Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Perhaps I am just being alarmist here. Perhaps I am wrong about all of this. Or perhaps we will look back at Jaynes in the future with horror, as our inboxes fill up with mudslinging about the candidates. I truly hope I am mistaken about this, and not prophetic.
In the era of Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal, it's pretty hard to stand out in the world of conservative lunatic ravings. But Andrew Breitbart's recent opinion piece in the Washington Times truly raises (lowers?) the bar for the rest of the field in right-wing Crazytown. His thesis is that liberal blog commenters are ruining things for the conservatives' attempts to have a nice online chat.
I am an American citizen. Now, I truly belong.
I find plenty of local elected officials seriously annoying, too, I should mention. As a matter of fact, I find the politics of a large segment of the population seriously annoying. Boy, they better stock up on blank citations, as they're going to have to write a lot of tickets for that one. I find certain movies seriously annoying. And don't even get me started on how seriously annoying television is (starting with "the news").
Because Obama's Inaugural speech was indeed masterful. When he started speaking, I was thinking "which line will be the one everyone focuses on?" In other words, which line will be the "nothing to fear but fear itself" or "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" moment? Both of those lines are from previous inaugurations, so what would be remembered from Obama's speech?
Are you one of those people who wants to see what has been done in your name by the outgoing Bush administration? Are you frustrated by all the "we need to look forward, not backward" language from Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders? Well, now you can do something about it, by calling up your House member today and telling them to support John Conyers' H.R.104, a bill to "establish a national commission on presidential war powers and civil liberties."
Three names suggest themselves in this category. The first, sad to say, is Sarah Palin. While some dismiss her with the term (which she herself uttered on Saturday Night Live) "Caribou Barbie," my educated guess is that we have not seen the last of Alaska's governor on the national stage. Because while the list of things Palin lacks is long and daunting, she has one star quality which may prove to be strong enough to cancel all the rest out -- charisma. A politician can learn about such mundane things as world events and how to speak with political finesse, but charisma can't really be learned -- it's more of an innate quality. And Palin's got it. For those laughing at the prospect of Sarah Palin ever reappearing, I caution that when Ronald Reagan first ran for president, we all laughed at him, too. An actor becoming president? Pre-pos-terous! So don't underestimate charisma, or Palin's ambition.
As I see it, the issue breaks down in a number of ways. The first question is anonymity -- do Americans have an absolute right to anonymity in political messages? The second question is technological -- is anonymity a right, no matter what the medium? And the third question seems to be political, and deal with campaign and election law -- what kinds of rules on speech are constitutionally allowable in politics?
One of the more scurrilous 2008 campaign tactics (in a campaign seemingly full of them) had to have been those insidious "Have you heard... Barack Obama is a secret Muslim?!?" emails. These bounced hither and yon on the internet almost from the beginning of the campaign itself (or at the very least, since when it looked like Obama had a chance at the nomination). This sort of activity would likely fall into most people's "there ought to be a law" list -- a list of things worth changing in our election process. Unfortunately, the state Supreme Court of Virginia handed down a ruling in the midst of the campaign which may ultimately make any sort of limits on this sort of anonymous political (and technological) mudslinging actually unconstitutional. Meaning it would be impossible to pass any sort of laws against the practice at all.
First, though, I got tired of endlessly downloading various "election results" webpages, in the hopes of getting some final results. And I also got tired of waiting for the mainstream media to do its job and inform the public what is going on with the remaining states, whose election results have not yet been reported. So I called up the state election officials myself, and thought I would share with you what I found.