by the release of LaVar Arrington, although Carter could play some there. Assuming Carter plays at end, though, we would still probably need to sign a veteran linebacker to compete with Robert McCune and others at that position, to add depth at the very least.

Male Reproductive Rights

2006-03-10T19:18:00.000-05:00

This is something I had thought about, but I hadn't heard it discussed publicly until the past few days when CNN ran this article. I had actually thought of a policy like this on my own, and that made me happy that my idea had been thought up by others as well.

Anyway, this argument may be moot considering the attack on abortion coming from South Dakota and other states. If abortion is illegalized, a policy like this has no chance of standing up in court. So, defending a woman's right to an abortion is the first order of business for the sane among us. Firedoglake has an interesting post up about this.

However, assuming abortion remains legal in most states, the argument goes like this: when a woman gets pregnant, she has three options: abort it, carry it to term and give it up for adoption, or carry it to term and keep it. Men have no such options. If the woman wants to abort it and the man wants to keep it, the baby is aborted. If the man wants to abort it and the woman wants to keep it, the man is still subject to required child support payments.

This lawsuit only concerns situations where a woman has deceived/misled a man into thinking she would abort a baby if an unintended pregnancy occured, only to change her mind once that happens. In such a case, I think it's reasonable to view the woman and man as having had a verbal agreement that the woman later reneged on.

Final say on whether to have an abortion should always remain in the hands of the woman. After all, the baby grows inside of her, and it is her that would undergo abortion surgery if that is the choice made. However, if a man is led to believe that an unintended pregnancy would get aborted, he should not be responsible for child support payments if the woman changes her mind. It is only fair.

Critics will say that child support still should be required since the baby is what is at issue, and the man's rights are irrelevant compared to the baby's. I will counter by saying that having a father spending his money on a baby he does not want, being resentful of the child for draining his bank account, this isn't good for anyone. The man has rights too, and while his rights are the easiest to violate in this instance (most criminals are men, men fight and die in wars, civilian women and children are viewed as more regrettable collateral damage than civilian men are; men are viewed as more expendable, in almost any instance, than women and children are), this shouldn't be the case.

This isn't chauvenism, as many men would likely view it. It's about equal treatment and insisting that the courts remember we exist, and our rights matter.

Iran

2006-03-09T16:43:00.000-05:00

We've heard alot of concern from this administration and other public officials concerning Iran recently. And for once, I agree with them. Iran having nuclear weaponry is not good for anyone. Anyone having nuclear weaponry is a bad thing, but Iran is especially worrisome, given the religious climate of the area.

What the fuck can we do though??? Our military is stuck in Iraq. I have favored immediate withdrawal from Iraq for a few years now, but with civil war erupting there and Bush desperate to save face, that's not going to happen anytime soon. Our manpower is committed to Iraq, and Bush won't withdraw the troops in a time of civil war. Also, Iran hasn't been crippled by sanctions as Iraq was. Their military will put up much more resistance than Iraq ever did. So, realistically, a ground invasion of Iran is impossible.

One thing that would certainly cripple Iran, though, is a nuclear attack on our part. But do we really want to nuke them to keep them from getting nukes?? That's hypocritical and paternalistic. For political reasons as much as anything, we cannot nuke Iran.

The only option we have, realistically, are air bombing raids, attempting to destroy their nuclear facilities. And this is what will likely happen. But bombing Iran will only serve to further unite the Arab world against us; Iraq will sympathize with Iran, and Iran will do all they can to de-stabilize Iraq.

What we have to remember is that religion makes people act irrationally. There are no atheistic suicide bombers; only irrational faith in another world after this one allows people to believe that martyring themselves is a good thing. We can't expect Iran to act rationally.

Many Democrats think if we would just leave Muslims alone, they would leave us alone; this certainly isn't the case. They think western society is evil and working against Muhammad. Killing us gives them a free ticket to heaven and virgins and rivers of honey. If you think I'm exaggerating, read some writings, and watch the joy communities show when a young man martyrs himself. It's completely and utterly irrational.

Really, there is no easy answer to this problem. If I were commander-in-chief, I would propose isolationist military policy. We are a world economy, so complete isolation now is impossible, but I would try to avoid angering the irrational crazies as much as possible. Our support of Israel is at the root of our problems with Arabs. We don't have nearly the same responsibility to Israel that we have to ourselves, so my first order of business would be to distance ourselves from Israel and all the other middle-eastern nations. Border security would follow; we have to control who enters the country. I would try to change our image abroad through public relations and speeches; this is as big a problem as we have right now, with a bumbling idiot in office.

We have to identify the irrational acts with religion, because that is the problem. Too many people are willing to ignore the real problem, for the sake of "tolerance". That's just burying your heads in the sand, folks. I thought we were smarter than ostriches.

On a serious note...

2006-03-08T03:14:00.000-05:00

We have had two additional events in recent days, once again showing that Republicans believe in a sliding scale of what is legal and illegal, depending on who is in power and doing what.

Back when Bill Clinton was president, he favored legislation enacting a line-item veto. Republicans were strongly against it, and in the end, the Supreme Court ruled that a line-item veto was unconstitutional.

Now, Bush believes he can get the Supreme Court to reverse their earlier ruling, allowing him to have a line-item veto.

Also, the senate intelligence committee refused to investigate George Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. They didn't find it legal; THEY REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER IT IS LEGAL OR NOT. Some Republican senators will undoubtedly claim that they thought it was legal, but this is impossible, since without a full investigation, the program can't even be understood, let alone judged on legal grounds.

The congress has, basically, abdicated its authority under this presidency. This has allowed Bush to pretty much do whatever he wants, the laws and precedent be damned.

These are only he two most recent examples. IF our country survives this period of time, we will look back in horror at what has happened. That is, unless Bush and his cronies are sucessful in their attempt to rewrite history (they've already started doing this, by re-classifying public documents from as far back as the 1930s.)

The Passion of the Christ 2: Judgement Day

2006-03-08T03:03:00.000-05:00

Watch the trailer.

And another take.

"If We Can't Win by Following the Rules, We'll Change the Rules!!!"

2006-03-05T00:52:00.000-05:00

From the controversial redistricting in Texas to the threatened removal of the filibuster (and the probable election fraud perpetrated in both 2000 and 2004), it's become clear that when Republicans on the national level can't get the result they want by following the rules, they have no qualms about changing the rules.

Now, they're at it again. Bill Frist stated publicly on friday that if the Senate Intelligence Committee moves forward with the intention to examine and hold hearings regarding Bushy's warrantless spy program, he will blow up the composition of the committee and fill it with Republicans.

Link and discussion here from Democratic Underground.

I don't think it can be any more obvious why those unwilling to play by the rules need to be kicked out of office. More often than not these days, those people are Republicans.

Watch Out for the Fox Police!!!

2006-03-03T23:52:00.000-05:00

The Bill O'Reilly-Keith Olbermann feud is really heating up. Courtesy of Mike Stark once again, we have O'Reilly threatening to send local police after Mike for saying the dreaded "O" word- Olbermann -on his radio show. The key here is that the radio listeners didn't hear the "O" word because of the 7 second delay. O'Reilly implied that Mike Stark had said some obscenity when, in fact, he hadn't at all.

Olbermann jumped on this call Friday night. The video can be found here, courtesy of Crooks and Liars. Mike Stark is amassing a number of people to call in to O'Reilly's radio show on Monday to say the dreaded "O" word; yours truly has signed up to get in on the action.

Things are getting very interesting.

A Good Question to Ask Pro-Lifers

2006-03-03T22:38:00.000-05:00

Courtesy Mike Stark, a dude who spends his time annoying conservative media men. Mike, keep up the good work.

The question is this: "You find yourself in a blazing fertility clinic - the fire is ferocious. In one corner there is a two year old girl. In another, there is a petri dish with five fertilized blastula in it. You can rescue one or the other, but not both. Which do you rescue, the girl or the petri dish?"

First, make sure you ask the pro-lifer if he/she believes life begins at conception. Once they inevitably say yes, launch into the question. It's quite the conundrum.

If they say they would save the 5 blastula, they are being consistent. The petri dish holds 5 lives, according to them, while the little girl only represents one life.

However, saving the petri dish, while the consistent answer for the pro-lifer, is a completely ridiculous response. If the pro-lifer is honest with themselves and the questioner, they will answer that they would save the little girl. However, this answer tacitly admits that somehow, the one life of the little girl is more valuable than the 5 "lives" in the petri dish. Reconciling this answer is a problem for a pro-lifer.

Most likely, the answer you get will be similar to this neophyte radio host's answer; a frustrated barrage of ad hominem attacks riddled with inconsistencies and hypocrisy. It is a rare fundamentalist pro-lifer who would answer this question honestly without attacking you first. That's what they're taught to do, after all.

Now, I know most of you on the left don't need debating tips. It's quite easy to frustrate a freeper. But, there are a plethora of sites (and schools) teaching fundamentalists how to debate, so I figured a little taste of their own medicine wouldn't hurt.

Woohoo!!! More Societal Divisions!!!

2006-03-03T00:31:00.000-05:00

Link

Why can't religious people just avoid whatever "god" says to avoid, without putting up a fuss when other people don't avoid it???

Encouraging societal divisions like this will only cause trouble.

We'll be Greeted as Liberators!!!!

2006-03-03T00:21:00.001-05:00

Uh, not quite.

I worked with this shit, experimented on rats with it. It's not pretty, and I never saw the long term after-effects, only the immediate effects in the days after exposure.

I wasn't politically active back then, and I didn't fully grasp the nature of what I was doing, I guess.

This stuff needs to be put on reserve, and used as sparingly as fully nuclear weapons. How can we rant and rave about the dangers of Iran having a nuke, when we are fully willing to spread radioactive waste all over Iraq??

The Redskins are Doomed

2006-03-02T16:30:00.000-05:00

With the breakdown of NFL labor negotiations, the Redskins are doomed. By the end of today, they will be forced to cut up to 20 players, and will be unable to sign any veterans to replace them.

The 2006 season will inevitably suck. If I'm smart, I should plan a drug binge for fall 2006 so I can just pass through the pain in a dreamy semi-cognizant state.

I need a Woman

2006-03-02T15:42:00.000-05:00

This is the conclusion I've reached.

My past haunts me

2006-03-01T01:26:00.000-05:00

And it fucking sucks.

To be or not to be...

2005-12-10T19:13:00.000-05:00

....informed??

My life is all about self-exploration and discovery. I'm probably one of the least socialized people on the Earth, and I'm constantly evaluating the thinking patterns of others, looking for uniqueness. Unfortunately, most people don't think on their own today. I think its something that has to be developed in childhood, and for those who don't think on their own growing up and instead take life as its presented to them, they are doomed to become just another worker bee, subject to the whims of their superiors.

Anyway, after that diatribe, one question I've come across is this: is it better to be informed, or is it better to be ignorant?? I really don't have a choice in the matter; my curiosity forces me to be informed about anything and everything. But I've found that my happiest moments are when I've become engrossed in some meaningless venture, like watching football, or playing a video game. When I am informing myself and engaging in debate, I'm not happy, I'm angry, and my anger is often counterproductive.

So, many of you would probably say, thats normal, right?? When engaging in playtime, you are happier, and when in the real world, you aren't. It's not like that for me though. I get addicted to certain aspects of my life, and it really doesn't matter whether they are pointless pursuits or whether they are "real world activities." Even though I don't enjoy the anger that comes out of spirited political debate, I am addicted to it. I've been addicted, likewise, to exercise. I worked out every day for two years, hating every minute of it, but unable to stop. As I said, though, I'm also able to get addicted to meaningless crap, like World of Warcraft, for example.

Anyway, its a pointless train of thought I guess, since I have no control over it. But I wonder, if I had a choice, would I choose ignorance over knowledge?? Would I choose to live a meaningless existence over being a productive part of a capitalist society??

I don't know, but I have a hunch that I would choose ignorance.

Bohemian.... Rhapsody?? Not Quite.

2005-12-04T05:52:00.000-05:00

If I told you that every year in the middle of summer, the world's elite, in terms of money and power, gather north of San Francisco deep in the Redwood forests, in secret, and have been doing so for over 120 years, would you believe me??

It's true. They all belong to the Bohemian Club. Leaders in politics (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2, Kissinger, among many others), media (Cronkite, etc), and corporate America (oil tycoons, pharmaceutical industry moguls, and so on) all meet together once a year.
-----------------------------
What if I told you that at these meetings, at the Bohemian Club, important dealings, both financial and political, took place, in secret??

It's true. Apparently, the idea for the Manhattan project was launched in the mid-40s at one of these yearly meetings. Corporate mergers, presidential nominations, all sorts of big, important decisions take place at these yearly gatherings at the Bohemian Club.
--------------------------------
What if I told you that, in addition to making important decisions and socializing among the elite, that pagan rituals took place at these meetings?? Would you believe me?? And what if I told you that at these pagan rituals, they burned a body in effigy, at an altar of worship to a 45 foot tall owl god???

Believe it or not, this is true too. The world's elite gather to perform the "Cremation of Care" ritual, in which (now) a fake body is burned in trubute to the owl god, "Moloch", a god with biblical roots in the old testament that began being worship in ancient Babylon.
-----------------------------------

Don't believe me?? Most wouldn't, so I provide you with a link showing you everything. An intrepid journalist named Alex Jones snuck a hidden camera into the top secret club, fake name and everything, and taped the ritual.

It's a very interesting movie, close to two hours long though, but I would encourage you to watch it. It is hard to believe, but he has it all on tape.

I've been watching a few of Jones' other tapes, and he certainly has some wild ideas. I don't agree with all of them, but a number really do have merit. If you are really looking for truth, and aren't just a Republican or Democratic idealogue looking to defend your party, you should check out some of his work. Keep in mind that, although many of his ideas seem outlandish at first, that that is because you haven't been exposed to them before. He backs them up pretty well.

Homecoming

2005-12-03T00:42:00.000-05:00

Based on some good recommendations from people in the know, I watched a program tonight on Showtime entitled "Masters of Horror: Homecoming".

Apparently, Masters of Horror is a horror series on Showtime, and not every episode has as political a bent as this one did. I don't plan on watching other episodes, as I'm not really a fan of horror films, but boy, did I enjoy this episode.

The basic premise is this: A Republican media-man, when confronted by a Cindy Sheehan-like mother of a dead soldier, says that it would be his greatest wish if the dead soldiers killed in Iraq could come back to life. His saying comes off well, and the Republicans decide to feed it to their presidential candidate for use in his speech, which he does.

After this saying is used repeatedly, something sorta funny, sorta sad happens. The dead veterans actually come back to life, as zombies!! They crawl out of their graves, moaning, stumbling, like zombies tend to do. But they don't hurt anyone; instead, they go to advance polling places to vote (the movie takes place in 2008, with a fictional president and fictional members of the Republican news media, but its obvious who each character is meant to be).

Thats the general premise, but I won't spoil the rest of the story for you. If it gets enough publicity, it will undoubtedly be attacked by Faux News and other right-wing media as disrespecting the troops by portraying them as zombies. But, actually, the zombies come off rather favorably in this film compared to the Republicans.

This movie is a must see for anyone with a political bent. It is at times ridiculous, many times funny with ingenious one-liners, and also sad, even though it is, at its root, a horror movie. It is brilliant satire, and might be able to cause waves.

As some people at democratic underground put it, zombies are something joe sixpack can understand and relate to. So, it might work, but even if its doesn't, its still worth a look. Trust me.

Bush DID Lie!!

2005-12-01T07:57:00.000-05:00

Conclusive proof offered here.

It isn't so much lying as an ends justifying the means sort of thing, but in the end he definitely had the goal of invading Iraq, and was willing to lie to accomplish it.

It's nice to finally have all the quotes and evidence put together in one document, makes for easy reference. So, for those arguing that calling the president a liar is unpatriotic and helps the enemy, well, he did!! So criticize him, why dontcha.

Can Democrats Ever Succeed??

2005-12-01T07:18:00.000-05:00

If you look at recent history politically, it has been dominated by Republicans. Since Lyndon Johnson left office in 1968, we have had 10 presidential elections. 7 were won by Republicans (Nixon twice, Reagan twice, Bush 1, Bush 2 twice), 3 were won by Democrats (Carter, Clinton twice).

Looking further, though, it can be argued that only the Carter victory was a legitimate one, as Clinton was aided immeasurably in both '92 and '96 by Ross Perot, who garnered a significant percentage of voters, most of whom would have likely voted Republican. The Bush 2000 win can be categorized in a similar way because of Ralph Nader, so eliminating those 3 elections, the tally is 6 to 1 in elections where only candidates from the two major parties recieve significant votes. Looks bad for the Democrats.

This period is the media age, where information is available on demand in the format you desire. I've been doing some thinking, and I've come to believe that despite all the efforts of Democrat politicians and supporters, it may not be possible for them to win in the current environment.

Why you ask?? Unity. The key difference between Democrats and Republicans, it seems, is Republicans are much more trusting. They believe what their party leaders tell them. Despite evidence that Bush fabricated the reasons necessary for war in Iraq, that the whole WMD theory was more excuse than belief, most Republicans still trust the guy they elected. Despite connections evident between Dick Cheney and oil companies, despite bills like the Patriot Act that endanger their civil liberties, and ignoring an increasingly implausible rationale for continued troop deployment in Iraq, most Republicans still believe in their elected leaders.

And this is to be expected. Republicans are generally trusting people. They trust their pastors, they trust their teachers, they trust the view of the world they grew up with is correct, ignoring evidence to the contrary. For those that grew up believing the Bible literally, no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. Many Republicans still believe that we shoyuld not have abandoned the war in Vietnam, despite the mounds of evidence that the war was unwinnable.

Democrats are not this way, and are far less united. There are Christian Democrats, mainly Catholic. There are atheist Democrats, like myself. There are many Democrats who are rabidly pro-choice, but many of the Religious Democrats are pro-life. There are many rich Democrats who vote against their monetary interests, and there are many poor Democrats who vote because of their monetary interest.

What is very clear, though, is that Democrats walk to their own beat, while the Republicans are more in lockstep. One only has to look at the sucess of this "Christmas Controversy" to see how this works. It is a manufactured issue if there ever was one, with the right-wing media "outing" stores who say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." If any reasonable person took time to think about it, they would ask, "Who cares what greeting the store says?? Why is this an issue??" I agree with these people. But the religious right has created a frenzy among southern Christians, who won't shop at any store not using the appropriate greeting.

It is their right, of course, to shop wherever they want for whatever reasons they want to use. Furthermore, I really don't care what greeting stores use. This is just the most recent example, though, of an issue manufactured by the religious right and the right wing media to get their followers angry. The Swift Boat "controversy" is another example.

There is no equivalent to these factless frenzies on the left, and there never will be. I'm not calling all Republicans dumb, for there are certainly many smart, albeit misguided, Republicans out there. But they are definitely more trusting and less questioning than your average intelligent Democrat. Their natures lead them to their respective parties.

There is no way for the Democrats to become as united, and as a result, no way for them to force their political will like the Republican party can. The fact that a good portion of the Republican base doesn't understand the lies doesn't matter; the uninformed and the stupid have the same voting power as I do.

Does this mean the Democrats should stop trying?? Of course not. But it does mean that the battle may not be winnable, unless the state of the country is altered drastically. In today's media age, it is far too easy to control the minds of the easily impressionable, and the force of that control can never be equaled among thoughtful people.

I Love the Redskins

2005-11-28T02:11:00.000-05:00

...but I hate them.

This must be what marriage feels like, when your partner is rejecting you emotionally. Or maybe its more like what religious faith would feel like after someone close to you was brutally murdered.

Maybe there is nothing like it. At least, in my life, there hasn't been. I grew up with the Redskins. I was 7 when they last won the Super Bowl, in 1991. I remember crying after they lost to the Cowboys in the 13th week of the season after starting out 11-0 that year, and I actually remember my dad telling my mom that in future years, I would always be dissapointed, because nothing could compare to that magical season.

And nothing has. But I'm sure my father didn't expect that I would be in for this level of dissapointment. In the 13 years following the 1991 championship season and the 9-7 season immediately following it (Joe Gibbs' last before his retirement), the Redskins have made the playoffs one time. Their records, from 1993 until now, are as follows: 4-12, 3-13, 6-10, 9-7, 8-7-1, 6-10, 10-6*, 8-8, 8-8, 7-9, 5-11, 6-10. The starred season was their lone playoff season, in 1999. I'll get into that a bit later. Their current season stands at 5-6 after this week's loss, and seems destined to be playoff-less yet again.

They seem to be in a constant rebuilding stage. They haven't been terrible since 1994, they've always been mediocre. Since Dan Snyder bought the team in 1999, he has always gone for the quick fix, spending lavishly on free agents, trading away future draft picks for current ones, and making trades that, while they address needs, are overspending to do so (the Clinton Portis deal as an example).

What is cruel is the way they lose. In 1997, they started off 7-1. Terry Allen came back from two surgically repaired knees and was a workhorse. Sport Illustrated picked them to win the Super Bowl at midseason. Then they collapsed the rest of the way, going 2-6, and finished at 9-7 and out of the playoffs.

The next year, Gus Frerotte blew a winnable division game by head-butting a wall, one of the strangest sports moments ever. He had to leave the game, the Redskins' offense floundered, and that tie, instead of a win, cost the Redskins a playoff birth. I remember listening to that game on the radio in my room (I was supposed to be in bed) and thinking, "What the hell is this?? We're cursed!!!"

After a dissapointing year in 1998, we made the playoffs in 1999. Finally!! We beat the Lions soundly, and met the Bucs in the divisional round. We were done in this time by a botched snap by Dan Turk, negating a field goal attempt that would have given us the lead with under a minute left. 6 months later, in an appropriate karmatic moment, Dan Turk died of brain cancer. I remember thinking, "Good, he deserved to die, he screwed our season!" Then, I remember thinking, "What the hell is wrong with me??"

Since then, we've gone through 4 head coaches and haven't done much of anything. We were favored to win the Super Bowl in preseason by many publications in 2000, but because of Dan Snyder's filanderings, the team lost focus and underachieved. Norv Turner was fired that year after 8 years of service, and Marty Schottenheimer was hired in the offseason.

After rebounding from an 0-5 start to finish at 8-8, Schotty was unjustly fired because Snyder wanted the ol' ball coach, Steve Spurrier. Spurrier wasn't ready for the big time, quitting after two seasons in early 2004. Then, the legend was brought back, and Joe Gibbs returned.

Since he has returned, its been more of the same. Close defeats in winnable games, overspending on questionable talents, trading away draft picks in the future for a quick fix now. Impatient tactics haven't worked so far, and they won't work now. Winners need to be built over time, not over one offseason, but Dan Snyder can't seem to understand that.

Having said all this....I still love my skins. There is something viscerally pleasing about seeing them play. The burgandy and gold must trigger an endorphin release in my brain somewhere, based on my childhood I guess. I can't ignore my team, no matter how much I hate them. Often, like today, I wish I could.

I feel sick after the Redskins lose. Literally, nauseous, headache, sick. My mind can't function either. I had two jobs this year, writing football commentary for two websites. Initially, when the Redskins were winning, the workload was nothing at all, I could handle it. In recent weeks though, as the losses piled up, I found myself staring at my computer screen in a daze, and hours would pass by without snapping out of it. I had to resign from one website because I knew I couldn't keep it up, I was too attached to my Redskins on game day.

It would be much easier to ignore the impending doom and go read a book, or play some chess, or something. It might even be healthier. But I can't do it. I can't explain why, but I just can't.

And so I watch my Redskins lose, week after week, blowing leads large and small. Its like torture. Maybe I'm a masochist. Maybe, instead of cutting myself with a knife or throwing up after I eat, the Redskins are how I punish myself.

Maybe I need some Redskins rehab.

....An Interlude from Christopher Walken

2005-11-26T03:28:00.000-05:00

Hello, little man. Boy I sure
heard a bunch about you. See, I
was a good friend of your Daddy's.
We were in that Hanoi pit of hell
over five years together.
Hopefully, you'll never have to
experience this yourself, but when
two men are in a situation like me
and your Daddy were, for as long as
we were, you take on certain
responsibilities of the other. If
it had been me who had not made it,
Major Coolidge would be talkin'
right now to my son Jim. But the
way it worked out is I'm talkin' to
you, Butch. I got somethin' for
ya.

(pulls out a gold wrist watch)

This watch I got here was first
purchased by your great-granddaddy.
It was bought during the First
World War in a little general store
in Knoxville, Tennessee. It was
bought by private Doughboy Ernie
Coolidge the day he set sail for
Paris. It was your great-
granddaddy's war watch, made by the
first company to ever make wrist
watches. You see, up until then,
people just carried pocket watches.
Your great-granddaddy wore that
watch every day he was in the war.
Then when he had done his duty, he
went home to your great-
grandmother, took the watch off his
wrist and put it in an ol' coffee
can. And in that can it stayed
'til your grandfather Dane Coolidge
was called upon by his country to
go overseas and fight the Germans
once again. This time they called
it World War Two.
Your great-granddaddy gave it to
your granddad for good luck.
Unfortunately, Dane's luck wasn't
as good as his old man's. Your
granddad was a Marine and he was
killed with all the other Marines
at the battle of Wake Island. Your
granddad was facing death and he
knew it. None of those boys had
any illusions about ever leavin'
that island alive. So three days
before the Japanese took the
island, your 22-year old
grandfather asked a gunner on an
Air Force transport named Winocki,
a man he had never met before in
his life, to deliver to his infant
son, who he had never seen in the
flesh, his gold watch. Three days
later, your grandfather was dead.
But Winocki kept his word. After
the war was over, he paid a visit
to your grandmother, delivering to
your infant father, his Dad's gold
watch. This watch. This watch was
on your Daddy's wrist when he was
shot down over Hanoi. He was
captured and put in a Vietnamese
prison camp. Now he knew if the
gooks ever saw the watch it's be
confiscated. The way your Daddy
looked at it, that watch was your
birthright. And he'd be damned if
and slopeheads were gonna put their
greasy yella hands on his boy's
birthright. So he hid it in the
one place he knew he could hide
somethin'. His ass. Five long
years, he wore this watch up his
ass. Then when he died of
disentary, he gave me the watch. I
hid with uncomfortable hunk of
metal up my ass for two years.
Then, after seven years, I was sent
home to my family. And now, little
man, I give the watch to you.

Thoughts on Thinking

2005-11-26T02:47:00.000-05:00

I think about everything. Sports, politics, religion/philosophy, movies, social tendencies, common sense, etc. I wonder about pretty much everything. I'm very curious, and not satisfied until I know everything about what it is I'm curious about.

Is it worth it to wonder though?? Is it worth it to strive to know everything?? Is it better to live in ignorance than to be enlightened??

The honest answer to these questions is, I don't know.

There is a certain satisfaction that comes from knowing about the world, from knowing the inner machinations of politics, knowing why a football play was called when everyone else is screaming for the coach's head. There is also a certain amount of satisfaction that comes from knowing yourself in every regard.

But then there are some things that may be better not to know. God is one of these things. While I pretty much know he doesn't exist, I also know that believing in him would add meaning to an otherwise meaningless life.

Personal tendencies and patterns are also, to some degree, better off not known. I recognize patterns in my life, patterns of success as well as patterns of failure. I know my own limitations, as well as what I'm good at. In effect, I know when I can expect failure and when I can expect success. This has led me to become less adventurous, averse to risky situations, and expecting failure in certain instances when the pattern points in that direction.

A person less aware than myself doesn't have to deal with any of these things, because he doesn't recognize the patterns. Thus, his knowledge doesn't keep him from engaging in situations that may end in failure, and his optimism stays intact.

These are just two examples of where curiosity is damaging, and ignorance is desirable. Ignorance cannot be chosen though, you either have it or you don't. I guess you can use drugs to induce ignorance, but that brings a whole new set of problems to the table.

And, of course, there are many situations where knowledge and curiosity are desirable to ignorance. Of course, ignorant people might not realize their detriment, making it less damaging.

See where thinking got me here?? Nowhere. I haven't reached a conclusion other than that intelligence isn't always desirable. And that lukewarm conclusion won;t exactly get me anywhere.

When the Debate Itself is the Goal

2005-11-23T16:00:00.000-05:00

I was watching some debate about Intelligent Design on C-Span today, and decided it deserved a post. It is a subject that really angers me, because it shows how America, in many ways, has rejected truth and fact when they aren't in lockstep with with personal religious beliefs.

Intelligent Design has no merit. As articulated by the scientist at this afternoon's discussion, the argument FOR Intelligent Design is no more than an argument AGAINST evolution. There is no scientific support for ID. ID proponents will argue that certain characteristics of life on Earth, like bacterial flagella or RNA, are unexplained by evolution currently, and that this somehow proves ID.

It doesn't, but the convoluted and circular language of ID proponents may be able to convince laymen. Sure, some things are unexplained at the moment by evolution and, on a broader scale, science as a whole. This will always be the case. But the lack of total scientific knowledge doesn not prove the existence of a creator. It just proves we don't know everything yet.

At the debate today, it was clear that the guy defending evolution was running circles around the guy defending ID. The guy defending ID works for the Discovery Institute, a research establishment paid for by rich theologians, whose only purpose is to debunk evolution. The evolution supporter was just an ordinary academic. So the ID proponent had an axe to grind, so to speak.

The point I want to make, though, is that the debate itself was a victory for ID proponents. They don't need to win the debate or debunk evolution, all they have to do is appear to be on a level playing field with evolution. They will never be able to debunk evolution, and I'm sure on some level they know this. All they want to do is place in the minds of average Americans that they are an alternative theory to evolution, and just having the debate furthers their cause as a valid alternative.

This is why I think evolution proponents, on some level, shouldn't debate ID proponents. The debate itself is victory for ID!!! Furthermore, ID is such complete hogwash, scientifically and otherwise, that it really doesn't deserve a debate. ID proponents know, at least the intelligent ones do, that they will lose every debate with evolution on the facts.

But there is a problem with refusing to debate ID. They can claim that you are afraid to debate them because your argument is weak, and they have.

So, what to do?? If you debate ID, you give them the social verification they so desperately desire. If you refuse to debate them, they can call you a coward and impugne your evidence in that way.

It is a tough call. But it seems to me that many scientists, all on the evolution side, are all too eager to debate ID theists, knowing of course that they can win the debate. It should NOT become socially common to accept ID and evolution as two sides to the same coin, as two viewpoints, neither more valid than the other. This is what they want, and scientists unfamiliar with politics need to think in this regard before entering into any debate regarding ID.

Observations on the Right and Television

2005-11-22T02:26:00.000-05:00

As an observer, I have alot of TV to watch. I find myself mesmerized by the way the right wing manipulates information and changes tactics to address the different issues presented before them.

Let me make it clear that I find the industry reprehensible. The people in the right wing media have no qualms about lying or misrepresenting information. They will do whatever it takes to get their message across the way they want it presented. They are only as principled as their audience forces them to be, meaning blatant lying that average Joe truck driver would see as lying is out. But convoluted lying that will get past 95% of the population, heck, that's fine!!

But even though I hate the way these guys manipulate their audience, I am fascinated by their effectiveness in doing so. It's amazing to me how people can fall for the tricks they pull. Sometimes, when watching the O'Reilly factor or Hannity or whoever, I can't help but wonder how in the world anybody can trust these guys?? But people do, it's just the way it is.

Anyway, here is how I see the debates playing out, time and again. First, concerning debates, I have always believed that you should be consistent in the way you address issues in a debate. The right-wing media doesnt do this. If discrediting the left is easily done using the facts, sure, they'll do that, as they should. I'm not an apologist, and there are certainly times when O'Reilly or even Hannity get it right.

However, when it comes to the fishy issues, they switch to different tactics. When debating someone critical on the Iraq war, they call the guy unpatriotic, and they claim his words are helping the terrorists abroad. This is a vicious attack, but a purely speculative one, and this is where the convincing nature of the hosts play a role. The format of their shows enables the hosts to shout down their opponents, making them appear overmatched in any debate.

The attacks on John Kerry by the since discredited "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are a good example. Fox News failed to do any background work on the guys, instead promoting as fact their message and failing to note inconsistensies that abounded all over the place. I remember Sean Hannity criticizing anyone who brought up these inconsistencies as unpatriotic, because these guys were veterans and deserve to be heard, or some such BS. But it worked, and I'm sure the swift boat nonsense helped Bush in the end despite being fabricated.

In some cases they play to the audience's makeup to make a point that wouldn't be supported in most courtrooms. This "attack on Christmas" that Fox News promotes every year is a perfect example. They attack stores for displaying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, for "only" having Christmas trees and not having a cresh, etc. etc. There is no factual or even reasonable basis for these attacks, at least nothing more than the audience being mainly Christian. They act as if the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and thus somehow every child has an obligation to learn about these religions. It promotes discriminatory sentiment, but it flies because its what most of the audience wants to hear.

And here is the kicker: whenever a newspaper or reputable news organization calls the right-wing media out on an inconsistency or lie, Fox or Limbaugh or whoever can defend themselves by claiming to be an opinion show, not a journalistic show. Somehow they are exempt from journalistic standards, when it gets right down to it. O'Reilly has been caught in a number of lies, as has Hannity, and they always say "Well we're an opinion show, we don't claim to be a straight, unbiased news program."

I thought they were fair and balanced though?? Guess not.

These inconsistencies and this bias seems so obvious to me though. I see liberal bias sometimes in headlines, but generally articles in "liberal" newpapers like the New York Times are consistent and accurate. I guess what it comes down to is, people want to watch pundits who cater to their belief system, and are willing to overlook inaccuracies if it means getting what they want in terms of opinions.

Honesty is less important than being in agreement and being a good 'ol boy.

It is a disturbing trend backwards for the nation dubbed as a progressive one. It's sad, really.

Cut and Run?

2005-11-18T18:43:00.000-05:00

House Republicans are trying to take advantage of John Murtha's recent comments (link) by forcing a vote on a resolution on whether or not to immediately withdraw troops. They are, in effect, attempting to get Democrats on the record on whether they support immediate withdrawal now.

It is a political ploy, because the resolution will never pass. Every Republican will vote against it. It is a double-edged sword for House Democrats though, where the best action politically may be to abstain.

If they vote for immediate withdrawal, they will be labeled traitors by the GOP and whe White House, and unpatriotic (despite the fact that this vote was brought up by the GOP). If they vote against immediate withdrawal, they will be pidgeonholed into that position and called hypocrites if they ever state otherwise, much like John Kerry was in 2004 because of his vote to authorize the war in 2003.

My thought it this: Why not show some unity, and vote en masse FOR the resolution???

The GOP will have trouble labeling an entire party unpatriotic. Undoubtedly, their idea was to have a few stragglers support the resolution and pick them off one by one. But if the vast majority of Democrats support the resolution that won't work.

I support an immediate withdrawal. The situation in Iraq is very similar to Vietnam. We stayed in Vietnam for over a decade, and despite all our efforts during that period, when we left, our allies over there were overwhelmed. Some conservatives are of the opinion that our leaving when we did was a mistake, that we should have stayed even longer. That, in my opinion, is a completely idiotic position to take. If you can't stabilize a country after over a decade of occupation, you won't ever be able to do that. Our mistake in Vietnam was not leaving earlier, because we wasted thousands of American lives for nothing.

Iraq is the same thing. Whenever we leave, the country will descend into civil war and anarchy. All the different religious groups will fight each other for control of the country. Eventually, another dictator, similar to Saddam Huissein, will rise to power. ALL of our efforts over there will be for naught. And I don't think we can prevent that from happening, unless we plan on staying there indefinitely.

I fully understand that when we leave, the country will be left in shambles. I also understand that no matter how long we stay, that will be the case. Whether we leave in 2005 or 2015, the country will descend into Civil War when we leave. So, knowing that, the correct decision is to leave NOW.

I fully support John Murtha. I want to "cut and run," as the GOP puts it. I hope the Democrats in the House have the courage to do the right thing and vote for immediate withdrawal.

Welcome, but Beware

2005-11-18T12:53:00.000-05:00

I am a professional observer, a voyeur of life if you will. Over the years I have gleaned information on all sorts of topics, ranging from sports, to politics, to social tendencies, and most importantly, to myself. I am a very introspective person, strong-willed at times, but always willing to alter my opinions about the state of the world if things change.

I will go by Willis here. My observations and opinions may sound harsh at times. That's what this is for; I'm not in the business of mincing words or acting in a socially acceptable fashion. After all, that's why this is "A View From The Basement", because in the basement honesty is acceptable, in every regard.

This blog will not have a specific theme. I have opinions on a wide range of issues, and I won't limit their scope by calling this a political blog, or a sports blog, or anything else. Anything goes, depending on my mood and temperament.

Enjoy.