(hat tip: WallStats)

(Via Andy and lovepuppy)

On a side note, 8 years ago Bush won by a narrow margin and said there was a MANDATE for the changes he wanted implemented. After winning by a margin NOT SEEN by a democrat since the 1930s, Obama was talking about cooperation and working together in Washington. How’s that for progressive politics.

This came to me during the day. Just another 4chan meme…
I don’t know what the real guy looks like, but In my head he looks like this:

Talked to my parents the other day on the cell phone. I made this realization:

not for me, of course. Still funny though.

Marijuana is illegal in the United States so you should not grow it, smoke it, or sell it.

But let’s add common sense into the mix. Should someone who grows it be considered a terrorist? Seriously, does growing marijuana mean you are also involved in terrorist activity? While I’m sure that there are terrorists who also grow marijuana, I’m not sure that all those who grow marijuana are also making bombs, planning to kill the president, or planning to do anything remotely close to something that can be considered “terrorism”.

Our government says yes - growing marijuana amounts to domestic terrorism. Jake Mitchell of Boxing Lesson, an Austin area Band, just got sent to jail for 60 months for growing marijuana. The government has added ‘naro-terrorist’ as a label to his crimes.

Here’s an excerpt from their publicist:

Jake Mitchell, drummer for The Boxing Lesson and most importantly, a dear friend, will be put in Federal jail at the beginning of Sept for some marijuana growing charges. What makes this story unique and
what has enraged every single one of our close friends, is that Jake has been branded by our government as a Terrorist under the Patriot Act. In fact, they have thrown the Narco-Terrorist tag on him. What this does legally for a defendant is mind blowing in terms of the new laws waged against them. If you are branded a terrorist, your wife doesn’t get spousal protections and will go to jail. If you are branded a terrorist, each party involved in the crime gets full responsibility for the scope of the crime. Then there are strict sentencing minimums. And remember we are talking about Marijuana here.

The war on drugs has failed. We, the people, MUST kick our government into gear, make our elected officials see that the war is a failure, and legalize marijuana.

If you don’t like what your government is doing, change your government. I may be a bit idealistic here, but I’d like to believe that our government works for us, not against us. We are putting way too many people in jail for possession/growing marijuana, and it’s stupid.

Here’s the original blog here I found this information: Austin Sound

I’m only one person, but I’m sure I’m part of an army of bloggers outraged by something McCain said today in front of a town hall full of hand-picked supporters.

Firstly, I am no expert in the field of social justice, civil or constitutional law, or even human rights. But what I do have is common sense, and I’d like to think my common sense gives me an ability to see right from wrong in this matter.
I believe in a government of equal justice, equal rights, and equal protection under the law for all people. See what I didn’t do? I didn’t try to qualify who gets these rights and protections. I said *all* people. I believe this is what the founders of this country had in mind.

We should all be defenders of THIS faith. The faith in a country conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that we all *ARE* equal. It’s not just a quote to throw around - We actually need to believe it and back it up by the laws we enact to provide equal protection, and especially the politicians we elect to office.

Now, onto my rant.

GOP Presidental hopeful (2008) John McCain slammed the Supreme Court’s ruling on “enemy combatant” detainees. He took issue the court allowing these detainees to seek release in federal courts. Here is his quote regarding the supreme court’ decision, unedited:

“I think it’s one of the worst decisions in history,” McCain said. “It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution.”

On the contrary Mr. McCain, I believe it reaffirms rights provided in the constitution, and recapitulates many of the desires laid out in the declaration of independence. I believe that we are all equal regardless of sex, race, age, sexual preference, creed, or citizenship status.
Do we treat other foreign nationals any differently in this country? Do we subject other foreign nationals to a judicial system that is separate and unequal to citizens? The short answer to that, even with my very limited legal knowledge, is no.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C was with McCain at the town hall meeting where this was discussed and Graham gave this quote after the meeting:

“What happened yesterday was unprecedented. Americans are going to be shocked to find that that mastermind of 9-11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now has the same legal standing as an American citizen.”

The writ of Habeas corpus has existed since the magna carta. In other words, even kings have been subject to the rule of law since the year 1215. Habeus corpus provides people with an opportunity to make an appeal against unlawful imprisonment. Why then, nearly 800 years later, should we be debating this basic right of the accused? Further, why should we not trust our very capable legal system to faithfully execute the rule of law in this matter?

Just as the magna carta went through early periods of interpreation, so too, I suppose, has the United States government’s definition on many things “constitutional”.
Edward Coke is seen as an important figure in the early interpretations of the Magna Carta. He insisted that the Magna Carta apply not only to the protection of nobles but to all subjects of the crown equally. He famously asserted that the “Magna Carta is such a fellow, that he will have no sovereign.” These words would be later echoed by Thomas Paine in “Common Sense” (1776). Similarly, I strongly believe that the protections afforded the citizens of the United States should be extended to ANYONE we hold captive in any part of the world.

Yes, this includes places like Guantanamo Bay where Cuba is sovereign, but where we exercise de facto rule. Not providing equal protection suggests that we are subject to arbitrary governance, some sort of martial law, or some flavor of temporary totalitarian government.

We citizens shouldn’t think that we are somehow different from non-citizens, and that this trait affords us rights that do not extend to others — Especially a right as “common sense” as a fair trial!

In summary of the above:

• We should trust our judiciary with upholding the law.
• We should trust our judiciary with faithfully executing the law and providing a FAIR trial (to all parties) in trying these “enemy combatants”.
• We should grant these “enemy combatants” the same rights and protections afforded citizens of the United States.
• We should make no distinction between the rights of citizens and the rights of anyone else in our control. Doing this wreaks of the all-too-familiar and failed segregation phrase “separate but equal”. In these cases, separate is not equal at all. To separate is to make unequal.

The challenge I see for the government in prosecuting these enemy combatants is that affording these people the same rights as citizens requires the government to release documents they have so far been unwilling to release. The government justifies this by saying the evidence must be kept secret for “National security”. It is abundantly clear the government doesn’t want to release evidence they have on these people. This means these prisoners don’t even have ACCESS to the evidence being used against them. This cannot stand. We cannot allow our government or any part of the military to “try” these people if they have no means for a defense. This “challenge” for the government is something they should always be held to, no matter the defendant.

I see the recent Supreme court ruling (in favor of the defendants at Guantanamo bay) causing a huge problem for the military as well. I fear the military generals might attempt to rewrite the rules of engagement (even when no formal declaration of war has been given, like this Iraq War) to somehow combat this ruling. Maybe we’ll take less prisoners? Maybe we’ll be expanding our clandestine organizations? I’m sure we’ll soon see. there are many veils. As Shakespeare wrote, hopefully the “truth will out“.

I long for the day when our humanity surpasses our technology. This cannot happen as long as there are some of us who believe habeas corpus is a privilege, instead of a right for all people.

References:

http://redwoodage.com/content/view/139590/43/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Coke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

I’m not kidding.


If that wasn’t bad enough, Fox news calls the Obama fist bump a “terrorist fist jab“. Where the hell are they going with this? This isn’t news coverage. This isn’t journalism. It’s B.S. update : (6/12/2008) E.D. Hill, the one responsible for saying “terrorist fist jab” lost her job. Is fox turning around? I doubt. They were feeling the ratings heat. This is what happens when they lose viewers. They’ll be putting more conservative pundits in rotation in her place.

Isn’t it bad enough that Fox News people want to kill Obama? That’s deplorable. I can’t believe the FCC would allow stuff like this. I can’t believe the American people haven’t decided to rise up against all-powerful corporations with power to create whatever news they want, instead of reporting it.

Back to the fist bump. It’s just a fist pound. He didn’t make it up. Tons of people do it.


Bush Sr. has been captured doing it too.

Seriously. It’s not news. Someone tell that to Faux News (aka fox news)

Here are a couple of graphs to explain how he won.

1. Visual Graph from NYTimes
2. US National Geographic map of where candidates found support. (with a summary timeline) - source: NY Times

In summary, it appears that Obama’s main support is in the south, and some on the east coast, with pockets here in there. Naturally, his biggest support is in Chicago. In the first image, you will see that he easily wins the black vote, and younger voters as well. There seems to be a reverse correlation between age and Obama support, however.

In his first order of business as his party’s presumed presidential nominee, Barack Obama instructed the Democratic National Committee to adopt his policy against accepting donations from federal lobbyists or political action committees.

You may remember recent news of McCain’s campaign managers ties to the Junta (in myanmar), and his senior advisers being former lobbyists. It probably won’t be as big a deal as the mainstream media is making it out to be, but we’ll see in the coming months.