FBI agent steps into Coulter voting case

I never saw a woman who enjoyed being stalked quite so much...

FBI agent steps into Coulter voting case

================
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter has been cleared of allegations that she falsified her Palm Beach County voter's registration and voted illegally — this, after a high-level FBI agent made unsolicited phone calls to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office to vouch for Coulter.

County Supervisor of Elections Arthur Anderson, meanwhile, decried what he called "FBI intrusion." He referred the Coulter case to PBSO after poll worker Jim Whited originally reported the incident.

"This doesn't bode well in terms of the public's impression that celebrities receive preferential treatment," Anderson said. "I'm curious about how anyone can justify the FBI's intrusion."

As for Coulter's alleged stalker, check this out: Fitzgerald identified him as conservative Christian, rabid anti-Coulter blogger Dan Borchers of coulterwatch.com. Borchers said he remembers talking to two FBI agents about stalking accusations — in 1998.

"They stayed for five minutes," he said, "told me to be careful not to scare Ann Coulter. She hollers stalker at anybody who opposes her."

Fitzgerald told Villa that the supposed Borchers probe led to no arrest and he saw no reason why Coulter's address should remain secret.
====================

More complete info:
The BRAD BLOG : EXCLUSIVE: FBI AGENT WHO INTERCEDED IN ANN COULTER VOTER FRAUD CASE ALLEGED TO BE HER FORMER BOYFRIEND!

The BRAD BLOG : SPECIAL COVERAGE: Ann Coulter's Voter Fraud Felony

Democrats tighten noose on Nader and Greens in punitive attack on "Third Party" candidates

Democrats tighten noose on Nader and Greens in punitive attack on "Third Party" candidates
----------------
"If successful in Pennsylvania, Democrat legislators around the country will likely introduce similar punitive election laws in other states, particularly "swing" states, in a preventive effort to keep independents and minor party candidates off the ballot."
---------------

This is just the kinda thing I was talking about in this previous post. The major parties run the show, and they--in this case, it's the Dems, but with other minors, it's the Republicans--do everything possible to keep any competition on their side of the political spectrum out of the race.

Obviously, this benefits the major parties, but it doesn't benefit the people who vote, and whose choices are thusly limited by these actions. It doesn't benefit the marketplace of political ideas & ideals, when all but two (& sometimes less than two) positions are swept away from that marketplace.

-----------
"Judge James Collins, who assessed the $89,821 bill, led the review declaring Nader's petitions were "rife with forgeries" and that "this signature gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this Court." Collins alleged that "thousands of names" were "created at random"…a view dissented from by Justice Saylor of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court who declared the Nader campaign had not been shown to have engaged in any kind of "systemic" fraud and that only 687 signatures out of 51,273 had actually been rejected for forgery.

Professor Brown has discovered that Judge Collins personally ruled that 568 of the 687 purported forgeries were fraudulent leaving the other ten judges to find only 119 forgeries. Collins and two of the other reviewing judges discarded thousands of signatures on very "technical and complicated" criteria including a missing middle initial, use of ditto marks, or mixing printing with cursive writing. Collins ended up rejecting 70% of the 10,794 signatures he reviewed."
--------------

It smells awful fishy to me that one guy found so many forgeries, while ten other judges found so few. I realize that this may be a partisan article about a partisan review (I know nothing about the author of this article, or the law professor who conducted the review), but it does merit further inquiry, as far as I'm concerned...

------------
Brown writes there was a "concerted Democratic program to purge Nader from the presidential ballot." Further, "The lesson to be drawn from the 2004 presidential race is that neither major party can be trusted to police a general election ballot. Major party interests naturally lean more toward rigging and sabotaging than insuring fair and competitive fights."
------------

That's what I think, too... There ought to be a better way...

Racism is alive & well...

...here in America.

If you wish to understand this post, go to the following link. It disgusts me, and I won't have the poster's words on my blog. (Nothing xxx obscene, & no nasty pictures of death & dying... Just a blatent disrespect for folks unlike herself that I find worse than your average pornographic picture.) ((My dad had the same philosophy... He was real strict about violent TV, but didn't have much of an issue with sexual content in shows. I think he figured that in the right circumstances, sex is a good thing, and he hoped that both of his sons would do that as often as possible... Violence is much less often good, and I think he hoped we'd never see any more of it than was absolutely necessary.))

Curtains...: TOO CLOSE TO HOME

I understand that Muslims (Muzzies? What the hell is "muzzies?") are different from us Christians & Jews that dominate this country. But whatever happened to the freedom to practice one's religion? Do some really need to make fun of the rules Muslims follow in preparation for prayer? Is that really how far down the ladder some have sunk?

UPDATE: Went to find a less biased source for the story than WorldnetDaily, and instead found this: Airport Debunks Islamic Footwashing Myth - News Story - KMBC Kansas City.

So, not only is the poster of that story kind of a racist, she's also inaccurate.

Lovely.

Clift: A Third-Party Ticket in 2008? - Newsweek Capitol Letter - MSNBC.com

Clift: A Third-Party Ticket in 2008?

I'm pretty certain the major parties would never allow this unity ticket thing to ever get off the ground, let alone actually work. This is stepping all too far onto what they see as their exclusive turf. The D's & R's establish the rules, & by doing so, have given themselves a built in self-preservation clause. (I'm still not sure why we allow these two parties to set debate and ballot access rules. You would think that in the first case, at least, news organizations would have more say...) The major parties will do anything to prevent their ever being cast aside as irrelevant... ...no matter how many Americans come to believe they are.

The dominance of the two major parties on our political system does need to be broken. In a more perfect world, this might be a way to do it, eventually, but I could never help a candidate I didn't support, and it's highly unlikely I could support a Republican. (I'm not even so sure about Democrats, most of the time... 8>)

I'm glad this idea is out there... I think that it might help all of us get a better crop of candidates across the board, one day. I just don't know whether or how it'll ever break through the major party barrier...

Free Speech, Imus, & the Free Market

It all started with this post: First Imus...who next? The notion that the firing of Imus was any kind of free speech issue had been getting to me all week, and the toon Skye (the owner of AncoraImparo, the blog where "First Imus" appears) posted was the last straw.

The article she tried to post along with it: Townhall.com::The Imus Lynch Party::By Patrick J. Buchanan was great. Where Buchanan is talking about Imus, I agree with much of what he says. I even agree that Imus' being fired for using the same words in very similar ways that others have and continue to do is hypocritical. I don't think Imus deserved to be fired.

But the idea that the people who wrote & called & threatened boycotts about his words were some kinda lynch mob, or that doing these things is any kind of censorship or free speech issue, is patently ridiculous. So, I set out to find out the basis by which folks were making these claims.

I didn't get much from Skye. If you read the comment section where she & I discussed it, her argument seemed to come down to:
1) "I say it is the public display of unbalanced 'morality' in the American stage that inflicts far more damage to our credibility as a nation and a culture."

In other words, anyone who was offended by Imus should've just kept quiet. Unless you've complained about all instances where anyone may've been offended--especially ones committed by those you support--you have no standing to complain about this one. The world is watching, & you're making us look bad. There was a time when I didn't really understand the concepts of moral relativism & moral equivalency. But I'm starting to...

2) "Using economic forces as a weapon to supress the freedom of speech was a tactic employeed by the German Socialist Workers Party back in the day. We are close, to repeating this brutal mistake which apparently has the full blessing of US liberals."

The difference between individuals, like the ones who did the complaining, & political parties, like the Nazis, seems to escape her. Besides, using the power of the purse to encourage one kind of behavior over another is a tactic employed by individuals, groups, and governments all the time. Everything from picking a certain brand of dish soap, to only buying American, to not shopping at Mal-Wart, is an attempt to affect the behavior of those companies. And the US government has been known to use funding to affect the values of our country, as well.

That was about the extent of it... (at least so far. As of this writing, I was he last one to've commented at her blog. Perhaps Skye will have more to say, & will offer another reason or something.) Not much to explain how or why it's a free speech issue.

So, I moved on, and that's how I got to Mike's America, and his post on the issue: Democrats Announce Media "Enemies List".

Mike says "The lovers of free speech, diversity and tolerance are at it again!" Well, my question is "How is asking for a certain level of behavior an offense to free speech, diversity, or tolerance?"

Like Skye above, Mike's main argument seems to be one of balance. If you don't object to EVERYONE who may be offensive--but especially those to whom you're closest--you shouldn't object to ANYONE who may be offensive.

"Taken out of context and overblown to shock the easily offended sensibilities of self righteous,left wing hyprocritical poseurs bigots who couldn't care less when much much worse is directed at anyone not in one of their protected classes of people. I say: you want to change the culture and clean things up? Fine by me. Start by holding yourselves accountable to the same standard of conduct you daily demand of others."

Leaving aside all the unnecessary (mis)characterizations, Mike's "glass houses" argument isn't persuasive. You start where you start. Whatever one thinks of Imus or the people on Media Matters so-called "enemies list", the issue is current, and these are the people, along with rap artists & comedians, who say the things that some people question.

Is there a political or social element? Sure. Folks who like the rap in question obviously aren't offended by it. If you enjoy or agree with Coulter's friendly little barbs, why would you complain about 'em? But that doesn't mean that others are not offended, & don't have every ethical right to voice their opinions to the people in a position to make changes; the artists, the people for whom they work (labels, stations) & anyone else involved in getting the art from the artist to the public (advertisers, stores)

Let's see whether there's any more in Mike's arsenal:

"I'd like to know when Media Matters will complain about ANY left wing fascist?"

Media Matters is a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
It's very much like NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias or Media Research Center Home Page: America's Media Watchdog, who currently has a banner saying "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias".

The answer is, MM won't complain about any left wing "misinformation," because that isn't their reason for being, any more than NewsBusters or MRC will complain about right wing "misinformation." If you want a more balanced approach, look to omnibudsmen, or perhaps the American public at large. Fairness to all sides isn't the mission of any of these websites, nor should it be.

When I asked Mike about it in the comment section for his post, this was his reply:

"Who commenting here has defended Don Imus? He's one of yours, not ours."

Very interesting, particularly in light of his previous comment (also from the comment section, but not to me) about MM never complaining about anyone on the left... So, if MM had anything to do with Imus' downfall (like being among the first on the net to highlight his comments, perhaps), that would mean MM HAS complained about some (or at least "someone") on the left. (I didn't catch that, till just now...)

That was pretty much our whole conversation about Imus, MM "enemies," and free speech, though in that post of Mike's & a bunch of others between us in that comment section, we addressed other topics. My one other attempt to broach the subject was brushed away by his saying "I responded to your query about Imus. Sorry if my interest in that is less than yours.", almost as though *I* brought it up, and wasn't in the comment section of *HIS* blog posting on the subject, replying to the words he wrote. (I actually checked to make sure I didn't accidentally post my query in the wrong comment section. I hadn't.)

And that, dear readers, is the story of how/why I got to Mike's in the first place, and the beginning of the path to the creation of this blog...

I am a moonbat.

That (or worse) is what they call me, those wingnuts.

I don't know when it happened, that we started lumping people into these fractious factions.

Red states.
Blue states.

Hippies, Fascists, Nazis, & Commies.

What ever happened to judging people as individuals, with a little good in 'em & a little bad in 'em, instead of sticking people with these labels, & evermore using the label to "know" who they are?

To be sure, I am a partisan. Most of what I think and believe about America & the world falls on the left side of the spectrum. And I don't mean a little bit, either. I am pretty far over. I voted for Nader. Not just in 2000 either, but in 2004, when Democrats (& a little bit "because" Democrats) were blaming me for Bush winning in 2000, and even though I knew how bad Bush had been for this country.

I'm not a perfect lefty, though... I'm almost hawkish on illegal immigration. I can see the value of owning a firearm (though personally, I do not (as of this writing, anyway. By the time you read this, anything's possible.) And perhaps most damning of all, I don't hate wingnuts.

There's plenty I'm not so crazy about, to be sure. Some are rude, rude people. Others are too judgmental, or worse, prejudiced against moonbats like me. There are many I would never think of having over for dinner, but you know what? The same is true of my fellow moonbats. Some are great people. Others, real assholes.

To the best of my ability, I am going to avoid using the terms "wingnut" or "moonbat" as insults anymore. (It won't be too tough. I tend not to use wingnut at all (though, there was a time), & I only use moonbat occasionally, in conversations about specific wingn... ...I mean, conservatives. (Though it's getting more popular now, there was a time when hearing a person use "moonbat" denoted a certain kind of conservative that there was no point bothering with. It was more or less conventional wisdom that the Cons calling the opposition by that name were big Ann Coulter fans, with all that implies. No point engaging. They were far gone over to the dark side of both politics and civil discourse..

So, why make a blog with those words as the title?

First off, I like how each of 'em sounds. Even though they've become stupid insults, I like the words themselves. I don't think I've ever written the sentence "I am a moonbat." before, but I wish I had. I kinda like it. (In fact, I like it so much I went back up & changed a sentence in the preceding paragraph. It used to read "I'm going to avoid using the terms wingnut or moonbat anymore," but I like 'em too much to stop, so now I'll just try not to intentionally hurt any feelings with 'em.)

I like 'em together, too... Aside sounding like a breakfast food, it expresses what I want; to bring the fractious factions together, a little. I don't expect the left and the right to ever agree, but that doesn't mean I can't talk to a guy from the other side, and have a civil conversation... We'll still disagree, but maybe I'll learn something. And maybe he will. Or maybe we'll still vehemently disagree politically, but find we share a common love of early 80's Frank Zappa or something. (FZ was always good, but the stuff with Ike Willis on vocals was some of his best work.)

I got inspired by spending the last several days visiting a conservative blog, Mike's America.
It didn't start out all that well, and only went downhill from there. It never got to name-calling, but accusations & judgments flew. Lotta talk about being anti-American. It was only a matter of time before would've devolved even further. (I use the past tense there, but I don't know that I'm not going back, for sure. Even though I wasn't getting exactly what I was hoping for, it was an eye-opening experience, seeing how some of 'em think, and trying to understand them.) If I do, I don't know whether I'll continue trying to contribute. I have a fairly thick skin, but there's a limit. And there's times before where I've gotten too wrapped up, lost my cool & become a real ass. I could see that happening there eventually, for sure.)

Having a conversation was damned near impossible. They didn't want to answer questions or provide evidence. I was always looking for the GOTCHA sentence in their posts. They stated opinion as fact, and built a whole narrative on a foundation of air (or so I thought). I'd post too much & too often, so few bothered to read/reply to my posts (or so I was told). Preconceived notions and rigidness doomed the possibility of getting anywhere, almost from the start. While I think I behaved alright, I could've behaved better. (& I'm sure if one of the folks from that blog visit this one, s/he'll have a different take to offer on my behavior, and his or her own. Each of us filters "the facts" through the prism of our own beliefs.)

There has to be a few souls like me, who just want to have a conversation. Maybe a debate even, but a civil one, where namecalling & blame for the actions of the worst on the opposing side doesn't take the place of the topic. We're individuals, not parties, interests, & causes. There's no reason liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Greens, Democrats, & Libertarians can't get along at least well enough to have a conversation, is there?

I mean, we all hate them fuckin' fence-sitting moderates, don't we? Damned wishy-washy bunch-a... Yeah, I'm kidding, obviously... ...though not all that well... 8>) I think we can do it. I don't think conversations have to devolve into bad names & phony notions about each other. We just need to talk & teach, & listen & learn.

That's what I think, anyway...

Political Tests & Quizzes: Have you been tested?

Earlier today I stumbled into an online argument about Fascism. The "debate" occured here: News Hounds: Dennis Kucinich Debates Hannity And Colmes On The Fairness Doctrine (in the comments section), but there is really no need to follow the link, fascism-wise, anyway. Pretty much the whole "debate" was downright silly. A few right wing trolls began tossing out insults & whatnot, and few of my fellow lefties--who I gather had some time to waste--returned fire. (Ok... I admit that I've been sucked in to these kinda things once or twice, myself... But my contributions usually consist of a single good(?) one liner that I'm compelled to type & post. These newshounders were makin' a COMMITMENT, as though they were defending... (I don't know... What would we crazy liberals be willing to fight real hard to defend?) ...the right to spit on Sparling. What I'm tryin' to say is, they were really goin' at... My usual view on these things is, "Don't feed the trolls, and they won't multiply.")

So, anyway... Somewhere in the middle of this melee, someone accuses the opposing political philosophy of being fascist. (Yeah, I could go check the transcript so as to be more precise, but my head hurt just reading it the first time. Besides, a representitive of the aggrieved political party pretty quickly suggested that no, it was the accuser's party that're really the fascists, so it doesn't really matter. If the trolls/lefties didn't say it first, they said it second.) The Communists were added to the battle, followed quickly by the Nazis. It was a typical troll-induced mess. (I'm convinced that political trolls--regardless of their outward political philosophy--secretly ARE Nazis, or at least employees of a promotion firm out to increase everyone's exposure to the Nazi party. Were it not for the trolls, how often would anybody discuss the Nazi party on the internet? But with 'em... Well, have you ever seen a trolling that didn't involve the Nazis? Me, neither.)

As the original topic was the Fairness Doctrine (government control of the diversity of political speech over the broadcast airwaves), the folks doing the arguing above were not completely off topic. As with much troll-induced verbiage, they were streching the topic to it's illogical extremes.
The Fairness Doctrine will give us one state run radio station, offering one point of view.
No Fairness Doctrine will give us many radio stations, all owned by one corporation, offering one point of view.

Between the "who's the real fascist?" argument, and the control factor (state or corporate) inherent in the Fairness Doctrine topic, I got to thinkin' about political philosophy. All this talk, finally, brings me to my actual topic...

When I first started crawling around political newsgroups & "egroups" (remember them?), someone started talking about how the spectrum of political thought is really more than just left - right. That scale describes economic political thought, but says little about how one feels about government power and control, the authoritarian - libertarian scale. S/he says s/he got the idea from this site: Political Compass (It's been upgraded at least a few times since I was first there). And along with the thinking, there's a quiz you can take to determine where you fit on their political graph. (As many have pointed out, including the political compass folks themselves, there does seem to be a bias to the questions. But it's still kinda interesting...)

Here's how I scored on Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.30

These scores set me pretty far LEFT and fairly LIBERTARIAN. It's difficult to compare myself to others, as I've only had 2 occasions:
1) when I heard about this test (see above), many folks took it, and posted their scores on whatever group it was, and
2) more recently I saw a whole list here,
but I can say this much;
On the left - right scale, I've seen relatively few (-8's), and only 2-3 (-9's) that I can recall.
On the authoritarian - libertarian scale, (-5) or (-6) was/is more common, both then and now.

If you want more info: Political compass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

While I was redscovering the Political Compass, I found other political tests and quizzes. I won't describe them all; you can check 'em out for yourself.

Political Survey. (Follow the "Take the Survey" link from this homepage.) ((Not crazy about this one, myself.))

My scores:
left/right -5.1350 (-0.3091)
pragmatism +0.5082 (+0.0306)

(Hard to tell what they mean, really... But there they are...)
=====================================

OkCupid! The Politics Test

According to this test,

I am a Social Liberal (75% permissive)
an Economic Liberal (10% permissive)
& best described as a: Socialist.
====================================

Moral Politics - A Morality-Based Political Test (Long version)

My Score:
-2 on the Moral Order axis and +3 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches
The following items best match your score:
System: Socialism
Variation: Moderate Socialism
Ideologies: Social Democratism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: Jimmy Carter (84.07%)
2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (80.24%), John Kerry (77.47%), George W. Bush (53.02%)
Statistics
Of the 280620 people who took the test:
0.6% had the same score as you.
12.9% were above you on the chart.
82.4% were below you on the chart.
48.6% were to your right on the chart.
30.5% were to your left on the chart.
=================================

World's Smallest Political Quiz

According to this test I am a LIBERAL
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.
================================

Millennium: Social Attitude Test

My scores:
Radicalism: 80 percent
Tenderness: 39.5 percent
Socialism: 62 percent

These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded radical; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.

To round out the picture, your attitudes towards economics appear neither committedly capitalist nor socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
======================================


If I'm not mistaken, that's all of 'em. If you want still more info (Believe it or not, some political spectrum theories don't have a quiz.), go here: Political spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My advice; get tested. 8>)

(Originally posted at What'd I Say?)

John Stewart (More truth)

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

Posted Oct 15, 2004

Jon Stewart browbeats the Crossfire hosts for their "partisan hackery." Many suspect this now-legendary appearance prompted CNN to remove the show from their line-up.

Just watched this video again... Nothing like seeing people speak the truth...