On Charities
Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:00:15 PM PDT
Let’s say you make a dccent living and have a little cash left over after expenses and investments. Being a socially conscious person, you want to use it to help the needy. So what is the best way to spend your money?
a) give it to the United Way;
b) give it to a beggar on the street;
c) give it to a local after-school program (sports, computers, science, etc.);
d) help sponsor your work collegue’s kid’s hockey trip to France;
e) overpay your taxes.
Answer after the flip!
NY Post article: exposing the logical fallacies
Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 12:00:50 PM PDT
A recent NY Post artilce entitled "Battling for Baghdad" got to me. Unsurprisingly, it's the same talkingpointish BS that we hear everywhere from right-wing media outlets. But I thought I'd make this article a case study in why so many of the right's screeds are not just wrong, but dishonest.
What bothers me most isn't the obvious partisan bias of the author or his wishful potrayal of the situation. It's his constant use of logical fallacies to support his flimsy reasoning.
Kerry on Lamont
Wed Aug 16, 2006 at 09:30:43 AM PDT
In a fundraising appeal today, John Kerry used his standard formula of highlighting a few Democrats, often veterans, who have stood up for his favorite initiatives.
What was unexpected this time were the people he picked: Lamont, Akaka and Menendez.
In Connecticut, Ned Lamont has caused a national stir by successfully challenging the Bush position on Iraq that ignores the utter failure of the President's policy and calls for a deeply misplaced reliance on a dangerous course of action. In the Senate, Ned Lamont will go head to head with Don Rumsfeld, and our troops will benefit from Lamont's leadership. He knows that patriotism isn't reserved for those who defend a President's position; patriotism is doing what's right for our troops and our country.
The voter's paradox
Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 07:42:17 AM PDT
How can we reconcile these two contradictory statements:
- It will almost certainly make no difference to the outcome whether I vote or not.
- If everyone thought the above, it would no longer be true.
Both these statements are accurate. The first one often wins out because it suggests a direct course of action: as long as I don't influence a great number of people to do the same, I, personally, don't need to vote.
So is it really worth voting at all?
YearlyKos Student Caucus - Students needed!
Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 03:40:43 PM PDT
The first thing one notices upon coming into the Student Caucus, and in fact the entire Yearly Kos convention, is the fact that there are
very few actual students here at the Convention.
Despite this, the Student Caucus turned out to be one of the most interesting and talked about Caucuses here at the Convention.
2007 Dem House Takeover: Inaugural Speech & Catchphrase
Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 11:41:08 AM PDT
Dear Fellow Americans:
At this critical juncture in our nation's history, your newly elected House leadership believes that a few fundamental changes in the direction of this county are necessary.
Let it be resolved that the brutal teachings of wars past will never more be ignored. From Sun Tzu to the Powell doctrine, we will heed the lesson of history. We will plan and anticipate so that military action takes where and when we choose, that we may maximize our advantage. We will not allow our valiant soldiers to become bogged down in guerrilla deathtraps where friend is indistinguishable from foe.
Let it be resolved that the men and women who fight our wars deserve more than lip service and bumper sticker support. Let our defense budget give priority to training, equipping and compensating our soldiers before we splurge on weapons systems and support championed by well-connected defense contractors.
The numbers on Senate conviction
Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 01:41:27 PM PDT
I'm starting to believe it will happen now. Articles of impeachment will be delivered to the US House of Representatives. A few telltale signs:
- The leaked story on the White House defense strategy;
- Moderate Republicans demanding answers;
- Ever-cautious big name Democrats like Kerry mulling about a "solid case for impeachment" (even though he tried to claim it was in jest afterward);
also:
- The RNC response to Kerry, showing that the issue has traction and cannot be ignored;
- The slew of Op-Ed pieces by wingnuts dismissing the charges with tortured logic;
- The conclusion of any sane, unbiased observer with a minumum of legal knowledge that George W. Bush knowingly and unequivocally violated the FISA law.
It is looking like impeachment may actually pass by simple majority. But impeachment is only half the battle. The Senate must then try the case.
Bush Nickname Contest W/VOTING
Fri Aug 26, 2005 at 09:46:33 AM PDT
What will Bush's nickname be?
The time has come for dKos users to coin a nickname for George W. Bush before the Kool-Aid drinkers do. "Chimp" and "Preznit" seem to be the most frequent epithets. I hope someone will come up with something memorable that will stick by its very appropriatness.
Said nickname may play a significant part in the nation's collective memory of the 43rd President of the United States. Bush's ultimate nickname will hopefully reflect a defining characteristic of his tenure in office from 2001 to 2007 (impeachement, heh heh).
- Richard Nixon was Tricky Dick.
- Ronald Reagan was called The Teflon President by his detractors and The Great Communicator by his admirers. We are still battling over his legacy.
- George H.W. Bush was not stuck with any memorable nickname, other than, perhaps, wimp
- Bill Clinton was Slick Willie.
- George W. Bush will be known as......?
Fred Fnord's very funny suggestion of
Chimpy McFlightsuit inspired me to have an open nicknaming contest.
Contest rules below the flop.
New Label for Republicans w/POLL
Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 08:21:39 AM PDT
Tired of getting the words "bleeding heart", "soft on crime" and "appeaser" thrown in your face? It's time to plaster a nasty label all over the fundies foreheads!
I find "wingnut" is too obscure and dismissive. "Nazi" is too inflammatory and will give the other side ammo in a mud-slinging match that will obfuscate your point. "Fundies" isn't derogatory enough.
A recent post reminded me of what I was looking for. We want to expose the hypocrisy of religious conservatives who invoke their own narrow rigid interpretation of scripture and ignore the larger messages about loving thy neighbor, caring for the poor, etc. The Pharisees who persecuted Christ fit this label admirably. Now, the word "Pharisees" may be unfamiliar to many, especially non-Jews and non-Christians. But that shouldn't matter too much because we're targeting people who invoke the Bible all the time.
Show your support by referring to wingnuts as Rick Santorum (P-Judea)! Then let's see them whine about us comparing them to Pharisees.
Ann Coulter, too, will pass. W/ POLL
Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:39:04 AM PDT
Unfortunately, too many of us know who Ann Coulter is. I personally enjoyed this juicy segment on Canadian TV where she made a
total ass out of herself.
Whether she believes the idiotic venom she spouts is besides the point. Her purpose is to enrage the left, to bait us into arguing on her ridiculous bomb-throwing terms. She should not be argued with. She should not be refuted. No self-respecting liberal should agree to debate or come on a panel with her. She is not intellectually honest.
No more, I say! The only reason she is better known than say, Lyndon "beast-man Cheney" Larouche, is that she knows how to play the media. This is my last mention of Ann Coulter, ever. She is unworthy of comment. From now on, if someone brings her up, I will say "Who?"
The Ultimate Campaign
Tue May 31, 2005 at 11:10:28 AM PDT
In my latest analysis, Rove and Co. overwhelmed us last November by building a network of neighbors and parishes to spread the GOP message. They had all the zealots, the hired guns and the indoctrinated on their side.
Here's my idea: we build a campaign structure similar to all those pyramid scheme companies like Amway. They use the euphamism multi-level marketing but the basic idea is the same.
Incidentally, the Amway founding families happen to be the largest soft money contributors to the GOP
I'm convinced that we could build a political machine the likes of which ye have never seen.
Dream Dem administration
Fri May 27, 2005 at 10:21:55 AM PDT
Who should run the country?
Canadian Governement survives by one vote!
Fri May 20, 2005 at 09:32:40 AM PDT
Last night the governing liberal party survived a no-confidence vote on the federal budget 153-152, with the speaker casting the deciding vote.
As it turned out, three independant MPs held the balance of power. Two split, and all eyes were on Chuck Cadman, a former Conservative and cancer sufferer from British Columbia. He voted with the governement and the Canadian Parliament erupted in cheering.
He explained his decision by a poll of his constituants, two thirds of whom didn't want an election just yet.
As a Canadian, I know how small the stakes are. The U.S. Senate filibuster fight will probably effect me more in the long run that which party governs Canada. But there may be a lesson here: the conscientious politician listens to his constituents, and one vote can make all the difference.
Keep the pressure on Hagel, Specter, Warner and Graham! We need two out of four, assuming we have McCain, Chafee, Snowe and Collins.