Have you ever wondered if conservatives in this country have real innovative ideas anymore?

Well, they do! Right over there, not so far away, there are real conservatives having real ideas about what to do with real people and stuff!

As you can see, the BIG idea du jour is: "Should illegal aliens be turned into slaves?"

Yep, according to real conservatives, it's slavery, stupid.

Update: Oh no, how could I miss "Should you get more votes if you pay more taxes?" "Capitalism, a love story," indeed.

This is not a typo, as it usually is. It's an idea. Shouldn't there be an organization that represents people who want to discuss the political issues of the day in a reasonable tone; ask their questions politely, even if firmly; not shout down opposing views or answers; and just have a normal conversation about a topic under discussion?

I think this is a cool name, and I'm sure it would unite thousands of people now who want to discuss health care and other issues reasonably, without accusing everyone on the other side of being Nazis or whatever.

A single person by himself or herself who wants to come to a town hall meeting and have a thoughtful Q&A discussion often can't get through the shouting crowd that wants no information exchange at all. But if all those people were part of an organization, like the League of Conversation Voters, I'm sure it would be much easier to overcome the hecklers who don't want a productive conversation.

Now I don't have organizing or PR skills to make this thing a reality, but I'm sure someone here does. Isn't this exactly what we need right now, so people stop having irrational fear of health care based on outlandish ideas with no basis in reality?

Please support this post if you think it's a good idea - not just for now, but in the long term as well.

Some time ago I noticed that after Obama was elected, Rasmussen started using a new statistic on his Daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

The poll has four answers: Strongly Approve (StA), Somewhat Approve (SmA), Somewhat Disapprove (SmD), and Strongly Disapprove (StD).

While Bush was president, Rasmussen did not regularly (if at all!) calculate Presidential Approval Index, but now he does.

While Bush was president, Rasmussen reported explicitly the numbers for all 4 categories. Now he only reports the StA, StD, and the total approval and disapproval. SmA and SmD are no longer reported explicitly, one has to calculate them on one's own.

While Bush was president, Rasmussen usually emphasized total approval percentage, TA=StA+SmA, versus total disapproval percentage, TD=StD+SmD.

However, when Obama became president, he started emphasizing only the strong approval and disapproval, and his presidential approval index is calculated as (S)PAI=StA-StD.

This, I feel, is often misleading. For example, Rasmussen's Obama (strong) approval index for yesterday (August 3, 2009) was -6 since StA=30% and StD=36%. However, if we read past first paragraph of the daily article on the tracking poll, we see that Obama's total approval is TA=51% and total disapproval is TD=48%.

Why not calculate Obama's total approval rating (T)PAI=TA-TD, which would make yesterday's (T)PAI=51-48=+3 instead of -6?

Well, let's see. In the 195 days since Obama took office, his strong approval rating was positive on 154 days, negative on 37 days (and not calculated on 4 holidays). During the same time Obama's total approval rating was positive on 183 days and negative on only 8 days (actually, consecutive days, July 24-31).

The value of the strong approval rating (S)PAI varied between +30 and -12, while the value of the total approval rating (T)PAI varied between +35 and -3 and was always (or at least nearly always) greater than (S)PAI.

So if you look at Obama's (S)PAI, you'll see that his rating has been negative for 33 consecutive days and counting, and reached into negative double digits, which the graph with strong positives and negatives and the PAI trend conveniently illustrates.

However, if you bother to look at Obama's total approval and disapproval and calculate (T)PAI on your own and graph the negative red line on your own (since only one line for total positives is provided on the corresponding graph), you'll see that his rating had been barely negative, and only for the past week out of his whole term so far, and that he has rebounded this week and is in the green again.

So why is Rasmussen doing that? He is, of course, known to be conservative, but he has shown some restraint until recently in bending statistics to his political beliefs. Why throw away that certain amount of reputation he accumulated for relative objectivity, and for what? For that little bit of extra premium self-delusion?

Tell me how this is unbiased:

By BRIAN BAKST, Associated Press Writer - Wed Jul 1, 9:24 am ET
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Al Franken refused his rival's calls for an election night concession last November, choosing instead to begin vote counting and courtroom haggling that stretched almost eight months and ultimately landed him a seat in the U.S. Senate.

Wow, so this is how it happened! See, Coleman called for a concession but Franken refused and chose courtroom haggling for 8 months, no less! But did Coleman refuse Franken's calls for a concession? Did Coleman choose courtroom haggling for 8 months? Hmm, I guess not, doesn't say so anywhere in the article.

What's happening to AP? Yuck!

That's what all news channels feel like tonight. Absolutely no one cares about anything else.

Yesterday, it was all about the brave Iranian reformers, today - screw them, let's talk nonstop about Michael Jackson. Better yet, let's all watch the same old clips over and over.

OK, Jackson was a big star, in his own league, talented but weird, and everyone is naturally sad that he passed on. It's a big story, partly because his death was very sudden.

But, come on, what the heck, where the rest of today's news? Something! Anything? No, I'm asking for too much.

Update: Oh, wait, no, I was wrong. There is one other news item today: Farrah Fawcett is also dead. It's like I've got three identical People channels today.

[Mark] Levin castigated [Powell] for voting for Obama. [...]  "It was an utter lack of disloyalty and dishonor," Levin added.

You can listen to him say it around the 4 min mark (just so don't have to listen to the rest of his useless drivel).

Oh, those people are mighty stupid.

For a long time now, I have suspected that the more religious a person is, the more like he or she is likely (on average!) to support torture, and deep down, to enjoy it, too, on either end.

And what better illustration of that than the one I found today on the webpage of the so-called Charisma magazine. On the bottom of the front page is a poll of the readership on the following unambiguously worded question:

Is the torture of suspected terrorists justified in order to obtain information?

Now, before we begin to look at the answers, consider the simple beauty of this question.

• No mincing words here with "harsh interrogation techniques" and the like. Torture, yeah! Is torture OK? You decide!
• You don't have to be a terrorist to enjoy some well-designed uninterrupted torture. A mere suspicion that you are a terrorist is enough for you to receive hours and hours of this precious gift.
• And what is this torture for? (As if that makes it all OK!) Is it to save the world? Or millions of innocent civilians? Or thousands of our soldiers? Or dozens of well-placed bureaucratic asses? No, not even that! It is merely to obtain information! ("Excuse me, what time is it? Don't know? Are you a terrorist? Well, then, it's TORTURE for you until you can tell time up to a second without a watch!")

And now the time has come for the grand finale - the results of this amazingly honest poll.

Dates: May 13-27, 2009 (ongoing).
Total # votes: 765.
Yes: 310 (40.4%).
No: 243 (31.7%)
Sometimes: 167 (21.8%) - Wow, the essence of moderation! Isn't that a yes?? Or is "yes" here an "always"?
Undecided: 47 (6.1%) - Mmm, the choice for deep thinkers! Is torture OK? Hmmm, so hard to decide!

Oh, the charisma of torture.

These days, everything has started changing for the better now that the Democrats control the While House, the Senate and the House. Well, except one thing. A certain party (that shall remain nameless like all guilty parties), now out of power and very much in the minority, does not realize that it lost big time because it would not do the right thing for this country no matter what. And it's sticking to that same rule now, be what may.

And what do the rest of us do about those obstructionists? What should all the fair-minded, forward-looking people do about this outrage of a party that is now just Old and no longer Grand?

Well, I say we should campaign for disbanding GOP altogether. In these hard times, we have a unique opportunity to make Republican views on all things political so marginalized  that no one, save a few fringe lunatics, would even consider voting for them. They must become the Whigs of the 21st century.

For me, bipartisanship means that we're accepting all reasonably-minded Republicans into the Democratic party. Out tent is so big it can hold all their tent except for all the zealots, racists and other such dregs. Come on in, let the re-education begin.

Every time I hear some bit of political news from not-too-democratic countries like Russia or China, I think how well George Orwell diagnosed their problem with the truth.

Now the Chinese approach to censoring information is a little blunt and Soviet, but the Russian take on truth is a slightly more nuanced cloak of misinformation, in a kind of Republican sort of way.

In fact, the latest Russian spin on Obama's presidency  is - get this! - the fact that Americans elected a black president is a sign that the U.S. is weak and getting more chaotic. Now that's not the explicitly stated official line, but it's being planted into people's minds by various so-called "observers," who are not very independent these days at all.

And here we are, thinking along with the rest of the world that we're that much stronger because of what Obama's election and presidency mean for our democracy. Silly us!

"Let's talk like buddies", says my 9-year-old son as I tuck him in. "Who was the greatest person of the 19th century?"

Must be all that Wikipedia he reads before school. Hm. OK. Let's discuss it like buddies.

What does the greatest mean to you? The most influential?

"Yeah", he says. "The most influential. That'll work."

I venture a few trial guesses. Napoleon? Lincoln?

"I don't think Napoleon was influential", says my son flatly.

Why not? I mean, Napoleon, everybody knows Napoleon. I mean, empire, wars, battles, all that Napoleonic stuff.

"Nope." My kid is not impressed. "Because, look: what changed? What did Napoleon change compared to when he started to rule? Same countries, no change."

What about Lincoln? Winning the Civil War, ending slavery, uniting the country? How does that rank?

 "Nope", says junior. "In Europe, there was no slavery in the 19th century to begin with. So he just made us catch up to what's normal. By the way, Alexander II freed the serfs in Russia at the same time, and they didn't need a war for that."

Well, I'm stumped. If Lincoln's just a local hero, who is the greatest then?

"I don't know. Bismarck, maybe? He united Germany. Before him, there was no Germany, only principalities. What do you think?"

Bismarck? I think of that famous picture in a spearhead helmet. Then I wonder if the united Germany was such a good idea given what happened later on. On the other hand, maybe it's not Bismarck's fault. I feel a certain gloom. Maybe I'm just not rooting for Bismarck.

Oh, wait! What about scientists? Or philosophers?

"Like who?", my son asks.

Maxwell? Darwin? Marx? Hegel?

"Marx was only really influential in the 20th century", he says confidently. "So not Marx."

He doesn't know about Maxwell or Hegel yet. For some reason, that makes me feel better. I'd love to explain what they did, I say, but it's too late now. Maybe another day.

"Darwin? Some people say evolution is just a theory."

Well, every theory is just a theory, I explain. What makes it good is how often and how well it is confirmed by experiment. By that standard, Darwin's theory is excellent and most probably true, too.

"Well, OK", he says. "Maybe Darwin, then. Or Bismarck."

And with that, he turns on his side. "Good night, dad", he says.

Good night, buddy.

I gotta read some Wikipedia.

First, he wasn't going to be the Democratic nominee. Then, the VP. Then, the Secretary of State. And now he's not going to be the Secretary of Commerce either. What's next?

Thinking about GOP refusal to seat Franken, it occurred to me:

Why can't Democrats refuse to seat all Republicans?

I mean it. Refuse to seat all Republicans and see how much easier it will become to move forward.

A lot more good will get done a lot faster, and none of all those bad things we have come to associate with Republicans (aren't all bad things associated with Republicans? hehe, a rhetorical question).

Seat just the Democrats to start working instead of constant filibustering. That's what I say.

OK, this administration's Farewell Victory Tour (pun intended) is starting to get on my nerves. Especially, the fact that people are buying into some of the B.S. that they are trying to foist on us one last time before they're off to oblivion. In an all-out effort to convince us that their Bogus Journey is, in fact, an Excellent Adventure, their best argument seems to be that they kept us safe since 9/11.

Well, isn't that special. They let 3000 people die because of their negligence, and then they kept us safe. Why didn't they keep us safe from 9/11? No one is asking that question as if it wasn't their responsibility, as if their term only started on 9/11, as if for 8 months preceding 9/11 they hadn't systematically ignored warnings about a possible large-scale terrorist attack. They knew it was imminent, and they ignored it. Sure, this could be spun into a vaguely defined "war" on an invisible enemy. And war drives up ratings. What could be better for an idiot president and a grey cardinal VP trying to profit on their respective businesses, oil and war.

Safe my ass! Tell it to 3000 dead on 9/11, 4000 dead in Iraq, at least 30000 wounded Americans, and hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis.

There should be a new type of punishment created for the kind of criminals like Bush and Cheney.

Stoning with shoes.

Why should we throw bags of money at people who got a whole industry into a deep hole? Why not simply nationalize the companies we intend to bail out, steer them through the near-bankruptcy experience and then re-privatize them? What's so wrong with this?

This morning I was thinking about why Ted Stevens (apparently) won, and whether or not all rabid idiot Alaska Republicans who voted for him should be tried for aiding and abetting a felon, when it struck me that it might have been the inevitability of Obama's win that hurt Begich's chances.

Well, not directly, of course, but consider this. All networks knew that since Obama took Ohio, it was a done deal for him, and were just waiting for 11pm ET to announce that he won. On the other hand Alaska's elections are not over until 12 midnight ET, so I bet that enough Alaskans (mostly democrats, I guess) who intended to vote for Obama and Begich in the last hour decided not to vote, because it was a done deal anyway. I bet those are the roughly 4000 votes that Begich is missing.

What do you think? Can you blame the networks? Should Democrats have anticipated this problem? Did they?

Update:  Oh, wait, it appears things are looking up. Begich is now ahead by 814 votes. My opinion of Alaska has greatly improved.