Firestarter

I assure you, neither the Republicans in California nor the RNC can automatically get you on Oprah or the Tonight Show. Being Arnold Schwarzenegger can. It is.

Both his side and the "retarded tradition from many decades ago" are based on the exact same principles. There is no straw man here. If you deny the one, you deny the other. If you accept the one, you have no logical argument against the other. There is a parallel. Ultimately, this is about one question: how do you determine a human being's worth? I, for one, refuse to make any determination whatsoever based on skin colour.

Exactly so. Thus it has everything to do with a step in the right direction. Even if 50% or more of his views are liberal, conservatives agree with him more than they do with Gray Davis or Cruz Bustamante. That is the choice California Republicans face. You can't fault them for choosing the lesser of two evils, and you can't honestly take issue with other Republicans supporting their choice. 50% bad means 50% at least tolerable. I'd take that over 75-99% bad any day of the week. If he's nipping at the leader's tail and has no chance of winning himself, certainly. Quite possibly. But he isn't running as an independent or as a Democrat, and even if he were, we Republicans would still prefer him to Davis or Bustamante.

Two words: Trent Lott. Thereby meaning GOVERNMENT RESEARCH? I mean I am sure he didn't just read it in PEOPLE or something. Thereby meaning that even implicit praise for blatant institutionalised racism, let alone its reality, is tolerated nowhere in this country at all.

Now, this is a straw man. Nowhere did I say that we should abandon cultures wholesale and deny history. Yet saying that you want people to be treated the same "IN SPITE" of the colour of their skin is rather telling. It means you think we're innately inclined to treat people differently based on their race, and we can only overcome it through taught principle. I don't think that's true.

A very pertinent one. See my last post. Two words: Trent Lott. Not if it's based on race. We absolutely do not need to know that. Absolutely. And there are private citizens, hypothetical victims, investigative reporters, law enforcement agencies, and courts to do exactly that. All the factors cited in my first post on this subject: incompetent bureaucracies, noncompetitive wage structures, and unacceptable standards. DC is over 61% black and overwhelmingly urban, and it has some of the worst schools in the country. Yet it spends some of the highest amounts on its abysmal educational system. It has nothing to do with funding. It has everything to do with the unions. They are the root of the evil, and until they are uprooted and their stranglehold on the nation's children broken once and for all, no amount of money will make any difference whatsoever.

If that's not a straw man, it's damned close... this kind of statement is just trolling for flames and you know it. It's nothing of the sort. It is a direct parallel. In the past, black people were considered unworthy of marriage to whites. There were laws against it. Mixed people were called mulattos and mongrels who had disgraced their heritage. It was discrimination based on race, pure and simple. Do you deny that? Now, in the present, we have white people denied admission to universities for which they are eminently qualified, on the basis that their race has had advantages over other races in the past. It is discrimination based on race, pure and simple. Do you deny that? What we have in the future is a choice. We can either stop punishing and rewarding people for the colour of their skin or we can continue. We can be racists or we can be Americans. We can assess people's needs based on economic status or we can assume they need help based on their skin colour. I'm not a racist, and I know which side I'm on. Do you?

Developments coming fast and furious on this one. Another idiot judge has blocked the FTC on the grounds of "free speech." This decision is in a different case, filed by the American Teleservices Association. Update

Yeah. Where's that Sigmund Freud gimmick when you need him?

"Riding the gravy train?" Exactly what kind of benefits do you think Hannity will accrue by supporting Schwarzenegger, assuming he wins, as seems likely? What ridiculous political naivete. It doesn't matter what McClintock's ideology is if it ensures that he'll never be elected. It's the equivalent of stepping onto one of two stones in the middle of a river. You can either step onto the first and have a good chance of landing safely, or you can leap for the second and probably drown. Say you've almost drowned several times trying to leap onto similar stones in the past. Don't you think California Republicans have learned? If someone sees Schwarzenegger as at least a first step in the right direction, there's no shame in supporting him.

It is research on where people's ancestors came from. Fifty years ago some white people "researched" the ancestry of tanned men to make sure their daughters weren't marrying anyone with nigger blood. Want to justify that next? (emphasis added) Good. Funding should be based on need. Race is irrelevant. We have laws against racial discrimination. Anyone who feels that his race affected a decision to fire him can file suit for wrongful dismissal. A predominantly black public school which is refused funding by a white legislator on the basis of racism can file suit against the state, and as a political analyst I can tell you that the accusation wouldn't even have to be true for white legislators all over the country to fall over themselves begging to give tens of millions and fighting each other for the privilege. There are no grand racist conspiracies in this country. There are incompetent bureaucracies, noncompetitive wage structures, and unacceptable standards, all of which are established, fed, and nurtured by the teachers' unions. It comes as no surprise to me that they are among the most vicious opponents of the dream of Dr King. It means everything. It is central to the issue. Do you want a colourblind society or not? Do you want an America in which your skin colour means nothing? In which your ancestors' origins mean nothing? In which we don't think of our friends and neighbours as black, white, Latino, Asian, Oriental, but simply American? Yes or no? How do you think tracking and "researching" our most superficial differences, rather than our fundamental needs, will make that dream a reality?

Hmm, a Do Not Mail list? Sounds good to me.

The Senate has voted 95-0 to give the FTC authority to go ahead with the Do Not Call list. Earlier today, the House voted 418-12 in favour. The President is expected to sign the bill shortly. Update

I thought they tasted okay, but it was just too light. It felt like I was sucking on a straw. No nicotine, no tobacco, no nothing. Just blah. I didn't notice any unusual heat or anything. WTF? The regular filters are at least on the same level as Marlboros. Never had those. Flavoured? I hate flavoured tobacco. Davidoffs I already described. Treasurers are more of a status symbol than anything else; $20 per pack of 20 (yes, I typed that correctly) but nothing to justify the price. From the official website: "Treasurer cigarettes are manufactured from a specially selected blend of additive free pure Virginia Tobaccos wrapped in watermarked paper with an elegant silver tip. The cigarettes are hand packed into a stylish aluminium case, cellophane wrapped and secured by a De La Rue hologrammed tearstrip which ensures authenticity." La de frickin' da; it'd be nice if they also tasted better than your average Marlboro. I don't plan on smoking the hologrammed tearstrip. Cloves are... well, cloves. I don't really know how to describe them. I'm smoking one right now, and it's like a menthol in that it's not really a cigarette, but I don't know, it's different. It's not minty. It's musty. It's the kind of cigarette goth kids would bum off you. It's sort of spicy, sort of sweet, sort of very slightly minty. Numbs your lips and tongue a bit, as I think AoO mentioned earlier. Not something I'd want to smoke regularly, in part because of the taste, in part because of the fact that they irritate my throat a little, but they're nice every once in a while for a change. YSLs = Yves Saint Laurent. Same price range as Davidoff (a few dollars higher than usual) but nothing special. A little richer, but Davidoff is better, and Marlboros almost as good. Not quite worth the hassle of finding, but a decent choice when nothing better's around. Bleh. Menthols don't taste like tobacco. I like tobacco, therefore I don't like menthols. C'mon Agent, come through for your fellow smokers. We'll tell 'em you sent us.

One less way for the Democrats to divide us as a nation.

True, but people are paying attention for whatever reason, and the issues have been gone into fairly well, not only just now, but over time. Of course Schwarzenegger gets a huge boost in the CNN and MSNBC polls from his recognition on a national (and international) level. Of course more people watched the debate because of him. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have the same appeal on a state level. Just the opposite, in fact. I still don't see why you think the polls aren't reasonably accurate indicators.

Of course not. You're correct about the positioning of the three serious candidates, but Bustamante's casino ties have become national news in the wake of the recent court ruling against him, Huffington's tax evasion has been commented on in many nationally syndicated opinion columns and news articles, and the problem of illegal immigrants being granted official documentation has been at or near the forefront of national politics for some time now - we were talking about it at the time of the Beltway sniper shootings, almost a year ago now, and even before that in the wake of 9/11. You're confusing cause and consequence. This debate was going to be broadcast nationally from the very beginning. Schwarzenegger decided to participate because of that. He said so after the decision was taken.

In the immortal words of Inspector Clouseau: "Not anymore."

The House just gave the FTC explicit authority to implement the national Do Not Call list. The Senate is expected to follow on their heels. Update

From The OFFICIAL TSM Rules & Regulations

Why, Ah declayah - what a sweepin' statement! Bless yoah soul, that's cehtainly not the case in mah South. On the other hand, has anyone here considered that Johnson1620 will now have much more time to spend with his supermodel wife? Does anyone really think she'll thank y'all for that? Hasn't the poor woman suffered enough?

I'd agree with you if the votes weren't tallied from articles which dealt specifically with the debate, and if the question itself didn't deal directly with the debate. If it were "Who would be the best governor?" or something similar, then "star power" would play a more significant role. As for the issues, if you Californians have ever been interested in or knowledgeable about those, why in God's name did you not only elect but re-elect Gray Davis?

Check out this CNN article. As you can see from the QuickVote in the sidebar, the results of (so far) approximately 40,000 people's votes agree with my analysis and dispel entirely JotW and NCM's contention that Schwarzenegger performed poorly, or that his bickering with Huffington damaged his image in any way. As for claiming that the debate helped Davis in any way, that's simply incredible. Davis has the lowest ratings of any governor of California in over half a CENTURY. It's unprecedented. If anything's an absolute certainty, it is that Davis will be recalled. Edit: For an MSNBC analysis of the same debate, click here. The Live Vote shows approximately the same numbers and percentages at this time.

Huh, I must have missed that. Thanks for the heads-up.

Independents win very few elections. I'm not debating any candidate's virtues or qualifications; my tickers assess political vulnerability or political strength based on a recent political performance.