The Hypocrisy of OWS Movement

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Delta - We Love Our Money More Than Our Principles

Maybe you have heard that word came out today that Delta Airlines has entered into a code sharing partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines. As part of this deal, if you are Jewish, have Jewish-sounding name, or have any sort of religious items which are offensive to Islam (meaning anything not Islamic) then you won't be allowed to on those shared flights. The original article was here. But now apparently US Today has pulled it down and replaced it with this.)

Now, Delta is saying, throught its blog,

First and foremost, I think one of the most important things to mention here is that Delta does not discriminate nor do we condone discrimination against anyone in regards to age, race, nationality, religion, or gender.

They don't discriminate. They just partners with airlines who do. 

That said, some have raised questions about whether Saudi Arabian Airlines’ membership in SkyTeam means Delta is adopting any type of policies that could present barriers to travel for some passengers, including Jewish customers. For this particular concern, it’s important to realize that visa requirements to enter any country are dictated by that nation’s government, not the airlines, and they apply to anyone entering the country regardless of whether it’s by plane, bus or train.

We, like all international airlines, are required to comply with all applicable laws governing entry into every country we serve. You as passengers are responsible for obtaining the necessary travel documents, such as visas and certification of required vaccinations, and we’re responsible for making sure that you have the proper documentation before you board.

This is a bunch of bullshit. I try not use profanity too much, but there is nothing else to call it. This is a company scrambling to cover it ass and say that its really not their fault that they are going to participate in discrimination

Delta has a choice of who it does business with.  Its not this little issue of Saudi Arabian Airlines' discreThey chose to get into bed with Saudi Arabian Airlines. Saudi Arabia Airlines does not just fly to Saudi Arabia. They fly all over Arab world and the world in general. What happens when your code share flight turns out to be a Saudi flight that goes through another city? That's right. Get ready to experience dhiminitude.

Yet Delta chose to partner with them. No one forced them. They just decided that it was more important to make an extra few bucks than have any principles.

Remember who you giving your money to the next you look fly somewhere. Do you want to give it to someone who discriminates? If you do, Delta will happily partner with someone who does.

Shame on Google and YouTube

As an organization, Google seems to have trouble deciding which values it wants to uphold. on its corporate website, Google states that there are 10 things that they know to be true. Number six on this list states that, "you can make money without doing evil." Google except that it is a business, and that it does need to make money in order to survive. Letting their position, they offer three bullet points explaining how they can make money without doing evil to the user. Apparently, the only view it is evil when it's advertising done in the way which may be considered offensive to the user, such as pop-up ads or ads that don't clearly identify themselves as such.

It's interesting that they limit themselves in such a way. Why?

Other than Google's flagship search engine, perhaps the most used and liked of Google's products is YouTube. Google has had to navigate a careful course in operating you to, making sure they keep itself firmly within the safe harbor provisions of the law while the same time allowing users to put up content that they like. Because Google can't simply allow anything to be put up on YouTube, because let's face it if they allow people to be put up on YouTube that would cause a huge problem both legally and financially for the company, their terms of service which govern what types of videos can be uploaded to YouTube. in section 6 of the terms of service, subpart E, states that "You further agree that you will not submit to the Service any Content or material is contrary to the YouTube community guidelines, currently found at http://www.youtube.com/t/terms, which may be updated from time to time, or contrary to applicable local, national, and international laws regulations."

Among the things that YouTube states are not allowed by the community guidelines include:

• pornography
• "bad stuff" (i.e. animal abuse, drug abuse, underage drinking and smoking, or bomb making)
• graphic or gratuitous violence
• copyrighted material that the poster does not hold the copyright to
• Spam
• videos of the predatory nature, which YouTube defines as stalking, threats, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people's personal information, and inciting others to commit violence or to violate the terms of use.

So now we've established what YouTube is not supposed to allow to be posted on its site.

That's why it's kind of curious about some of Google/YouTube latest enforcement of its terms of service. On December 18, 2010, YouTube closed down the account belonging to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). According to Google, this was done because PMW's postings constituted "hate speech".  At some point over the weekend, the order was changed ordering taking down, seemingly, all videos posted by PMW in the past five months (i.e. around July 2010 to date). PMW's videos are taken, in most cases, directly from Arab media or from other postings on YouTube itself and used to show divide between the lip service that the terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and the PLO, give to the West and the actual words they say to their followers and allies. 

While PMW is under threat of being shut down,  mainly due complaints it appears from the Arab/Muslim groups, it is interesting to note that it is relatively easy to find videos supporting terrorist organizations and celebrating terrorist victories (i.e. war porn) on YouTube. Yet YouTube seems to do little to root them out.

Consider this, YouTube makes money off these videos. All of them carry advertising. And they get a lot of hits world wide from supporters.

Google says that you can make money without doing evil. Well, isn't it evil to shut down those that shine a light on to evil, while allowing the actual evil doers to continue spreading their message of hate and destruction?

So far, Google has sided with Communist China and supporters of Islamic terror organizations.  In the former case, Google only stopped siding with the Communist Chinese when the PRC began hacking Google's servers. Perhaps there is hope for Google. Although, if history is a guide, it will probably take a suicide bomber at a Google facility to get them to recognize the difference between opposing evil and being a fellow traveller.

But on can hope that Google will remember that there is more to evil than pop ups and unidentified ads.

Allow Me Now To Say What A Joke Congressional Ethics Are

Say what you will about Charlie Rangel, the disgraceful representative from New York, but he has shown the light on something that needs to be fixed.

Back in elementary school, if you manage to pay any attention at all to what they're teaching you in the eighth grade, there was a little blurb in your American history books about Tammany Hall and the political machines of the 19th and early 20th century. We like to think that our politicians are the product of a better system these days, but how else to explain the how Congressman Rangel has managed to stay in office despite flaunting the law which is supposed to help craft and create. Back in the day, the graft and corruption of those political machines undermined our republic.

When President Obama ran for office, one of his promises was that he and the Democrats were going to restore ethics to our government. In fact, he was made, while senator, the Democratic point man for ethics in the Senate. Congresswoman Pelosi, back when she was Speaker of the House, also promised that the Congress would be a more ethical place.

So how has that worked out? Well, Charlie Rangel with the test case and the Democrats failed miserably.

Its always easy to point out the faults in the opposition. as a matter of fact, in politics that's exactly which are supposed to do. Your commitment to values that you say are ones you hold dear, however, are tested the most when they are tested against those whom you like and respect. Congressman Rangel is one of the longer serving representatives in the House of Representatives. He's one of the most liberal. He was a political ally, and may still be, but Congresswoman Pelosi.

But he's also corrupt. He's abused his office. He's abused the public trust. He has violated the law.

So what did the House Ethics committee do about this? And how will the House Ethics committee going to do about this?

Well, they ensured that any investigation into Rangel's ethical violations was prolonged and extraordinarily slow. Despite the fact that the media has been publishing reports of Congressman Rangel's failure to abide by the law since 2008, Congress seemed unable to convene a hearing on his actions. The first reports that I know of, were published in August of 2008. Coincidentally, the Democrats were in control of the House of Representatives at that point.

It was not until July of this year, two years later, that charges were finally submitted to the House Ethics committee. Why they take so long? That's simple. Ethical violations are only good when you swing them at the other side. And for some reason, we keep letting the politicians get away with this mentality.

So what will the ethics committee do about Congressman Rangel's transgressions? His fellow Congressmen are going to, most likely, go to impose the quote dreaded" and humiliating censure against Rangel. What is a censure? Essentially, it is, when applied to a member of the House of Representatives, stern lecture given in public to the guilty by the Speaker of the House.

Where I went to school, I received a stern penalty for failing to turn my homework on time.

Unfortunately we have the Congress that we as a people, collectively, deserve. For the most part, it seems that Americans are content to allow corrupt politicians to continue to serve. The politicians of both parties cannot be trusted to police themselves.

This man violated the laws that he swore an oath to uphold and protect and defend. He has shown no remorse about his actions, instead maintaining that not only was he innocent but that he was unable to present a defense. The acts are more heinous because of his position as a representative of the people in the government that is supposed to help, to send, and empower the people. Not so that Mr. Rangel can maintain his power, his income, and his legacy.

If our representatives in Washington had any sense of honor or decency, they would expel this man and turned him over for prosecution. Unfortunately, a large majority of those serving in the Congress are loath to do so, most likely because they have committed the same acts as Mr. Rangel.

Congressman Rangel's censure is a meaningless and hollow act because it does not carry with it any real punishment, nor does it act as a deterrent to anyone else who would do wrong and abuse the public trust. This should and needs to change.

The House Democrats were tested. They failed.

Is That How You Act With Integrity?

So my Congresswoman is Representative Nancy Pelosi. Aside from sharing a name with a math teacher who struck fear in the hearts of many who went to my school, there was very little that I have agreed on with this woman in the past four years. However, the one thing I did like to think she was serious about was dealing with corruption in the House of Representatives.

Today, however, it has become clear that she clearly is not. Otherwise, how did she allow the Rangel mess to happen?

Yes. She did allow an investigation to forward. She did all charges to be heard by the House Committee on Ethics. But where was the leadership to call for more than just a reprimand if he is found guilty?

In case you have not been following this story, Charles B. Rangel is the Democrat who has been the Representative for what is now known as the 15th Congressional District in New York. Essentially, it is the borough of Harlem. He has been the Representative of that district since 1971.

Beginning in 2008, there were rumblings that something un-kosher was happening with Rangel. Oddly enough, it seemed to begin when he was questioned for his use of Congressional letterhead when he was soliciting donors for the Charles B Rangel Center for Public Service was improper. When that became public, the media started to question some other things that Congressman Rangel was doing. This included four apartments that he rented for substantially below market rent, the failure to report income on his taxes for property (sometimes described as a villa) in the Dominican Republic which he leases out, as well as other non-reporting and under-reporting of income to the IRS.

And this is the man who is the chairman of the committee which oversees the Federal Tax code.

In fact, he had so grossly underreported his income and holdings, that when he was finally forced to revising his reporting statements in 2007, his network went up by $500,000. That's a half a million dollars.

For some reason, the IRS, although Rangel did pay his back taxes, did not require the payment of any of the fees and penalties. A sweetheart deal is the kindest thing that can be said about that. Although he paid the federal taxes, it appears that he still could not get around to doing what everyone else in this country is supposed to do: pay all their owed taxes. Apparently, he has not been paying some of his property taxes as well as some other taxes. Its hard to tell really when pinning down his assets is like trying to catch a money launderer.

However, there's still more to the story.

Not content to ... hell let's be charitable and call it "fudge" .... his tax returns and required financial disclosures, he also seemed to have been hitting up donors in improper ways and accepting improper gifts from industries and interests which are directly overseen by his committee. By the way, that would be Ways and Means (which he chairs). He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

One of these ways was Diageo Rum Bailout. Essentially, Rangel is alleged to have arranged a quid pro quo with Diageo Plc. Diageo, maker of Captain Morgan rum, wanted to qualify for federal funds out of the TARP which was being put together at that time. As reported, at first Representative Rangel met with them but did not give them the support they needed. However, for some reason, this support suddenly materialized. At about the same time, a hefty campaign contribution materialized in Representative Rangel's campaign coffers.

Lets be clear about something. At this point, 2009, the Democrats were firmly in control of the House of Representatives. Yet Speaker Pelosi was content to sit back and not push this forward.

Is it too much to expect a leader of one of the branches of our government to root out corruption, even within their own party? Judging by Speaker Pelosi's lackadaisical handling of the situation, it appears so.

Finally, almost two years since the first, allegations were made, charges were finally brought before the House Ethics Committee. The June 17 charging document lists out the following charges:

• Violating Solicitation and Gift Ban (5 USC 7353)
• Violating Code of Ethics for Government Services (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Re. 175, 85th Cong. (1958)).
• Violation of House Gift Rule (House of Representative Rule XXIII)
• Violation of Postal Service Laws and Franking Commission Regulation (39 USC 3215)
• Violation of Franking Statute (18 USC 1719)
• Violation of House Office Building Commission's Regulations (House Office Building Commission's Regulation, cl. 4)
• Conduct in Violation of the Purpose Law and Member's Congressional Handbook (31 USC 1301; 2 USC 57, Member's Congressional Handbook, p. 6)
• Conduct in Violation of Letterhead Rule (House Rule XXIII, cl 11)
• Conduct in Violation of Ethics in Government Act and House Rule XXVI (5 USC 101 et seq.; House Rule XXVI)
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics for Government Service, cl. 5 (72 Stat., Part 2, B12, H. Res. 175, 85th Cong. (1958)
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Ethics of Government Service, cl. 2
• Conduct in Violation of Code of Conduct: Letter and Spirit of House Rules
• Conduct in Violation of the Code of Conduct: Conduct Reflecting Discreditably on the House

Basically, what these charges boil down to is that Representative Rangel has stolen from the tax-payer, failed to pay his taxes, and treated some constituents better than others because of favors they have given him (where I come from, we call it bribery), and that because he was caught with his hand in the till, his actions reflect badly on the House of Representatives.

After hemming and hawing about this issue for more than a month, it was announced today that House Committee was approving these charges and forwarding it to a sub-committee for trial. All well and good. However, they did not stop there. Although there will be a trial, the committee announced that it was only allowing a maximum punishment of a reprimand.

Let's see, he gets to not pay taxes for years and avoid any punishment. Then he follows it up with a litany of ethics violations where his punishment is capped at the second lowest possible punishment the House can give. As the New York Post reports,

"The House ethics investigatory subcommittee recommended that Rep. Charlie Rangel be reprimanded, which is the least severe punishment, according to a new report".

Here's my question Madame Speaker: Why are you allowing this happen? If it is your intention to actually drain the "swamp" of corruption on Capitol Hill, why are you allowing someone to flagrantly violate multiple laws and House rules without evening slapping him on the wrist.

To allow this is to make a mockery of justice. Its just a chance to look good without achieving any real difference. If Congressman and Senators know that they will not have to worry about being penalized, what is to stop them essentially accepting bribes.

We try and enact laws to prevent money from corrupting the system. Yet, when the people are corrupted by it, we allow them to skate on by. In this case, based on the supporting documents which have been presented to the house Committee, Representative Rangel was accepting campaign contributions in return for his help. Essentially, he was taking a bribe. Yet, rather than prosecute this man, the House of Representatives wants to hush it under the table.

The media is saying that Speaker Pelosi is only giving him a "tepid" defense. Why should he even rate that much? The evidence shows that this man is a crook. If not for the protection offered by his position as an elected official, he would be facing a real trial not the cozy watered down version that seems to be promised.

The money, the trips, the temptation is always going to be there. Rather than trying to restrict free speech, we need to punish those who give in to temptation.

But Madame Speaker seems content to sit back. She is content to allow a back room deal to be struck so that business can go on as usual.

And that, is not acting with integrity.

Maybe Some Better Choices Could Be Made

So a couple of days ago, I noted how Senator Obama conveniently lost his principles and voted for a flawed piece of legislation in the amendments to FISA. So I guess that it was no surprise that Senator Obama would trot out the following in today's speech on foreign policy. According to the sources I have found, he said

For weeks, now, Senator McCain has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the strain on our military has increased, our troops and their families have borne an enormous burden, and American taxpayers have spent another $200 billion in Iraq. That's over $10 billion each month. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. June was our highest casualty month of the war. The Taliban has been on the offensive, even launching a brazen attack on one of our bases. Al Qaeda has a growing sanctuary in Pakistan. That is a consequence of our current strategy.

In the 18 months since the surge began, as I warned at the outset - Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the surge. They have not invested tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues to rebuild their country. They have not resolved their differences or shaped a new political compact.

Now, reserving the Afghanistan issue later, I think its important to take a step back and look and see exactly what U.S. Congress established as the metric for success in Iraq. (It should be noted that some have criticized some of the benchmarks for being too subjective/arbitrary to be used as adequate metrics)The benchmarks (or milestones) are:

• Perform constitutional review.
• Enact de-Bathification reform.
• Form semi-autonomous regions.
• Hold provincial elections.
• Address amnesty.
• Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan.
• Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature.
• Keep Iraqi Security Force free from partisan interference.
• Disarm militias.
• Provide military support in Baghdad.
• Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Ensure impartial law enforcement.
• Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government.
• Reduce sectarian violence.
• Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad.
• Increase independent Iraqi Security Forces.
• Implement oil legislation.
• Distribute Iraqi resources equitably.

Whether right or wrong, these were the established benchmarks. From my perspective, some of these benchmarks seem unreasonable. Specifically, those dealing with the oil legislation and distribution of resources seem like internal problems that really will take longer to resolve. Remember, it took us here in the U.S. 4 years, in a time of relative peace, to figure out how to do such things.

The surge was announced in January 2007. The initial 20,000 troops reached Iraq in March 2007, with more arriving and other units rotating home, the forces in Iraq hit 150,000 in April 2007. Six months after the surge, the initial report showed that of the benchmarks, only three, according to the GAO report, had been met (the Baghdad security plan had been supported, minority rights in the legislature had been ensured, and neighborhood security in Baghdad had been established).

Three months later, the surge strategy, in buying time for the civil process to reestablish itself in Iraq, had resulted in 12 of the benchmarks being achieved. By May 2008, 15 of 18 benchmarks had been achieved. According to the AP story, the two most intractable problems in meeting all the benchmarks are laws to eliminate and disarm militias and solution to the question of the distribution of the oil revenue question.

Let's see. January 2007, there is sectarian violence which is basically out of control, a government that is so fractured that it is ineffective, an indigenous military force which is still trying to stand-up to the point where it can operate as an effective, independent entity, in addition to a de-Baathification process that is out of whack and disputes over how best to use the best natural resource available to the Iraqis. In July 2008, violence in Iraq has largely been brought under control. The Iraqi government, while not a model, is operating more effectively. An amnesty program has been put into effect which allows people who did not commit crimes but were tainted by their association with the Baath party to come back into the fold. While there is still a dispute over how to share oil revenues, the parties are talking and investors are being courted. And best of all, U.S. casualties in Iraq have significantly dropped.

To the layman, taking this all in, it would seem that the surge strategy has worked.

Of course, it would seem that the surge has altered the operational and strategic landscape of the Iraq situation. The Iraqi government realizes this. They want to start talking about the withdrawal of U.S. units. However, this proposal includes the possibility of maintaining bases in Iraq (though not like a Guantanamo type arrangement). Senator Obama, however, had this to say,

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war. Let me be clear: we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - one year after Iraqi Security Forces will be prepared to stand up; two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to perform specific missions in Iraq: targeting any remnants of al Qaeda; protecting our service members and diplomats; and training and supporting Iraq's Security Forces, so long as the Iraqis make political progress.

Let's see. The situation has changed. Yet, Senator Obama does not want to change his position to address the change in the situation. If you read the speech he gave today, its interesting to see how much he wants to get out of Iraq, how much he wants to remind people of how he never approved of the invasion of Iraq, and how much he wants to focus on Afghanistan.

Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong, the fact is that we are there. Leaving without ensuring there will be the conditions necessary for relative peace will mean that all the lives and treasure we have spent will have been wasted. The one thing that seems to be the lesson of the surge policy is that it works for what it can do. It cannot solve all the Iraqi problems. What it is doing is allowing the civil society in Iraq the time it needs to reassert itself. It would be nice to learn from the mistakes we made in Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Vietnam.

Now turning from the Iraq portion of his policy to Afghanistan. It is interesting to see how much he wants to end what we are doing in Iraq... only to do exactly the same type of thing in Afghanistan. Then again, maybe it is what we should expect from a man who said his foreign policy would be an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and a deployment of more troops (but not a "surge") to Afghanistan and possibly invading Pakistan (who by the way has a nuclear weapons system).

By the way, has anyone ever told Senator Obama about people who send large occupation forces to Afghanistan? Someone might tell him to get an adviser who has read something about the Russian and British experiences of trying to be too hands on with the Afghani people.

In one of the sections of his speech where he gets into talking about what his plan would mean, Senator Obama states,

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century's frontlines are not only on the field of battle - they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

So, send more troops. Focus on the training. Build up a judiciary. And get NATO allies to do more. Call me crazy, but the way this reads is he wants to send more troops there, not to fight, but to train others to fight. He also thinks that the NATO members will be willing to suddenly reverse their apathy and commit their troops to do more of the fighting and less of the training.

Are more troops needed in Afghanistan? Yes. Do we need more NATO participation in combat operations? It might be nice. On the other hand, I think that Europe cannot be depended upon to do that. They are nice social democracies, but I think its safe to say that social democracies thrive by dampening down the warrior impulse (at least at the governmental level) that is needed to confront an external threat that isn't just a stones throw from the border.

Then Senator Obama turns to the issue of nuclear proliferation and Iran. Again, he stated,

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

Nice to see how he opposes Iran getting nuclear weapons. So opposed that "No tool of statecraft" will be left unused. Typically, statecraft means tools not including war. American policy on Iran has been sadly deficient for more than a decade. Rather than trying to engage in some way when we had a chance with previous Iranian administrations, we are left with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not exactly someone who can be rationally dealt with.

What can I say. I am disappointed by this Obama speech. From a speech writing perspective, its great. I am sure that if I punched this into a computer program, it might even be found to be written at an eighth grade level. But he missed a chance.

Instead of talking about the fact that he opposed the war from the beginning, he could have laid out some specific points about how his foreign policy would be different from the current administrations. He could have put forward a new idea on how future U.S.-Iraqi relations will work. Instead of the "Shared Security Partnership Program" idea, he might have laid down how the U.S. will operate in the Middle East and Central Asia. Its nice that he wants to promote "cooperative efforts" to defeat terrorism, and directing more foreign aid to Africa, but that something that a high-school policy debater would say (right before they linked the failure of the oppositions plan to nuclear war -- sorry Speech and Debate humor).

What I want from the person who leads my country is at least the idea that the policy is not going to be one of running away. That it is one where we lead, instead of hoping that others will go along with us. No other country has the capabilities, resources, or credibility (even as damaged as it has been by President Bush ineptitude). Even if one were to say that there are others ready to step up to being a super-power, is that what we really want? Do we want China to step up and assume the mantle of super-power? Do we want Russia to try and reassert itself as the other end of a bi-polar system? Call me a chauvinist, but I'm not ready to see their version of being the dominant hegemon.

I sort of expect a bit more from someone who wants to become next the licensee at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Now... what would Limbaugh say about this if..

It wasn't him?

Apparently Mr. Limbaugh is still having trouble with drug seeking. Only this time, he has apparently moved on from pain killers to ED supplements.

His defense is that he wanted someone else's name on the perscription for privacy reasons. However, by having someone else's name on his perscription, he has possibly committed a crime. A crime which could put him in violation of his plea agreement.

So I wonder what the ditto head has to say about this.

Hypocrite?

Normally, I could care less who represents me in Sacramento. I know that I should care, seeing as how the California legislature is actually closer to me than the politicians in Washington, but nevertheless I do. I think it has something to do with the fact that I'm fuzzy about what the candidates actually want to do in Sacramento.

So this year really started out no differently. From what I understand, Janet Reilly and Fiona Ma are fighting it out for a state assembly seat. Until the other day, the only thing I thought about it was that Janet Reilly reminded me of an actress who used to play the girlfriend for Harmon Rabb on JAG.

And then on Friday I recevied a political flyer in my mailbox. Normally, I toss them out immediately, but with the cover defining the word "hypocrite", I decided to read it before tossing it out.

Apparently Janet Reilly has made the environment the centerpiece of her campaign. So a group supporting Fiona Ma has struck back calling her a hypocrite. Why? Ms. Reilly seems to invest a sizeable portion of her money in pharmaceuticals. And because these companies make drugs which have apparently harmed people (e.g. Vioxx) .

So now professing to support the environment and making money has become hypocritical? Please. This is just silly. Why not debate the issues and stay away from the personal attacks? Or is that beyond a group that claims to be the leaders of California?

I want it clear. I am not endorsing or supporting either candidate. I am, however, in favor of candidates debating issues that matter and not ad hominem attacks.

Hypocrites

So this morning as I was on my way to an appointment, I was listening to the local alternative station (Live 105) and their new morning show. One of the stories that they did just before 7 a.m. dealt with an apparently request for a temprorary restraining order by WalMart against a man who has been campaigning against them by selling his t-shirts on Cafepress.com. (If you want to visit his sites, they are here and here.)

After bashing WalMart, two of the three morning show personalities went on to say how they shopped at WalMart, even though they hated it. If you are going to be against something, be against it. Don't be a hypocrite and rail against it because its the proper liberal/progressive thing to do.