Changing the subject will the GOP 'fake' a terroist attack?
It would be unfair, it would be irresponsible, it would be downright indecent to suggest that Sen. John McCain or any of his top advisors secretly hope that somehow, somewhere, a terrorist will attack the United States in the next few days.
These are civilized men and women, as devoted to their country as they are to their candidate. And yet, if you were one of McCain’s top advisors, could you completely avoid recognizing--in your midnight musings, as you consider all the possibilities that could change the subject of this campaign--how convenient it would be if some Al Qaida operative were caught in the act of trying to blow up a building somewhere in America? You couldn’t.
One of you (Charlie Black, an estimable gentleman) was even quoted some weeks ago acknowledging that an attack would benefit McCain politically.
So it has to be going through the McCainiac minds, even if they know that it shouldn’t. Because, from their perspective, something has to change the subject. Right now the subject is the economy, and that’s good for Democrats. It always has been. Voters turn to Democrats when the economy gets shaky.
Perhaps it’s the abiding legacy of the New Deal, which almost nobody alive can personally remember. Or maybe it’s that the economy really does do better under Democrats--lower unemployment, higher growth, less debt. Whether the Democrats follow wiser policies or are just luckier is debatable, but the results are plain, and the voters seem to know it.
That’s why Barack Obama is ahead, and that’s why the Republicans have to change the subject. Their preferred subject would be national security, where voters seem to have more confidence in the GOP. Again, whether this is because Republican policies or wiser or they just talk tougher is open to debate. The political impact is not. But Republicans can’t (and really don’t want to) create a national security crisis. So they’re doing what they can do. They’re attacking Obama.
As the week began, Gov. Sarah Palin claimed that at one time Obama had been "palling around with terrorists." The reference was to Bill Ayers, a Chicagoan whose past actions once qualified him as a terrorist, and whom Obama knows
. The "palling around" part is, according to all credible evidence, false. As mentioned, McCain and his top advisors are decent. Honest? Well, that’s arguable.
http://www.examiner.com/x-771-Bipartisan-Political-Examiner~y...
These are civilized men and women, as devoted to their country as they are to their candidate. And yet, if you were one of McCain’s top advisors, could you completely avoid recognizing--in your midnight musings, as you consider all the possibilities that could change the subject of this campaign--how convenient it would be if some Al Qaida operative were caught in the act of trying to blow up a building somewhere in America? You couldn’t.
One of you (Charlie Black, an estimable gentleman) was even quoted some weeks ago acknowledging that an attack would benefit McCain politically.
So it has to be going through the McCainiac minds, even if they know that it shouldn’t. Because, from their perspective, something has to change the subject. Right now the subject is the economy, and that’s good for Democrats. It always has been. Voters turn to Democrats when the economy gets shaky.
Perhaps it’s the abiding legacy of the New Deal, which almost nobody alive can personally remember. Or maybe it’s that the economy really does do better under Democrats--lower unemployment, higher growth, less debt. Whether the Democrats follow wiser policies or are just luckier is debatable, but the results are plain, and the voters seem to know it.
That’s why Barack Obama is ahead, and that’s why the Republicans have to change the subject. Their preferred subject would be national security, where voters seem to have more confidence in the GOP. Again, whether this is because Republican policies or wiser or they just talk tougher is open to debate. The political impact is not. But Republicans can’t (and really don’t want to) create a national security crisis. So they’re doing what they can do. They’re attacking Obama.
As the week began, Gov. Sarah Palin claimed that at one time Obama had been "palling around with terrorists." The reference was to Bill Ayers, a Chicagoan whose past actions once qualified him as a terrorist, and whom Obama knows
. The "palling around" part is, according to all credible evidence, false. As mentioned, McCain and his top advisors are decent. Honest? Well, that’s arguable.
http://www.examiner.com/x-771-Bipartisan-Political-Examiner~y...
Hard time for possession of ... deodorant?
A Minnesota man who had been in jail since August 3 on cocaine possession charges was released after two months when laboratory tests revealed that the white powder, which was found in a deodorant container, was actually deodorant.
The time Cornelius F. Salonis served as a guest of the state will be applied to a sentence for driving while intoxicated, so all's well that ends well, right?
Not really, unless you think people should serve time for police mistakes -- expecially when it sometimes happens to the purely innocent. As Pat McDermott, assistant Blue Earth County attorney, admitted in the Salonis case, "In all the years I have done this, this has only happened one other time."
So at least one other person got hit with drug charges for a bad field test.
But the problem is more extensive than that. Just this summer, as part of his community service, Christian Phillips, of Lake Worth, Texas, delivered a basket of treats to local police. For his troubles, he was thrown in the slammer and threatened with up to 20 years in prison after a field test of the cookies revealed LSD and marijuana.
Except, as later laboratory tests revealed, there were no drugs. He was released from jail only after a pointless scare and an international cascade of nasty headlines.
And last year, Jimmy Michael Giorsetti, better known as Don Bolles, drummer for the punk band, the Germs, was tossed in the clink after a bottle of soap he was carrying tested positive for GHB, a drug popular on the rave scene. He cooled his heels for three days before accurate tests revealed that he soap was, in fact, soap.
Alarmed by the arrest, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, the maker of Bolles's favorite cleaning product, bought the same field test used by Newport Beach, California, police.
"We confirmed that the test is useless when used on soap since every test came back positive," he said. "We also tested other common brands of soap including Johnson & Johnson's popular Neutrogena brand, as well as Colgate- Palmolive's popular Tom's of Maine brand, which gave the same false-positive tests as well."
"Our customers need to know now this whole soap opera is a mistake by police who tormented an innocent 50-year-old man with jail," Bronner said.
Soap tests positive for GHB? Well, that should be no surprise. After all, the popular over-the-counter medication Aleve commonly tests positive for amphetamines. In Sarasota, Florida, that landed Villis Sanders behind bars overnight.
Experts say that “false positives” are rare, but when the police department tested additional pills — including an Aleve tablet provided by the Herald-Tribune — the results were still the same:
Aleve shows up as amphetamines.
And no one knows why the test keeps getting it wrong.
In all cases, police promised that they'd look into the accuracy of the field tests that they've been using, and that, all too often, send innocent people to jail.
That's great. Maybe they could get their evaluations done before the next poor SOB goes to jail because of a police mistake.
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m...
The time Cornelius F. Salonis served as a guest of the state will be applied to a sentence for driving while intoxicated, so all's well that ends well, right?
Not really, unless you think people should serve time for police mistakes -- expecially when it sometimes happens to the purely innocent. As Pat McDermott, assistant Blue Earth County attorney, admitted in the Salonis case, "In all the years I have done this, this has only happened one other time."
So at least one other person got hit with drug charges for a bad field test.
But the problem is more extensive than that. Just this summer, as part of his community service, Christian Phillips, of Lake Worth, Texas, delivered a basket of treats to local police. For his troubles, he was thrown in the slammer and threatened with up to 20 years in prison after a field test of the cookies revealed LSD and marijuana.
Except, as later laboratory tests revealed, there were no drugs. He was released from jail only after a pointless scare and an international cascade of nasty headlines.
And last year, Jimmy Michael Giorsetti, better known as Don Bolles, drummer for the punk band, the Germs, was tossed in the clink after a bottle of soap he was carrying tested positive for GHB, a drug popular on the rave scene. He cooled his heels for three days before accurate tests revealed that he soap was, in fact, soap.
Alarmed by the arrest, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, the maker of Bolles's favorite cleaning product, bought the same field test used by Newport Beach, California, police.
"We confirmed that the test is useless when used on soap since every test came back positive," he said. "We also tested other common brands of soap including Johnson & Johnson's popular Neutrogena brand, as well as Colgate- Palmolive's popular Tom's of Maine brand, which gave the same false-positive tests as well."
"Our customers need to know now this whole soap opera is a mistake by police who tormented an innocent 50-year-old man with jail," Bronner said.
Soap tests positive for GHB? Well, that should be no surprise. After all, the popular over-the-counter medication Aleve commonly tests positive for amphetamines. In Sarasota, Florida, that landed Villis Sanders behind bars overnight.
Experts say that “false positives” are rare, but when the police department tested additional pills — including an Aleve tablet provided by the Herald-Tribune — the results were still the same:
Aleve shows up as amphetamines.
And no one knows why the test keeps getting it wrong.
In all cases, police promised that they'd look into the accuracy of the field tests that they've been using, and that, all too often, send innocent people to jail.
That's great. Maybe they could get their evaluations done before the next poor SOB goes to jail because of a police mistake.
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m...
Oldest 'Footprints' on Earth Found
The oldest-known tracks of a creature apparently using legs have been discovered in rock dated to 570 million years ago in what was once a shallow sea in Nevada.
Scientists think land beasts evolved from ancient creatures that left the sea and evolved lungs and legs. If the new finding is real — the discoverer says will fuel skepticism — it pushes the advent of walking back 30 million years earlier than any previous solid finding.
The aquatic creature left its "footprints" as two parallel rows of small dots, each about 2 millimeters in diameter. Scientists said today that the animal must have stepped lightly onto the soft marine sediment, because its legs
only pressed shallow pinpoints into that long-ago sea bed.
The tracks were made during what is called the Ediacaran period, which preceded the Cambrian period, the time when most major groups of animals first evolved. Scientists had once thought only microbes and simple multicellular animals that existed prior to the Cambrian, but that notion is changing, said Ohio State University Professor Loren Babcock.
"We keep talking about the possibility of more complex animals in the Ediacaran — soft corals, some arthropods, and flatworms — but the evidence has not been totally convincing," Babcock said. "But if you find evidence, like we
did, of an animal with legs — an animal walking around — then that makes the possibility much more likely."
Soo-Yeun Ahn, a doctoral student at Ohio State, presented the discovery today at a meeting of the Geological Society of America.
Babcock was surveying rocks in the mountains near Goldfield, Nevada, with Hollingsworth in 2000 when he found the tracks.
"This was truly an accidental discovery," he said. "We came on an outcrop that looked like it crossed the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary, so we stopped to take a look at it. We just sat down and started flipping rocks over. We were there less than an hour when I saw it."
Little can be gleaned about what sort of creature it was, but Babcock "reasonably certain — not 100 percent" that it was an arthropod, such as one resembling a centipede or millipede, or by a leg-bearing worm. It might have been about one as wide as a pencil and may have had multiple, spindly legs.
In 2002, other researchers reported a similar fossil trail from Canada that
dated back to the middle of the Cambrian period, about 520 million years ago.
Another set of tracks found in South China date back to 540 million years ago. At approximately 570 million years old, this new fossil not only provides the earliest suggestion of animals walking on legs, but it also shows that complex animals were alive on earth before the Cambrian.
"I expect that there will be a lot of skepticism," Babcock said about the discovery. "There should be. But I think it will cause some excitement. And it will probably cause some people to look harder at the rocks they already have. Sometimes it's just a matter of thinking differently about the same specimen."
Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'
A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that is engraved with what they believe could be the world's first known reference to Christ.
If the word "Christ" refers to the Biblical Jesus Christ, as is speculated, then the discovery may provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.
The full engraving on the bowl reads, "DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS," which has been interpreted by the excavation team to mean either, "by Christ the magician" or, "the magician by Christ."
"It could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ, in that he was once the primary exponent of white magic," Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center of Maritime Archaeology, said.
He and his colleagues found the object during an excavation of the underwater ruins of Alexandria's ancient great harbor. The Egyptian site also includes the now submerged island of Antirhodos, where Cleopatra's palace may have been located.
Both Goddio and Egyptologist David Fabre, a member of the European Institute of Submarine Archaeology, think a "magus" could have practiced fortune telling rituals using the bowl. The Book of Matthew refers to "wisemen," or Magi, believed to have been prevalent in the ancient world.
According to Fabre, the bowl is also very similar to one depicted in two early Egyptian earthenware statuettes that are thought to show a soothsaying ritual.
"It has been known in Mesopotamia probably since the 3rd millennium B.C.," Fabre said. "The soothsayer interprets the forms taken by the oil poured into a cup of water in an interpretation guided by manuals."
He added that the individual, or "medium," then goes into a hallucinatory trance when studying the oil in the cup.
"They therefore see the divinities, or supernatural beings appear that they call to answer their questions with regard to the future," he said.
The magus might then have used the engraving on the bowl to legitimize his supernatural powers by invoking the name of Christ, the scientists theorize.
Goddio said, "It is very probable that in Alexandria they were aware of the existence of Jesus" and of his associated legendary miracles, such as transforming water into wine, multiplying loaves of bread, conducting miraculous health cures, and the story of the resurrection itself.
While not discounting the Jesus Christ interpretation, other researchers have offered different possible interpretations for the engraving, which was made on the thin-walled ceramic bowl after it was fired, since slip was removed during the process.
Bert Smith, a professor of classical archaeology and art at Oxford University, suggests the engraving might be a dedication, or present, made by a certain "Chrestos" belonging to a possible religious association called Ogoistais.
Klaus Hallof, director of the Institute of Greek inscriptions at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy, added that if Smith's interpretation proves valid, the word "Ogoistais" could then be connected to known religious groups that worshipped early Greek and Egyptian gods and goddesses, such as Hermes, Athena and Isis.
Hallof additionally pointed out that historians working at around, or just after, the time of the bowl, such as Strabon and Pausanias, refer to the god "Osogo" or "Ogoa," so a variation of this might be what's on the bowl. It is even possible that the bowl refers to both Jesus Christ and Osogo.
Fabre concluded, "It should be remembered that in Alexandria, paganism, Judaism and Christianity never evolved in isolation. All of these forms of religion (evolved) magical practices that seduced both the humble members of the population and the most well-off classes."
Click for related content
Scholars hunt missing pages of ancient Bible
Was Moses high on Mount Sinai?
Cosmic Log: Messianic message stirs debate
Live Vote: How much history is in the Bible?
Discuss the ‘Christ Bowl’ on Newsvine
"It was in Alexandria where new religious constructions were made to propose solutions to the problem of man, of God's world," he added. "Cults of Isis, mysteries of Mithra, and early Christianity bear witness to this."
The bowl is currently on public display in the exhibit "Egypt's Sunken Treasures" at the Matadero Cultural Center in Madrid, Spain, until November 15.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26972493/
Is Obama or McCain better on civil liberties?
just an interesting article I thought might interest some... I thought it was pretty good...
============
Americans have a big decision to make in the weeks ahead. Do they want their fate in the hands of an old soldier or a young community organizer? Which one will better safeguard their liberty and keep the meddlesome hands of the state from fiddling too terribly much in the life of the individual?
First, though, a reminder of a caveat I wrote back in August: "Candidates can certainly telegraph their future performance, but the message is often mixed -- and we tend to see what we want to see." I went on to warn that once presidents take on the vast powers and enormous responsibilities of the White House, their reactions may be at odds with their earlier promises. Woodrow Wilson's brutal authoritarianism, for example, including the jailing of political dissidents, couldn't have been clearly forecast based on his campaign statements or even his long years of clamoring for a more-powerful presidency.
That said, we have to work with what we have. So, which is the friend of liberty -- at least in the social sphere? Is it Barack Obama or John McCain?
Let's get the anticipation over with: While he's a lukewarm advocate of personal freedom, of these two candidates, Barack Obama wins the nod on most counts, and it's not especially close. (But wait for the final answer.)
John McCain has proven to be an enthusiastic cheerleader for the security state. He's voted for every measure to expand the government's surveillance powers, he's opposed every measure to rein-in those powers, he favors the use of extra-legal military commissions (which have been denounced as rigged by their own prosecutors) to try terrorism suspects and opposes the restoration of habeas corpus rights to those suspects.
Disappointingly, Barack Obama voted for expanding the government's power to engage in warrantless wiretaps and to renew the frightening PATRIOT Act. But he also promised to "close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."
Obama also favors some elements of drug policy reform, such as revisiting mandatory minimums, ending the bizarre disparity in sentences between powder and crack cocaine and pulling in the federal governments horns in terms of targeting medical marijuana users. John McCain, on the other hand, favors ever-tougher drug prohibition.
Obama is also reliably pro-choice on abortion and related reproductive rights, while McCain favors strict controls.
The only area where McCain has a clear advantage over Barack Obama is on the right to bear arms. McCain's record on this matter has been mixed, but Obama's record is abysmal, despite his recent claims to be a born-again fan of the Second Amendment.
But ...
One big area of concern about both John McCain and Barack Obama involves free speech on political matters. To put it bluntly, they're both against it.
McCain's name is attached to the horrendous McCain-Feingold law which, the ACLU said, "contains an unprecedented attack on issue advocacy by nonpartisan groups and organizations." The senator from Arizona really seems to think political debates should be confined to formal exchanges between recognized political candidates.
Obama also supports "campaign finance" restrictions on political speech, even to the point of filing complaints against groups that favor his political opponents. More recently, his campaign has taken to threatening broadcast stations with possible FCC action if they run NRA ads hostile to the Illinois's senator's record on gun rights. That's a potent threat coming from a political candidate who may soon have the power to determine FCC policy.
And yes, before Obama's "The Wave"-like minions remind me that Factcheck.org found fault with those ads, I'll point out that Factcheck.org's take has itself been fact-checked by knowledgeable scholars -- and found wanting. At the very least, the issue should be settled by public debate, not censorship.
I'm also, as I've written, not fond of Obama's plans for mandatory national service. That displays a disturbing disregard for the autonomy of the individual.
But, in a year when one candidate can say, "each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest," and the other says, "individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations," the focus is clearly not on individual freedom. We have to take what we can get.
And Barack Obama is clearly superior on most civil liberties issues to John McCain.
So the best candidate is ...
Whoa, hold on there!
Despite what the media tells you, John McCain and Barack Obama are not the only candidates running for president. Libertarian Bob Barr, a former congressman, is also running, as is the Green Party's Cynthia McKinney, another one-time federal lawmaker, independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party hopeful Chuck Baldwin.
Before you settle on a candidate, look at them all.
Bob Barr: Better than ObamaIn particular, I think Barr is worth consideration. He's a former drug warrior and PATRIOT Act supporter who grew disgusted by the reality of what he once advocated, and ended up working with both the ACLU and the Marijuana Policy Project.
Imagine that. A politician who learns from experience that interfering in people's lives may be a bad thing.
Barr opposes the security state, warning that "[t]he administration and its supporters have used the terrorist attacks of September 11 as an excuse for a host of power grabs." He opposes warrantless wiretaps and supports the return of habeas corpus rights to terrorism suspects so that they can have legitimate trials to determine their guilt or innocence.
The former prosecutor and one-time eager prohibitionist has notably had an "oh sh-t" moment on drug prohibition, acknowledging that "the war on drugs -- it's a failure." He joined the Marijuana Policy Project to lobby for protections for medical marijuana users and providers -- an end to federal raids being a big such improvement.
Barr's support for alternatives to drug prohibition isn't the enthusiastic embrace of a libertarian true-believer, but rather the resignation of a realist who is tough enough to concede that his once-preferred policies have produced a little taste of Hell on Earth. Honestly, real reform is going to require a lot of similar changes of heart.
On same-sex marriage, Barr isn't, unfortunately, a thoroughgoing equal-rights guy, but he did applaud California's recognition of the rights of gay and lesbians to marry, thinks states should be left free do to exactly that and wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. That puts him in the same not-quite-there camp as Obama. He also wants to dump the military's pernicious don't-ask-don't-tell rule.
On the right to bear arms, Barr was one of those few legislators who became increasingly wary of government restrictions the more time he spent in Congress. According to Gun Owners of America, "his voting record after his first term in Congress improved tremendously (voting right in 27 out of 31 votes) -- a record that is certainly better than 99 percent of most Republicans and Democrats." He now opposes "any law requiring registration of, or restricting the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition to law-abiding citizens."
And Barr, thankfully, opposes the whole apparatus of restrictions on free speech cloaked as "campaign finance reform." It's not just political speech, either; he recently told Reason magazine that restricting so-called obscenity is not a "legitimate area for the government to be involved in."
None of this is to say that Barr is perfect. In particular, he's absolutely terrible on reproductive rights, even though his second wife had an abortion. If this is your make-or-break issue, look elsewhere.
In short, Barr is good on privacy, due process, free speech and the right to bear arms. He matches Obama on same-sex marriage and is bad on reproductive rights.
Do I have to mention that he opposes the hideous financial bailout scheme?
In a year in which perfect isn't on the ballot, Barr looks pretty good.
But don't take my word for it, especially given the caveat I gave regarding the miserable reliability of predictions about the performance of candidates once they win office. Take the time to look at all the candidates -- not just the donkey and the elephant -- and make up your own mind.
As far as my take goes, it appears to me that Barack Obama is clearly better on civil liberties than John McCain, and that Bob Barr is better than Obama.
After a difficult stretch of years, we need a whole lot of "better" on civil liberties.
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m...
============
Americans have a big decision to make in the weeks ahead. Do they want their fate in the hands of an old soldier or a young community organizer? Which one will better safeguard their liberty and keep the meddlesome hands of the state from fiddling too terribly much in the life of the individual?
First, though, a reminder of a caveat I wrote back in August: "Candidates can certainly telegraph their future performance, but the message is often mixed -- and we tend to see what we want to see." I went on to warn that once presidents take on the vast powers and enormous responsibilities of the White House, their reactions may be at odds with their earlier promises. Woodrow Wilson's brutal authoritarianism, for example, including the jailing of political dissidents, couldn't have been clearly forecast based on his campaign statements or even his long years of clamoring for a more-powerful presidency.
That said, we have to work with what we have. So, which is the friend of liberty -- at least in the social sphere? Is it Barack Obama or John McCain?
Let's get the anticipation over with: While he's a lukewarm advocate of personal freedom, of these two candidates, Barack Obama wins the nod on most counts, and it's not especially close. (But wait for the final answer.)
John McCain has proven to be an enthusiastic cheerleader for the security state. He's voted for every measure to expand the government's surveillance powers, he's opposed every measure to rein-in those powers, he favors the use of extra-legal military commissions (which have been denounced as rigged by their own prosecutors) to try terrorism suspects and opposes the restoration of habeas corpus rights to those suspects.
Disappointingly, Barack Obama voted for expanding the government's power to engage in warrantless wiretaps and to renew the frightening PATRIOT Act. But he also promised to "close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."
Obama also favors some elements of drug policy reform, such as revisiting mandatory minimums, ending the bizarre disparity in sentences between powder and crack cocaine and pulling in the federal governments horns in terms of targeting medical marijuana users. John McCain, on the other hand, favors ever-tougher drug prohibition.
Obama is also reliably pro-choice on abortion and related reproductive rights, while McCain favors strict controls.
The only area where McCain has a clear advantage over Barack Obama is on the right to bear arms. McCain's record on this matter has been mixed, but Obama's record is abysmal, despite his recent claims to be a born-again fan of the Second Amendment.
But ...
One big area of concern about both John McCain and Barack Obama involves free speech on political matters. To put it bluntly, they're both against it.
McCain's name is attached to the horrendous McCain-Feingold law which, the ACLU said, "contains an unprecedented attack on issue advocacy by nonpartisan groups and organizations." The senator from Arizona really seems to think political debates should be confined to formal exchanges between recognized political candidates.
Obama also supports "campaign finance" restrictions on political speech, even to the point of filing complaints against groups that favor his political opponents. More recently, his campaign has taken to threatening broadcast stations with possible FCC action if they run NRA ads hostile to the Illinois's senator's record on gun rights. That's a potent threat coming from a political candidate who may soon have the power to determine FCC policy.
And yes, before Obama's "The Wave"-like minions remind me that Factcheck.org found fault with those ads, I'll point out that Factcheck.org's take has itself been fact-checked by knowledgeable scholars -- and found wanting. At the very least, the issue should be settled by public debate, not censorship.
I'm also, as I've written, not fond of Obama's plans for mandatory national service. That displays a disturbing disregard for the autonomy of the individual.
But, in a year when one candidate can say, "each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest," and the other says, "individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations," the focus is clearly not on individual freedom. We have to take what we can get.
And Barack Obama is clearly superior on most civil liberties issues to John McCain.
So the best candidate is ...
Whoa, hold on there!
Despite what the media tells you, John McCain and Barack Obama are not the only candidates running for president. Libertarian Bob Barr, a former congressman, is also running, as is the Green Party's Cynthia McKinney, another one-time federal lawmaker, independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party hopeful Chuck Baldwin.
Before you settle on a candidate, look at them all.
Bob Barr: Better than ObamaIn particular, I think Barr is worth consideration. He's a former drug warrior and PATRIOT Act supporter who grew disgusted by the reality of what he once advocated, and ended up working with both the ACLU and the Marijuana Policy Project.
Imagine that. A politician who learns from experience that interfering in people's lives may be a bad thing.
Barr opposes the security state, warning that "[t]he administration and its supporters have used the terrorist attacks of September 11 as an excuse for a host of power grabs." He opposes warrantless wiretaps and supports the return of habeas corpus rights to terrorism suspects so that they can have legitimate trials to determine their guilt or innocence.
The former prosecutor and one-time eager prohibitionist has notably had an "oh sh-t" moment on drug prohibition, acknowledging that "the war on drugs -- it's a failure." He joined the Marijuana Policy Project to lobby for protections for medical marijuana users and providers -- an end to federal raids being a big such improvement.
Barr's support for alternatives to drug prohibition isn't the enthusiastic embrace of a libertarian true-believer, but rather the resignation of a realist who is tough enough to concede that his once-preferred policies have produced a little taste of Hell on Earth. Honestly, real reform is going to require a lot of similar changes of heart.
On same-sex marriage, Barr isn't, unfortunately, a thoroughgoing equal-rights guy, but he did applaud California's recognition of the rights of gay and lesbians to marry, thinks states should be left free do to exactly that and wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. That puts him in the same not-quite-there camp as Obama. He also wants to dump the military's pernicious don't-ask-don't-tell rule.
On the right to bear arms, Barr was one of those few legislators who became increasingly wary of government restrictions the more time he spent in Congress. According to Gun Owners of America, "his voting record after his first term in Congress improved tremendously (voting right in 27 out of 31 votes) -- a record that is certainly better than 99 percent of most Republicans and Democrats." He now opposes "any law requiring registration of, or restricting the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition to law-abiding citizens."
And Barr, thankfully, opposes the whole apparatus of restrictions on free speech cloaked as "campaign finance reform." It's not just political speech, either; he recently told Reason magazine that restricting so-called obscenity is not a "legitimate area for the government to be involved in."
None of this is to say that Barr is perfect. In particular, he's absolutely terrible on reproductive rights, even though his second wife had an abortion. If this is your make-or-break issue, look elsewhere.
In short, Barr is good on privacy, due process, free speech and the right to bear arms. He matches Obama on same-sex marriage and is bad on reproductive rights.
Do I have to mention that he opposes the hideous financial bailout scheme?
In a year in which perfect isn't on the ballot, Barr looks pretty good.
But don't take my word for it, especially given the caveat I gave regarding the miserable reliability of predictions about the performance of candidates once they win office. Take the time to look at all the candidates -- not just the donkey and the elephant -- and make up your own mind.
As far as my take goes, it appears to me that Barack Obama is clearly better on civil liberties than John McCain, and that Bob Barr is better than Obama.
After a difficult stretch of years, we need a whole lot of "better" on civil liberties.
http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m...
The Economist article Sarah Palin probably won't read
I can count the number of things Sarah Palin and I agree on with one hand. And I would have a bunch of fingers left over. But we are both fans of The Economist. I suspect, though, Ms. Palin may pass over The Economist's recent polling of professional economists views on the McCain and Obama economic plans. The consensus among the experts polled, in some cases an overwhelming consensus, is Barack Obama has the better plan, a better understanding of the issues, and the more likely to develop a more effective team of advisors.
The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.
A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”
Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.
I have plenty of issues with the Obama economic plan. I don't believe setting the $250K/year threshold for increased taxation would be sufficient to pay for the programs he proposes. I disagree with the notion of windfall profits taxes. While I agree, in principle, with low corporate tax rates, Obama has been not as specific as I would like on the issue. But there is LOTS I think is spot on about his plan; an emphasis on the middle class, health care reform, and leveraging new energy technologies and infrastructure work as a way to stimulate the economy.
On the other hand, the McCain economic plan is nothing more than catch phrases and wishful thinking. The Senator offers no plan on how to deal with our current problems, only offering a plan for when times are rosy (and they've not even been close to rosy since the mid to late 1990's). The McCain plan is nothing more than an elaborate shell game; tell voters about the tax credit for health insurance (making sure not to mention taxing health benefits that will, likely, drive employers to drop health insurance as a part of compensation), vowing to cut pork and earmarks and suggesting that will solve all our economic problems (and not telling voters that it's actually small potatoes), and the expressed reverence for low taxes (when it's really low taxes for the wealthy that's important to Senator McCain).
And perhaps the most telling: John McCain's absolute aversion to telling voters how the economic meltdown will effect his economic platform. At least Barack Obama has tip toed up to the need to reconsider some aspects of his plan. That John McCain cannot acknowledge the economic meltdown will force him to modify his economic plan makes him dishonest and not trustworthy.
http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y...
The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.
A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”
Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.
I have plenty of issues with the Obama economic plan. I don't believe setting the $250K/year threshold for increased taxation would be sufficient to pay for the programs he proposes. I disagree with the notion of windfall profits taxes. While I agree, in principle, with low corporate tax rates, Obama has been not as specific as I would like on the issue. But there is LOTS I think is spot on about his plan; an emphasis on the middle class, health care reform, and leveraging new energy technologies and infrastructure work as a way to stimulate the economy.
On the other hand, the McCain economic plan is nothing more than catch phrases and wishful thinking. The Senator offers no plan on how to deal with our current problems, only offering a plan for when times are rosy (and they've not even been close to rosy since the mid to late 1990's). The McCain plan is nothing more than an elaborate shell game; tell voters about the tax credit for health insurance (making sure not to mention taxing health benefits that will, likely, drive employers to drop health insurance as a part of compensation), vowing to cut pork and earmarks and suggesting that will solve all our economic problems (and not telling voters that it's actually small potatoes), and the expressed reverence for low taxes (when it's really low taxes for the wealthy that's important to Senator McCain).
And perhaps the most telling: John McCain's absolute aversion to telling voters how the economic meltdown will effect his economic platform. At least Barack Obama has tip toed up to the need to reconsider some aspects of his plan. That John McCain cannot acknowledge the economic meltdown will force him to modify his economic plan makes him dishonest and not trustworthy.
http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y...
Palin tax returns for 2006 and 2007 released
By The Associated Press | Friday, October 3, 2008 11:37 PM CDT | (5) comments
ANCHORAGE, Alaska— Sarah Palin is the breadwinner and husband Todd is, well — he takes a lot of deductions for his fishing and snowmachine racing careers, according to 2007 and 2006 federal tax returns released Friday.
Sarah Palin makes $125,000 a year as Alaska governor. Plus, since she took the job in December 2006, she hasn't paid taxes on the more than $17,000 she received in controversial per diem payments for working out of the family's lakeside home in Wasilla — some 575 miles from the capital of Juneau.
For the 2007 tax year, Todd Palin's self-employment brought him $66,893 in gross receipts — $49,893 from fishing and $17,000 from snowmachine racing. But, the returns show, he claimed so many deductions that he reported only $15,513 net profit from the fishing operation and claimed a $9,639 loss from his racing, leaving him with an overall net income of only $5,874. In addition, Todd earned $43,519 last year working part-time on the North Slope for BP Exploration.
The self-employment deductions left the Palins, who have four dependent children, with a 15 percent tax rate for 2007 and a rate of less than 10 percent for 2006. Todd Palin also deducted for the business use of their home in Wasilla. A fifth child was born to the couple this year.
An Associated Press analysis of the returns released by the McCain campaign also reveals that the Palins underpaid their estimated taxes with an April extension and likely owe interest.
Todd Palin offset his $17,000 gross receipts for snowmachine racing by claiming $10,858 in depreciation, $2,425 for car and truck expenses and $1,559 for supplies. An additional $11,405 was claimed for ``other,'' which included fuel, entry fees, equipment parts, repairs and maintenance, cell phone, memberships, ``sponsorship apprec'' and ``gear.''
The governor's husband claimed $34,380 in deductions for his fishing business — more than two-thirds of the gross receipts. He claimed $12,245 in crew share payments, another $2,953 for car and truck expenses, $5,866 for depreciation, $4,181 for supplies.
When he was on snowmachine duty, he claimed $192 for travel and no deductions for meals and entertainment. While fishing, he claimed $2,194 for travel and another $680 for meals and entertainment, which is deductible at 50 percent of cost.
On the 2006 return, Todd Palin had total receipts from the fishing and snowmachine racing of $48,082, but after deductions his net income was $10,164.
Sarah Palin was only governor for one month in 2006, and Todd Palin earned $102,716 working for BP Exploration, a post he says he's temporarily left.
``This is a lady who screams about everyone in federal government taking advantage, and she's taking every advantage she can,'' said Sheldon Cohen, IRS commissioner in the Johnson administration. ``They are milking every possible deduction. They have a right to, if it's legitimate. The question is, is he in the racing business or is it a hobby?''
Robert Cross, first vice president of the National Society of Accountants, said the Palin business deductions were ``typical middle America, John and Jane Plain,'' but he felt they would definitely owe interest and ``possibly a small penalty, depending on all the circumstances.''
An underpayment noticed by the AP could lead to interest charges against the Palins but probably not penalties.
On an undated extension form filed with a $2,000 check dated April 11, the Palins claimed an estimated tax liability of $22,721 and total withholding payments of $20,721. The attached check meant the couple believed they had paid all of their taxes for 2007, as required. However, when they filed their taxes last month, dated Sept. 3, their tax liability turned out to be $24,738 — meaning they owed an additional $2,017.
IRS rules require that when a taxpayer files for an extension in April, all outstanding taxes must be paid at that time.
When asked if the Palins had paid any interest or penalties, and if so, how much, Maria Comella, a McCain-Palin spokeswoman, said the couple had paid ``at least $2,017,'' and that the campaign was researching if an additional payment had been made.
``In April, they made a reasonable estimate of what they would owe, and they underpaid,'' she acknowledged.
``They're going to be billed the interest,'' said Cohen, who has contributed to the Obama-Biden campaign. He said the Palins would likely avoid penalties because their tax payments as of April for last year were higher than all payments made the prior year.
Overall, the 2007 return shows that last year the couple had an adjusted gross income of $166,080 and paid $24,738 in taxes — about a 15 percent rate after deductions. In 2006, the records show, the Palins earned $127,869 as adjusted gross income, with taxes paid listed at $11,944 — less than a 10 percent rate.
On federal financial disclosure forms, also released Friday, Palin and her husband listed assets worth from $960,000 to $2.3 million. Because the values of assets are reported in broad ranges, it's not possible to calculate an exact value for their holdings.
Like many Americans, their most valuable asset is their home. Theirs, in Wasilla, is valued at $500,000 to $1 million. According to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the land and structure are appraised at $552,100.
Their next most valuable asset is a fishing leasehold, worth $100,000 to $250,000. Todd Palin's fishing business was valued at $50,000 to $100,000, and his snowmobile racing enterprise was put at $15,000 to $50,000.
Todd Palin also has a retirement account worth $50,000 to $100,000, and he owns a variety of mutual funds in a 401(k) retirement plan through his employer, the oil company BP. Sara Palin also has retirement accounts from the state of Alaska and the city of Wasilla, where she was once mayor, valued at $115,000 to $250,000.
The Palins also own shares of two land parcels worth a combined $51,000 to $115,000.
On their tax returns, the Palins said they donated $8,105 to charity over the two years. The bulk of the donations came in ``gifts by cash or check'' — $4,250 in 2006 and $2,500 last year. Comella said the Palins gave the money to local churches, but she would not elaborate.
The Palins made noncash charitable contributions, claiming ``thrift store value'' of $825 for a Dec. 31, 2007, donation to the Salvation Army of Wasilla.
The column used to describe the donated items states only ``Wasilla Alaska.'' When asked to explain, Comella said, ``I believe this is actual things that were part of their property — furniture, clothing and so forth. That was generally what they donated.''
For the 2006 tax year, the couple listed two noncash donations of ``crib,'' household goods and clothing to the Salvation Army of Wasilla, with a fair market value of $1,000, and more goods and clothing, with a fair market value of $230. While the value of the two donations total $1,230, the tax return only claims $630.
Asked to explain the missing $600 on the actual return, Comella said that figures in two columns had been reversed — that the $1,000 was actually the donor's cost and the $400 listed under that category was actually the fair market value. That would make the total donation the same $630 listed elsewhere on the Palin return.
``It was a typographical error that didn't change any of the main numbers,'' said Comella.
More recently, the IRS has tightened documentation rules for all charitable contributions.
Regarding the per diem dispute, Comella said Juneau is the governor's home base and therefore whenever she works elsewhere, she is entitled to charge the state. Comella contended the per diem payments are not taxable.
Cohen said it was fine for the state of Alaska to determine it was OK to reimburse Palin to work out of her home, but the state's decision didn't mean those benefits were not taxable by the federal government. ``One has nothing to do with the other,'' said Cohen.
http://ads.qctimes.com/articles/2008/10/03/news/nation_world/...
ANCHORAGE, Alaska— Sarah Palin is the breadwinner and husband Todd is, well — he takes a lot of deductions for his fishing and snowmachine racing careers, according to 2007 and 2006 federal tax returns released Friday.
Sarah Palin makes $125,000 a year as Alaska governor. Plus, since she took the job in December 2006, she hasn't paid taxes on the more than $17,000 she received in controversial per diem payments for working out of the family's lakeside home in Wasilla — some 575 miles from the capital of Juneau.
For the 2007 tax year, Todd Palin's self-employment brought him $66,893 in gross receipts — $49,893 from fishing and $17,000 from snowmachine racing. But, the returns show, he claimed so many deductions that he reported only $15,513 net profit from the fishing operation and claimed a $9,639 loss from his racing, leaving him with an overall net income of only $5,874. In addition, Todd earned $43,519 last year working part-time on the North Slope for BP Exploration.
The self-employment deductions left the Palins, who have four dependent children, with a 15 percent tax rate for 2007 and a rate of less than 10 percent for 2006. Todd Palin also deducted for the business use of their home in Wasilla. A fifth child was born to the couple this year.
An Associated Press analysis of the returns released by the McCain campaign also reveals that the Palins underpaid their estimated taxes with an April extension and likely owe interest.
Todd Palin offset his $17,000 gross receipts for snowmachine racing by claiming $10,858 in depreciation, $2,425 for car and truck expenses and $1,559 for supplies. An additional $11,405 was claimed for ``other,'' which included fuel, entry fees, equipment parts, repairs and maintenance, cell phone, memberships, ``sponsorship apprec'' and ``gear.''
The governor's husband claimed $34,380 in deductions for his fishing business — more than two-thirds of the gross receipts. He claimed $12,245 in crew share payments, another $2,953 for car and truck expenses, $5,866 for depreciation, $4,181 for supplies.
When he was on snowmachine duty, he claimed $192 for travel and no deductions for meals and entertainment. While fishing, he claimed $2,194 for travel and another $680 for meals and entertainment, which is deductible at 50 percent of cost.
On the 2006 return, Todd Palin had total receipts from the fishing and snowmachine racing of $48,082, but after deductions his net income was $10,164.
Sarah Palin was only governor for one month in 2006, and Todd Palin earned $102,716 working for BP Exploration, a post he says he's temporarily left.
``This is a lady who screams about everyone in federal government taking advantage, and she's taking every advantage she can,'' said Sheldon Cohen, IRS commissioner in the Johnson administration. ``They are milking every possible deduction. They have a right to, if it's legitimate. The question is, is he in the racing business or is it a hobby?''
Robert Cross, first vice president of the National Society of Accountants, said the Palin business deductions were ``typical middle America, John and Jane Plain,'' but he felt they would definitely owe interest and ``possibly a small penalty, depending on all the circumstances.''
An underpayment noticed by the AP could lead to interest charges against the Palins but probably not penalties.
On an undated extension form filed with a $2,000 check dated April 11, the Palins claimed an estimated tax liability of $22,721 and total withholding payments of $20,721. The attached check meant the couple believed they had paid all of their taxes for 2007, as required. However, when they filed their taxes last month, dated Sept. 3, their tax liability turned out to be $24,738 — meaning they owed an additional $2,017.
IRS rules require that when a taxpayer files for an extension in April, all outstanding taxes must be paid at that time.
When asked if the Palins had paid any interest or penalties, and if so, how much, Maria Comella, a McCain-Palin spokeswoman, said the couple had paid ``at least $2,017,'' and that the campaign was researching if an additional payment had been made.
``In April, they made a reasonable estimate of what they would owe, and they underpaid,'' she acknowledged.
``They're going to be billed the interest,'' said Cohen, who has contributed to the Obama-Biden campaign. He said the Palins would likely avoid penalties because their tax payments as of April for last year were higher than all payments made the prior year.
Overall, the 2007 return shows that last year the couple had an adjusted gross income of $166,080 and paid $24,738 in taxes — about a 15 percent rate after deductions. In 2006, the records show, the Palins earned $127,869 as adjusted gross income, with taxes paid listed at $11,944 — less than a 10 percent rate.
On federal financial disclosure forms, also released Friday, Palin and her husband listed assets worth from $960,000 to $2.3 million. Because the values of assets are reported in broad ranges, it's not possible to calculate an exact value for their holdings.
Like many Americans, their most valuable asset is their home. Theirs, in Wasilla, is valued at $500,000 to $1 million. According to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the land and structure are appraised at $552,100.
Their next most valuable asset is a fishing leasehold, worth $100,000 to $250,000. Todd Palin's fishing business was valued at $50,000 to $100,000, and his snowmobile racing enterprise was put at $15,000 to $50,000.
Todd Palin also has a retirement account worth $50,000 to $100,000, and he owns a variety of mutual funds in a 401(k) retirement plan through his employer, the oil company BP. Sara Palin also has retirement accounts from the state of Alaska and the city of Wasilla, where she was once mayor, valued at $115,000 to $250,000.
The Palins also own shares of two land parcels worth a combined $51,000 to $115,000.
On their tax returns, the Palins said they donated $8,105 to charity over the two years. The bulk of the donations came in ``gifts by cash or check'' — $4,250 in 2006 and $2,500 last year. Comella said the Palins gave the money to local churches, but she would not elaborate.
The Palins made noncash charitable contributions, claiming ``thrift store value'' of $825 for a Dec. 31, 2007, donation to the Salvation Army of Wasilla.
The column used to describe the donated items states only ``Wasilla Alaska.'' When asked to explain, Comella said, ``I believe this is actual things that were part of their property — furniture, clothing and so forth. That was generally what they donated.''
For the 2006 tax year, the couple listed two noncash donations of ``crib,'' household goods and clothing to the Salvation Army of Wasilla, with a fair market value of $1,000, and more goods and clothing, with a fair market value of $230. While the value of the two donations total $1,230, the tax return only claims $630.
Asked to explain the missing $600 on the actual return, Comella said that figures in two columns had been reversed — that the $1,000 was actually the donor's cost and the $400 listed under that category was actually the fair market value. That would make the total donation the same $630 listed elsewhere on the Palin return.
``It was a typographical error that didn't change any of the main numbers,'' said Comella.
More recently, the IRS has tightened documentation rules for all charitable contributions.
Regarding the per diem dispute, Comella said Juneau is the governor's home base and therefore whenever she works elsewhere, she is entitled to charge the state. Comella contended the per diem payments are not taxable.
Cohen said it was fine for the state of Alaska to determine it was OK to reimburse Palin to work out of her home, but the state's decision didn't mean those benefits were not taxable by the federal government. ``One has nothing to do with the other,'' said Cohen.
http://ads.qctimes.com/articles/2008/10/03/news/nation_world/...
