Tucker Carlson Sucks

MSNBC has given air time to the worst pseudo-journalist/host in the entire world: Tucker Carlson. Ok, he dropped the bowtie and got a tan, but he still sucks out loud. Today's show consisted of arguments about how best to combat Iran's nuclear proliferation programs bookended by discussions about polygamy and Dancing With the Stars, which ultimately served as avenues to take pot-shots at liberals' views on gay marriage and Jerry Springer.

Springer, a fellow contestant on the upcoming season of Dancing With the Stars (which, ironically, is void of any real stars), provided the most intelligent candor of the broadcast in his discussion about the Middle East. Too bad, however, he had to yell his talking points over both Carlson and his conservative-to-hire pundit, who brought little more to the table than back-handed comments about why racial profiling is a good thing. Honestly, it's pretty sad when you get your ass handed to you by the likes of Jerry Springer. I know, the guy formerly held office until scandal killed his political life, but, come on, if it's not transsexual hookers and their devil-worshipping lovers, what does Jerry really have to say about it?

Today, I am beginning a new segment on the blog: a list of things that make America dumber. I will start the list with Tucker Carlson, but I could really just lump him in with a number of other conservative news broadcasters such as Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, Robert Novak, Glenn Beck (a very close second worst behind Carlson), Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, and basically everyone else that works at Fox. You're on notice guys, and you suck.

Leaks

The NY Times ran a story recently about a government program that tracks electronic money transfers and supposedly monitors fundraising efforts by terrorist organizations. Republicans have officially condemned this particular article, stating that such divulges sensitive information that requires secrecy in order to function adequately. Too bad the Republicans didn't have the same inclination when Karl Rove and Scooter Libby leaked information that led to a Bob Novak article outing a CIA operative (selective censorship only when it counts for the neo-cons). My question is this: does democracy function properly without a free press? What is next? Accusing authors of unpatriotic articles of treason due to their dislike of freedom? Albeit there are a few media personalities I'd like to lock up, I just don't necessarily think that such would constitute protection of liberty, merely personal gratification.

It also seems that fundamental American principles are at risk due to an overly exaggerated threat of terrorists acquiring money, which they seem to have had no problems doing thus far anyway. The dilemma centers around censorship of the media and their freedom to report whatever they deem newsworthy. Personally, I find it more threatening that the government can listen in to my phone conversations with my grandma or view my embarassingly meager bank records. As well, I don't think that the terrorists are just suddenly going to stop using wire transfers for cash and adopt some untraceable alternative, because there's hardly anything we can't trace already.

In an age where journalists are being locked up and accused of treason, Samuel Adams and the Committees of Correspondence would have trouble comprehending the need for such secrecy within a democratic government. Thomas Jefferson, too, would have hesitated at such policies. The media to these founding brothers wasn't the impediment or special interest it is regarded to be today, but rather the link between the citizenry and their government. The media allows us to engage in and participate in government operations and provides a wealth of understanding about what our elected officials are actually doing. So, if the Republicans are going to call us "Freedom-Haters" like they do down in Texas, then maybe they should be a little more supportive of the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment.

Immigration

Now, being a Southerner, I don't expect anyone to presume any sort of tact in my own nature, nor do I anticipate being given the benefit of the doubt in reference to issues of civil rights. After all, the South has a less than stellar track record when it comes to dealing with problems of social unrest. But, I think I might be able to surprise a few people about the Southern mentality when it comes to issues regarding immigration. Although the South generally doesn't enjoy open discussions about this subject, as anything out of the perceived norm makes a Southerner invariably uncomfortable, we privately have decent opinions of those engaged in such practices.

For example, many a Texas farmer or construction contractor knows exactly how widespread the immigration dilemma has become, because they knowingly benefit from it. In a heartbeat, many of the largest detractors of immigration from Mexico would hire migrant laborers for fractions of the cost of domestic workers. It's good business to keep your overhead down and profits up, isn't it? Texans are very familiar with this, but the bottom line is blurred by the dreaded prospect of increased taxation, which happens to be among the world's lowest rates already. And, whenever taxes in the state of Texas increase, the scapegoat is generally best assigned to the only party that isn't actually a voting block or a direct citizen of our beloved land, which includes Mexican immigrants.

So, the love for cheap, hard-working labor, comes into direct conflict with the love for low taxes and the Southern dilemma is born. Security, by the way, is the last thing on the mind of gun-toting Texans, who know that the hand-cannon snuggly tucked into their boot is all the security they will ever need and a little extra for self-assurance. The fact of the matter isn't that Texans are afraid of the immigrants traversing the Rio Grande border, whom we handily defeated during their siesta at San Jacinto to win our own independence, but we fear that our taxes will increase the slightest amount to afford the institutions of public good will provided for those who are unable to purchase such themselves.

In short, we would like to subtract the "send us your poor" line from the legendary quote about American generosity in accepting immigrants from across the globe, because we don't want to pay for it. In fact, I would even suggest that the statistics regarding a link between crime and violence in areas highly populated by immigrants would be proven spurious when compared to a relationship between poverty and the same social problems. So, to put it simply, if Texans want to continue benefitting from the fruits of cheap labor, then we have to find a way to fork out the cash. Because, really, no one in their right mind really wants to pay to deport all of these immigrants, that would be too expensive.

I propose making it easier to immigrate legally, rather than promoting illegal immigration by institutionalizing barriers for honest people to gain access to our job market. Those legal immigrants will pay taxes and, sure they might need government assistance initially, but provisions can be created to prohibit such during a specified period of time after a probationary citizenship status has been achieved. Further, to prevent an influx of welfare cases with increased immigration, divert funding from bad policies for state works programs to combat poverty. There are a lot of roads in Texas that need to be constructed or repaired and the best way to get people out of poverty is by giving them a job (thank you LBJ).

Finally, after making legal immigration easier and promoting an increase in the quality of life threshold, petition the federal government to invest in foreign trade partnerships that will make Mexico not only a more lucrative financial neighbor with lots of oil, but also a more attractive destination for the indigenous population to continue to habitate. No, I'm not saying we treat them like Israel and just give them wads of cash and ammo, because God knows what kind of party that could turn into, but encourage the economic community, through tax credits and incentives, to secure holdings in Mexico that will reinvigorate their own domestic market while proving beneficial to our own. I'm also not suggesting that Mexico isn't already a cool place to live, it just needs a positive American influence that provides real wage-earning opportunities instead of exploitive outsourced labor.

There, I said it, now you "Minute Men" can but away your rifles and rehire the construction crew to finish installing your jacuzzi while retaining the ability to sleep soundly at night without jeopardizing your contradictory scruples.

Public Discourse or Slander and Libel - You Decide.

Ann Coulter has recently released a new book, which I have admittedly not read and probably won't muster the fortitude to crack open for fear that it might drive me wild with rage... which is exactly what she wants it to do. Under the keen auspices of so-called "open debate" and "public discourse," Ms. Coulter touts a no-holds-barred demeanor when engaging those with whom she takes disagreement. However, motives and contemporary journalistic style aside, she fails to accomplish the fair and direct debate that she purports to initiate with her comments, by devolving into base insults shrouded in semi-academic subjective prose.

Fox News has been covering her book release almost as if to expect Ms. Coulter to retire from the literary arena and begin stumping for an elected office. They seem to be instigating a lot of the hooplah surrounding some of the opinions expressed in the book. As well, because of Fox News, I have been so lucky as to come across a story regarding the unsuccessful auction of one of President Kennedy's rocking chairs, which I'm sure is relevant and newsworthy in some way, shape, or form. The common notion continually visited regarding Ms. Coulter, however, is whether or not she engages in the public discourse appropriately and within the bounds of decency.

She incessantly accuses Democrats and liberals of indecent behavior, never failing to make off-the-cuff jabs at President Clinton and his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Senator Ted Kennedy. These are just a few of her favorite targets. Her newest targets of what she claims to be honest debate are the widows of deceased victims of 9/11 and the campaign in Iraq. More specifically, she is critical of those women who have expressed dissent toward conservative policies instituted in the wake of these tragedies, which have primarily capitalized on the events as justification for their necessity. Her comments generally revolve around factual information about the personal lives of her targets, which she then uses in a very subjective and sometimes farsical manner to somehow denigrate the quality of her target's character. Her tactic is such that, if she exposes enough doubt about an individual's moral credibility, then her argument is correct by default.

I'm not a debater, but I do not think that the default platform is where the moral highground stands. Nor do I believe that just because I have exposed personal information about an individual putting them in a negative light, that I have accomplished my goal of establishing an acceptable position on the issue. Thus, just because someone is a douchebag, I'm not automatically right. That's just illogical and stupid. Further, Ann Coulter and her brood of new journalists, which insists on giving two distorted messages concerning common topics and calling it news, always seem to espouse a distinctive bravado when they "invite" their opponents for a real debate about the issues under contention. This is an empty invitation to a one-sided shouting match, where the person who controls the microphone volume usually prevails (see Bill O'Reilly). This isn't real debate and it's not good for disseminating quality information. It confuses most Americans to the extent that talking points become the only discernable contribution of any news show.

As for Coulter's tactics and her specific comments, I don't subscribe to the same idea that because people believe in certain things they are "Godless." Eternal damnation aside, I think that plurality of opinions is what makes Democracy great and to say that Coulter should be silenced is absurd. What I believe, though, is that everyone who disagrees with her has contributed to her success by giving credence to her infamy. I'm convinced that she is more concerned herself with book sales and publicity, in whatever form it comes, than she actually is about the moral fortitude of American society. She says hurtful things about people to ruffle feathers and squeeze retorts out of those who are weary of her attacks. She sees it as a growing legacy of agitating those with opposing viewpoints and capitalizes on being the "hated" conservative woman to sell her even more outlandishly slanderous books.

At this juncture, then, I'd like to take the opportunity to encourage Ann Coulter to continue producing crazy books that diminish her own integrity in the tradition of accepting alternate points of view. I do not support her methodology and presentation, nor do I regard her body of work as academic or credible because of its hostile and caustic nature, but it is my duty to accept the fact that some people have bad ideas and even worse attitudes. Such is not grounds for censorship, but an affirmation that mean-spirited politics based on personal destruction will not continue to be the norm and will eventually give way to the civil discourse that Ms. Coulter dreams so eagerly to have. I would ask now that everyone who disagrees with her to simply ignore what she says entirely and surely her infamy will subside. The less controversial she becomes, the less popular she will be with all consumers. And without people like her around, politics will finally have a chance to do something good for everyone.

And you thought Kilgore was nuts...

It's true, Larry Kilgore, Republican candidate for governor, is a nut job. He wants to secede from the union and institute Biblical law. His website has all sorts of classy photos, including a few bloody aborted fetuses (for the kids). And if anyone can tell me what a telecommunications database engineering consultant actually does, I'd be glad to lend an ear. Oh, yeah, and apparently I missed out on a great education at the Community College of the Air Force (my application was a day late and a dollar short). If it weren't for the other liars in the Republican primary, I'd say that Kilgore takes the cake.

And, no, I'm not taking a cheap shot at Gov. "Good Hair" Perry, even though I've been known to possess an unmitigated disdain for him and his policies. I don't necessarily consider him as much a liar as he is just really dumb (emphasis on really). I'm talking about another "Star" candidate for the Republican spot on the ticket. His name is Star Locke and he is straight crazy.

Locke, aside threatening armed hostility in the state capitol at the mere mention of a state income tax, has decided to fabricate a fanciful tale of wartime courage, where he, of course, plays the hero. In fact, Locke claims to be the only surviving member of a Navy SEALS team sent on a secret mission to assassinate Fidel Castro. Furthermore, this top-secret mission has yet to be declassified by the Department of Defense (that Rumsfeld and his secrets), so you won't find any sort of record of it. You'll just have to take Star's word on it.

I challenge you, Andy, to find me a crazier bunch of old coots in any other state that can top these whoppers.

The Most Contested Seat in Texas

Texas House district 47, which happens to be my home district, is perhaps the most competitive of any upcoming race in the state. Although the campaigns haven't matched the spending habits of other hotly contested races, the sheer number of seemingly unknown candidates is enough to crowd and confuse the ticket.

There are 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats running in the primary, for which early voting is already underway. The reason this Southwest Travis County district has received so much attention from office-seekers is because of its connection both with the city of Austin, which has been described on many occasions as a liberal oasis in the heart of Texas, and the rural areas just outside of the city limits. Democrats are banking on the same support that elected Donna Howard over Ben "Voucher-whore" Bentzin in the adjacent district 48 special election earlier this month. Republicans hope that the suburbs are still packed with rich white people. They're trying to scare everyone within earshot about toll roads, property tax hikes for public education, and, you guessed it... GAYS!

That's right, Republicans can always count on homosexuals to muster popularity in a gay-hating state like Texas. It' not enough anymore to exclude them from symbolic ceremonies of long-term commitment, but now we have to stop them from adopting children and, hopefully, force them into some kind of camps where they can be converted back to "normal" by watching countless episodes of Three's Company, Growing Pains, and Saved by the Bell (Zach Morris is my idol). In Texas, it's more important that kids not be exposed to homosexuality than it is for them to actually have parents.

Front-runners on the Republican ticket are Terry Dill, Rich Phillips, and Bill Welch (who, I've been told, is a huge dick). Phillips is endorsed by law enforcement and Welch by realtors and former Rep., current douche, Terry Keel. This is Welch's third shot at district 47, having already failed to win elections in 1992 and 1996 (loser). Interestingly enough as well, I went to elementary school with Welch's son, who is a far sight cooler than his dad. Dill, a former pro golfer, has raised the most money, though, and has received the much desired endorsements of the PGA tour commissioner and golfers Jack Niklaus and Ben Crenshaw. Alex Castano, a homeschooling zealot with 7 children, has also thrown his crazy hat into the ring. The best contribution he's made to the race, though, is that his wife happens to be the former girlfriend of Democratic candidate, Jason Earle.

Democrats running for the seat are hoping that people care more about schools and health care (you know, the stuff government is supposed to be concerned about). Jason Earle should win the primary off of pure name recognition, as his daddy, Ronnie Earle, is the one who indicted Tom Delay for his dirty deeds. His chances in the general election should be decent too, considering that the district is sandwiched in between two other Dems, namely Donna Howard and Patrick Rose.

TX01-Why I Hate East Texas

The first congressional district of Texas, which resides on our Eastern border with Louisiana, was originally slated to be a Democratic giveaway during redistricting. The district contains a couple of moderately-sized universities in SFA and UT-Tyler. Much to the chagrin, though, of the state's Democratic Party and to the devious gratification of Tom Delay, the seat was actually taken by a Republican in the last election by the name of Louie Gohmert.

Now, as the primaries get underway, Democrats pound their heads against a wall trying to figure why we can't get a decent contender for the race. The previous favorite for the Dem ticket was a swimming pool contractor named Roger Owens (his website has been banned from MyDD.com, thus no link necessary). Besides the fact that the guy builds pools for a living and has no prior political experience outside of maybe a PTA or Neighborhood Association, he happens to be a fairly big douche-bag. This week, he bashed a Democratic candidate for Texas House district 7, Patrick Franklin, on his sexual orientation and chewed out a local Democratic organization's leader, Donna Rosenblum, for calling his actions hurtful to the party.

Now, I don't agree that Gay Rights are necessarily the angle that East Texas office-seekers should take in getting elected, because the state ban on gay marriage, Prop 2, was heavily endorsed by the region in last November's election. However, the Democratic Party is traditionally one that openly supports and protects the constitutional rights of all Americans, condemning acts that would only serve to limit the freedoms of a specific minority in the population. That being said, Democratic candidates in the region shouldn't be required to take a hardline and public stance on the issue, but certainly shouldn't be endorsing the opinions of right-wing conservatives.

Here we are, once again wondering how on Earth we could possibly be losing such a Dem friendly election by such a huge margin (62%-38%) and we come to realize that candidates we have to offer absolutely suck. The only other option in the primary is a lawyer named Duane Shaw, who looks like a winner (NOT!). This is almost as pathetic as the myriad of lame-ass candidates offered up for sacrifice in nearly every statewide election or the former male prostitute in HD108. Thanks, Dems, for your choice selections for public office-seekers, you've made us look great this year.