Get yourself registered to vote. 2016.

The election is almost here. Just over a month from today is election day, November 8th, unless you live in a state that will allow you to early vote. (Do you?)

So that means many registration deadlines are looming. Some sooner than others. Let's review in case you need to start planning for a trip to your county courthouse, or administrative facility.

More information about voting at Voters 411. See the deadlines, ballot info, poll locations, etc. You can also use Ballotpedia, the page I linked here will allow to see a sample ballot for your district.

In the season of electoral discontent, the media isn't here to help. *UPDATED*

(UPDATE AT BOTTOM, as CNN continues to be CNN.)

Tonight we head into the second of the GOP presidential debates.

Anyone up for musical podiums?

Taxes in a Time of Taxes

It's April 15th, and depending where you are, you still have time to file your taxes here in the United States. (Either on your computer or by dropping it off at an open post office.) And not to worry if you've somehow forgotten about tax seasons end. You can still file tomorrow. As long as you don't owe you shouldn't have to worry about penalties, otherwise...

But it is our annual process. We balance out the books. We had the government withhold some of our income, and it now learns how much of that it should keep to pay into supporting our society, and how much it should return to us. Unless you didn't do withholding on your wages, and then you get to pay in now. (But really it is a matter of taste. You can either put the money at the start, or you can plan a year ahead and save the money to pay in. Whatever works best for you.) W-4's matter.


Sadly people have a visceral hate for our system to handle the funding of our country. Love the armed forces, fixed roads, border protection. Hate actually having to pay for these things. Hating on the IRS is an easy way to get some cheers. It's an honest reaction. But it's not altogether a rational one. It can be tragically irrational.

So...This what you do when you owe money?

A collection of accountants and bureaucrats, that some how get painted as evil for doing vital work, The IRS is given a function. Make sure people pay in what we as a society agree to do. Sure not everyone does pay in...But we all need to make changes to get billionaires, corporations, and ministries to get with it. (How is it that the powerful who skip out on taxes aren't painted as the villains?)

Fighting for America by moving profits overseas, and living
the good life (while having it's workforce live on Medicaid
and Food Snap).

Getting powered up to vote, with information.

It's almost election day, and there's still time to vote. There's also still time to learn about what you can vote on.

To start some research you can head over to Ballotpedia. At this site you can go to the Sample Ballot page to pull up the ballot that will be used in your Zip Code area.

Then you can review what will be on the ballot tomorrow. Governor. State Rep. Secretary of State. Etc.

You will also see the Amendments, Measures, and the alphabet of other issues you may be asked about. It offers added information on the two sides of each issue, and who is supporting it.

I won't guarantee it will resolve your issues. Sometimes the sides aren't as helpful as you'd like. I have one measure about expanding the number of doctors you can go to on insurance. I am torn on the pros and cons of the matter And secondary analysis of the measure is hard to find.

But for most issues the information on this site can at least help you muddle through the legal language that sometimes gets used.


The listings of candidates is also nice, as it allows you to try and figure out who the candidates really are. Often you can go into the polls and have no idea who is who, and what the positions actually do. Take some time to google them and see.


But one area that still vexes me is the fact I keep getting asked to vote for judges. What? Why? The only time you hear about a judge is if they get caught committing a crime, or make a controversial ruling. And even then, do you really remember them?

If you'd to have judges to vote on, I'd like to suggest Judgepedia (Yes, it exists.) You can at least see the candidates history on the bench to some extent. Also you can see if there are any notable cases. Also if they've served as a public defender or prosecutor. Also, in some cases, you can see if they've been involved with causes, like helping victims of certain crimes, or making changes to the system.

The site also, at least for my state, has ratings for judges as to how conservative they are, compared to the rest of the sitting judges.

Voting on judges seems silly, but you can at least, if you want to vote on them, make a semi-informed choice. (And I'd add, in Iowa after the State Supreme Court sided with the rights of gay people, conservatives were happy to go out and try to vote some of those justices out. If you have some honest judges on the bench that are being harried, why not help them?)


I hope you can take the time to vote this week. Every vote does count. Many offices and measures are close. Votes will matter.

Citizens wielding the mighty hammer of the vote. *UPDATED*

In case you haven't gotten the hint from all the political ads, it's almost an election day.

In our country money has a lot of sway. Money can get access. Money can take hold of the airwaves at this time of year.

But, in the end, those people chasing donations are doing so for one reason. To convince you to vote for them. OR, convince you to not bother, to give up.

Lewis Black has been supporting efforts to get people out to vote, and to fight vote suppression.

What you should know about Ebola.

A lot of bad information and a lot of panic has swirled around the topic of Ebola. News media has largely been seeking BREAKING NEWS. And some governors have been aching to engage in some overkill, to look more like Alpha Males.

Here's a nice, calm and humorous look at what Ebola is and isn't.

Better than being scared is to be informed. And then we can help.

John Oliver and Civil Forfeiture

Last Week Tonight again touches on troubling processes in the United States. This time around, Civil Forfeiture.

Through it, police are supposed to be able to confiscate and use resources from criminals.

But that's not how it's actually used much of the time...

I think one police chief put it well.

Pennies from heaven?

They want to buy stuff...for vital police work, honest.

And to get the money the want, they just target people who are carrying money and aren't going to be able to push back. It's netted police forces more billions of dollars.

Police will actually quiz people about if they are carrying any large sums of cash. There's an eagerness to find a big jackpot. Ka Ching!

Then there's the houses taken, and the cars taken. It seems rather easy to snatch up property from people.

Tens of thousands of these people go on to face no charges. They are expected to just move along. But they aren't getting the cash back. But if they are lucky they may pay a fine to get back some property. Of course efforts to get back property mean facing an adversarial system.

How is this not troubling to more people? How are people not outraged to have laws like this on the book? How is this not called corruption?

As a final word. Tenny Mucho Mucho Dinero In Su Trucky-Trailer?

Hello, I may be having to maybe be going. The Scottish Referendum

Original Photo: Andrew Milligan/PA

Tonight the votes are in on a major question in United Kingdom History.

Should Scotland stay within the U.K.? Or should it go it alone?

There has always been a dislike with being part of the British experience up North. The history has been martial, brutal, and bloody. (Ah, England.) But, for the most part, it has seemed the rank and file of Scotland have accepted their position, and had their impact on the U.K. Some have chaffed at being in the union, but most have embraced it.
At this point in the night it seems that, barring a surprise showing in the last 15 declarations, the answer from Scotland should be No. But it looks like it won't be a clear refusal of leaving the United Kingdom. Likely it will be in the 50% range. Close.

That isn't a resounding call for union. More a disgruntled call.

From all I've heard, up to a year or so ago, this wasn't even a concern. But the last years of conservative governance in the United Kingdom have been damaging. Damaging to the Scottish ties, and damaging to the nation's infrastructure.

Austerity. You may heard mention of the term here in the United States, but I first heard this buzzword from the likes of Prime Minister David Cameron. It's meant slashes the National Health Service (NHS). It's meant the privatizing of mail service. It's meant cutting and cutting of service. Cameron has gone with a gusto after social support and government services.

This has ticked off many in England. It's damn well pissed off many in Scotland. Scotland has long since set up it's own parliament for certain matters. But the Westminster set has been of value. Cameron has been dismantling that value. Some have made it clear that when the NHS was slashed, it was a breaking point.

In the last year the support for independence rose.

As a result Cameron, and other politicians, began an offensive. They were like jilted lover. Flowers. Sweet words.

But, as we all love, Scotland wanted presents. So promises of change have been made. More support. More power for the Scottish Parliament. The power to tax. Protection for the NHS in Scotland.

There have also been threats. Like a promise that the British Pound would be withdrawn from Scotland.


Over the last months the polling has been moving to balance out as a split. Perhaps these promises will make the difference. Perhaps it was always going to come down to a close No.

A historic schism of the U.K. is not likely now. But, if promises are kept, a historically more independent and empowered Scotland will continue within the U.K.

And if changes aren't coming for Scotland and national services, there can always be another referendum.

100 years since the start of WWI. Lessons learned?

In past I've touched on the Remembrance Day, which was derived from Armistice Day. It was the day used to remember Great Britain's entrance into World War I.

With the advent of World War II we often gloss over the first Great War. The War to End All Wars.

Source

How Not to Stay Neutral on Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality has been an issue of great concern to people who work online. The end of it may likely mean an end to those smaller operations, or new ideas looking for a place to blossom. It has also been of great concern to corporate interests and the Telecomms, who all look to cement their control on what we see and use. It all comes down to how neutral we will see information and services online treated.

FCC after Dark - from College Humor

But the FCC (Federal Trade Commission) is eyeing an end to neutrality. Not surprising from a collective largely made up of former and future executives of the Telecomm Industry. And the head of the FCC thinks it makes perfect sense to end neutrality, but make a caveat that all access must be kept at least at the levels they currently are at.

That would be great if time and technology stood still. But that's the point of the statement from the FCC. Sound good, mean nothing. Throw out a platitude while handing the power, wealth making potential, and speed to their corporate friends.

These Assholes - By College Humor

After that, we are all left to the whims of Internet Service Providers, and to the select online services that have paid up large sums to run suitably. And for many in power, that is how the world should work. You shouldn't have things if you can't pay up a nice size fee for it. Schooling. Water. Knowledge.

Well, that is garbage. The Internet is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, amusement, and disappointment.


Among those trying to advocate for no neutrality think that not all sites deserve to be treated equal. Money should buy access. The Internet should operate like many other areas of business where the barriers to entry should be high. For many of them, Net Neutrality is a regulation. And that means taxes. And, "The government will control the Internet!!!".

The attitude is that they fear/hate the government, but tolerate/respect the old boy network of corporate elite making decision on this.

I don't, obviously, trust the people at the FCC. We need a better quality of regulator there. But if I have to choose between the power being in the FCC's and the Telecomms grasp, I pick the FCC. Whipping the FCC into shape is easier. And, once industry has it's way with the Internet, we'll have to wait a decade or more to right things.

We rely on regulation by government for a good reason. Industry rarely does a fair to decent job of watching over itself.

Meeting of Minds: John Oliver and Pepe Julian Onziema

John Oliver had a sober and sarcastic look at Uganda and it's anti-gay laws. In the US many of us have been interested in what has been called the Kill The Gays law. But, as we do, we got bored with all of that. And then most of us deleted most of our anger, opinions, and facts of the law from our heads. John Oliver nicely reintroduces us to the matters.

For instance, while Uganda had some social and legal issues with gay people, the last several years has seen a significant and hateful uptick. What started with uptight British colonials is now a matter of American Conservative intervention. The Religious Right has worked to motivate the local religious communities hate, and pushed them to make changes to the law.

And then we had those freaking politicians. Another topic you may have decided to forget about is C Street and The Family. People like Jeff Sharlet did solid work bringing out the truth of this group of politicians who were tied by their religious zeal and interest in making hateful law. They've screwed people over in this country, but always have time for other countries.

So preachers and politicians have worked to bring about their dream of a hateful and homogeneous society. Not to leave out the elements of Uganda society eager to embrace hate and fear.

If you've followed news and conversations in Uganda, you've seen the fear, hate, and ignorance spread about being gay. (Stephen Fry spent some time their and showed the outright ignorance of the anti-gay advocates in his Out There documentary.) They repeatedly claim all gay people are "converting straight people. And, on having sex...You have to doubt they even understand sex between males and females.

But for a mix of stuff that will make you laugh, scream, curse, and try to hope, have some John Oliver. Also, get to know the fascinating and brace Pepe Julian Onziema, an open LGBT advocate in Uganda. He's quite a remarkable man.


From Last Week Tonight with John Oliver:



And in addition to the show, some more of their conversation presented online.

So how is it still okay to use some racial slurs?

I am always fascinated by how society deals with it's racism. Some parts advance, see where mistakes were made, and attempt recompense. Others get angry and talk about tradition or over sensitivity. And others just star ever harder into their smart phone and don't want to get involved.

We have activities that we wouldn't dare do, for fear of offense. We have words we won't say, knowing how disgusting they are...Though, even using the N-word or blacking up are things some white folk are completely fine doing. So people are just assholes.

Still, their are words and activities that maintain active support among a larger part of society, like co-opting other cultures for amusement. One culture that many people find no trouble "borrowing" from is the Native American culture (by which I mean the broad caricature of the many many cultures that predated European colonization of the Americas). Headdresses. Outfits. Dances. Props. Calls. Slurs.

Years back I remember when one issue among these activities arose. It involved the baseball team, the Atlanta Braves (which is in reference to Native Americans). They had a fan chant and hand action, the Tomahawk Chop. I remember a point in the 1990's when people were complaining about the fact a mocking cry and the act of whacking away with an ax is insulting to...the people you are trying to mimic. It's a faux-Native American dance/chant.

I actually thought, not paying a lot of attention at the time, that it had been done away with for at least the reason it is so damn tacky, if it offensive. But no, it is still around, along with those foam tomahawks.

That's not good.

But it pales in comparison to the football team of Washington D.C. the R-words. You know, we have a college football team called the Fighting Irish, and I have always looked at that as such a weird choice. But even that isn't an overt racial or ethnic slur.

Now some defenders say that the name was done in honor of a respected early coach. They say the phrase wasn't offensive back in the day. Some even say it isn't that bad know.

Guys? Take the damn offensive, insulting, tacky ass name off that team. Teams change names for lesser reasons than this. Show some social awareness. Show an ounce of compassion. Show you aren't this stupid a group of businessmen.

Get. A. Clue.

That stuff you say? Yeah, it is obnoxious.

Sometimes people in a dominant group can become oblivious to some odious and tiring casual racism. It's tiring to deal with. Also it can be annoying to watch someone think they are being friendly, supportive, and positive in being like this.

So enjoy seeing things from the other side.

From Buzzfeed:

The World Cup and FIFA 2014...Not the video game.

The World Cup is about to start!

What's the World Cup? The greatest sports spectacle in the world. The meeting of national teams of football/soccer players who compete until one nation stands victorious!

It's the big time...outside the United States. ...Come on, America!

Still, it isn't without issues. It's run by FIFA, a massive multinational institution. And it pulls in a lot of cash.Some of it legit, some of it far from legit. (A lot of these issues are the same problems the IOC has.)

And they are showcased right now in Brazil. Around 3-4 miles around each stadium is more or less under the direct control and authority of FIFA; they are Fifalands.

In Brazil it's illegal to sell or have alcohol at a stadium. In Fifaland, it's encouraged and branded. Will that be happening in Qatar to in 2018?

In Brazil there are a lot of street merchants selling food and other items. In Fifaland, they are barred for miles around each stadium. So much for that financial return to those further down the Brazilian economic ladder. Not to worry those at the top are making a bundle.

In the 2014 South African World Cup a certain company produced a massive number of bright orange overalls for Holland fans, and the fans loved the garish representation for going to games. But that company was not one that paid to be present, so all the overall were banned and taken away.

Presidebt Rousseff defends Cup and
FIFA.

And this year in Brazil there has been a lot of unrest among people angry that in the midst of poverty and need in the country vast amounts of money are being spent for this spectacle. It is contentious. It's to the point that the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, had to come out and ask Brazilians to unite and support the World Cup.

It's a flawed and troubling process all around. It needs reform. It needs changes.

But...It's the freaking World Cup!!! And I want to watch! I want to celebrate the sport. I want to enjoy it.

And the Ents march.

Still, while I will watch, I want to be aware of the severe problems and injustice tied to it. We shouldn't hide from the problems in the things we enjoy. I want things to get better.


So if you want to laugh some, learn some, and get a little revved up...\

From Last Week Tonight with John Oliver:

Climate Change Denialist and Their Denial

At this stage it should be getting hard to disagree about the impact of our treatment of the global environment. The negative changes are slowly creeping into place. Difficulties are growing. Tension slowly mounts.

But, hey...

Source

TWIB's A Black Show

The team at TWIB have been working hard at expanding their brand and shows, while engaging with it's audience. In an effort to give Elon James White, the founder of TWIB, a heart attack, they've moved into producing a weekly TV show. A Black Show (#ablackshow). It's every Friday at 8 PM (PT) on the Free Speech network.

Like everything they do, it offers a look at politics and society, with a unique view and sense of humor. They also bring in a number of different voices to discuss topics.

Here's a little from the show, you can find more here. Also, if you can't see it on Free Speech TV, or miss it, they have the latest episodes available on iTunes.


#GrayRacism

Women, Rape Culture, and Boyce Watkins

The Real Climate Change Skeptics

Image from Roberto_Rizzato

"I can't hear you over the weight of scientific consensus!"

Climate Change is one of the issues that, despite conservative media claims, is pretty well established. Much of it is human made. And the human made portion is having a clear negative impact on humanity. The world is less hospitable to us.

It's an undeniable consensus now.

And if we find a trail of evidence that leads another way, I'll be surprised, and scientists are ready to hear about it. But like in dealings with religious apologist and Creationist, there is NO new data against human made Climate Change to consider.

Galling in this issue, are people opposed to accepting the impact Climate Change. They call themselves skeptics often. They are skeptics in much the same way as guys who call themselves demonologists and skeptics, or antivaxxers and skeptics. (And, yes, we have seen some famous people who call themselves skeptics who mocked the idea of Climate Change. And they deserve to be criticized for the bad analysis.)

Some People Say We Have To Leave It There

Upton Sinclair

I was pleased to see this quote on Chris Hayes's show a few weeks back.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

It's from Upton Sinclair in 1935, about his failed run for the California governorship, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked. I believe Greg Mitchell has written some on it.


And Hayes was looking at this in regards to climate change, were it is apt. But it clearly goes beyond that. The media and conservative politics have a vested interest in not paying serious attention to many serious issues.

Elections, infrastructure, voting access, any scientific consensus, etc.

For the GOP it's more important to redefine a situation to fit and agree with their decades old ideological stances. No matter the state of the economy, the answer to improve things will be a series of tax cuts. No matter how much need there is in the country for aid, the answer will be to cut the social safety net. No matter the national security standing of the nation, increased expenditures are needed. And actual understanding is irrelevant to these politicians jobs.

And even when their once was agreement about the facts and the problem, new pressure from the old guard means that it's better to no longer agree with yourself. The future of environment will no longer be a problem. Access to birth control becomes controversial. They may have had some common sense, but that common sense isn't worth losing their jobs, or paychecks over.

It's all sports, particularly for the media. Who sounds better? Who's more convincing? Who's more popular? Who had the biggest blooper this week?

For the media, if it wants to talk about some blatantly ridiculous fact free position of a political party, it will only get them "labelled". And that seems to scare the media. They won't get invited to all the parties. Press flacks won't rush to them with the latest spin. So it's better to not rock the boat, unless everyone already agrees on the topic. Then it's a lot easier.

They learn to not be controversial to the wrong people.

So media becomes ridiculous, often playing it safe. Often not digging beneath the surface. Often just repeating what others say, without questioning the validity. It's not worth risking that salary to look closer.


Former Secretary of State (and future presidential candidate) Hilary Clinton had this thought on the state of media:

"A lot of serious news reporting has become more entertainment driven and more opinion-driven as opposed to factual," she said. "People book onto the shows, political figures, commentators who will be controversial who will be provocative because it’s a good show. You might not learn anything but you might be entertained and I think that’s just become an unfortunate pattern that I wish could be broken."

And I can't disagree. There are some good venues still out there. Some that are interested in a real discussion or real analysis, but it's mostly fluff you could fast forward through and miss nothing.

Honestly, how many shows bring on a round table that spout off the obvious? So little new information comes out. So it's come to the point that news channels need to have constant ALERTS and BREAKING NEWS.

They may be stating the obvious. They may be repeating information you already heard earlier in the day. But you get a flashing words at the bottom of the screen.

We need people who understand what they are doing, and care about what they are doing. And it wouldn't hurt if they cared about serious discussions and debates.

What? A Right Wing Hero Who Is Racist? *UPDATED*

I think you have the wrong flag up.

As I'm sure shocks us all, Cliven Bundy (I guess I've been calling him Clive.), of "Get Off My Lawn And Your Lawn To" fame, has shown off a new facet of his charm offensive. Racism.

Now this has stymied some of us. How could he be like this? He's seemed so informed and level headed up to now.

Would someone whose openly said:

• He doesn't recognize the United States government as existing.
• He wanted the local sheriff to disarm the Forest Service officers in the area, and then have those weapons handed to him.

...seem like a person that would spout idiotic racist patter?


Being serious, most of us aren't surprised. Another Right Wing hero tosses out casual confident racism. Somehow people who obsess over a past, where white people were king (Well, more kingly.), look back at how black people were treated, and see it as right and good. It is the sad outcome of their conservative philosophical process. Women back in the house. Blacks and Hispanics working in the back.

Conservatism has become defined by these regressive ideas. But the one lesson most conservative leaders learned is how to couch their horrible ideas in coded language, and pseudo intellectualism. (Clean Air Act, Academic Freedom, Trickle Down Economics, Kenyan)

And that is what is galling about Bundy, and others like Todd Akin and Phil Robertson. Bundy talks like the GOP's many failed candidates, going off on blacks, gays, or birth control.

But they all still share common thinking with the rest of the conservative movement. They are hostile to gay rights, to civil rights, and to reproductive rights. But it's all supposed to be coded. People like Paul Ryan work to hide it. They try and sell "urban" as an innocent and honest. It's really racist and disingenuous. People like Bundy screw up the strategy, by plainly speaking the bigotry and contempt.

Bundy Ranch: The Takers Come Home To Roost

The most patriotic anti-American patriot ever.

...I probably should have made that a cattle reference. Still, Clive Bundy doesn't make much of any sense either.

A rancher in Nevada, Bundy has taken it upon himself to skip out on paying grazing fees for his cattle over the past 20 years. These fees were being paid by his neighbors as needed, and by any other rancher in the country.

It's a simple enough idea. You want additional grass and scrub for your cattle. So you can make a deal with a neighbor, to allow your cattle on their land for awhile to eat. As part of the deal you may agree about how long they can stay, or you can pay for the use of the land.

It seems very friendly and simple. It seems rather capitalistic.

But not to Bundy. He seems to have decided that since the land is owned by the government, he can use it at will for whatever reasons he decides. And when he's asked to pay his fees, he refuses. And when he goes to court looses, he still refuses. And when he looses again in court, he refuses...You see how this is going.

He's a cheat. He currently owes around one million dollars. (Imagine how nicely you'd be treated if you refused to pay that amount of money to the government.)