Published 9 months ago
A particular figure has gained some traction in the conservative blogosphere lately. That man's name is Philip J. Berg, and he is a lawyer.
Now, to those singularly obsessed with the "birth certificate" issue, two basic truths seem to play a hand in this. One is that they obviously never see natural sunlight. The other, and equally important, is they don't really care who this man is, provided of course that he is against Obama and gives their cause some play in the media. Berg has met this criteria reasonably well. What some don't seem to realize is this guy's actual history.
The first thing of note is that, before becoming obsessed with taking out Obama, Berg was obsessed with taking out BUSH. That's right. Phil was pretty mad about the 2000 election, and perhaps rightly so. In 2001, he sought to remove all the Supreme Court justices that had voted in Bush's favor in the famous Bush v. Gore case.
Of course, Berg didn't stop there. You see, he is a rampant 9/11 conspiracy theorist. His ranting can be easily found online, as such: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5255032592388273934
As such, Berg filed a lawsuit against Bush and 154 others alleging that they had conspired to bring about the attacks that day. Despite a lack of real evidence, Berg pursued it with zeal, only, as in the case of his previous suit, to see it completely rejected in court. As with his more recent Obama suits, Berg re-filed this suit only to have it rejected again.
Berg's bad behavior as a lawyer doesn't stop with conspiracies, though: unlike the suits he had filed, Berg himself was successful sued for malpractice by former clients 2005. That's right. In a lawsuit pertaining to ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act), Berg had apparently failed to file a response to a complaint in the suit, resulting in his clients having a default judgement entered them. These former clients decided to sue Berg for malpractice and won the case; the judge found that Berg's own charge of fraud "was inadequately pled, not grounded in fact, time-barred, and utterly irrelevant to the pending malpractice action against him." In the end, Berg was fined $10,000 and forced to spend a little time in ethics training. The whole case can be found here: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0679P.pdf
This is the guy websites like "RepubX" have recently decided to align themselves with. This, ironically, is also the sort of guy radical leftists were aligning themselves with not long ago. He represents the problem with using a lawsuit as "proof" for a case's legitimacy; Berg himself has, consistently and constantly, proven not only his own cases but his very strategies and lawyerly ethics to be illegitimate. As well, he's consistently and on multiple occasions proved what reasonable people already know.
That most conspiracy theorists are nuts.
Published 10 months ago
Spending the summer in Washington D.C. has its advantages. One of those advantages is getting to see the Legislature in action. Specifically, today I chose to take a couple vists to the House in the Capitol Building to watch them go about their legislaturing ways. As it turns out, it was a particularly good day to do so, given a couple notable happenings.
Of course, I was just an observer with a House pass I'd gotten from Senator Udall's (from Colorado) office - I'd actually originally intended to watch the Senate today, but they gave me a House pass and I'd realized that the "Cap and Trade" climate change bill vote was today. Spectators are only allowed to sit there for so long in the interest of keeping the line outside moving. With that said, I was able to catch some notable moments just from going in a couple times, and was able to observe some things as well. They included:
-The House takes quite a while to agree on things like rules for the debate and later vote. This is already (hopefully) common knowledge, but they have to vote on this before jumping into debate and then the final vote. They had a couple votes on amendments and rules that were basically the Representatives voting electronically as they walked around and talked among themselves. It wasn't really heated and on the face of it there didn't look like there was anything notable going on. There was also an electronic sign up on a wall that tallied the votes, and another on a higher wall that showed the name of each Congressperson and whether they had voted. This sign would disappear by the time I went the second time. In any case, the rules were approved at about the time I had to leave from my first visit.
-During my first visit, the news became official that the Senate had just confirmed someone whose name I couldn't make out, but whom turned out to be Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, a Democrat from California, to a cabinet position. Specifically, she is now to be the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; as such, today was her last as a Representative. As soon as someone came in to announce the news, the whole champer erupted in applause and everyone stood as they clapped for her. She gave a nice little speech thanking everyone she'd worked with over the years, and got some extra applause when she noted that she and her fiance plan to get married tomorrow. Pelosi stood nearby wearing white and gave her distinctive awkward clap. Tauscher hugged a lot of the Congresspeople near her as well.
-Debate, in my second visit, was very very funny. It was very heated, sometimes more so from the Republican side. On both sides, there were a lot of mutually exclusive statements (the basic tone was Democrats saying "this will create jobs," and Republicans saying "this will destroy jobs." Which one is it?)
-The best moment - dare I say a potential "Daily Show" moment - was when one Republican Congressman I didn't recognize decided to use a visual aid. He took out a big yellow box with cheap-looking blue writing on it that said "To China: From Pelosi." He asked "what's in here?" and then took out a visual aid apparently meant to represent American jobs. Whether he was right or wrong, you gotta wonder whether the visual really helped his case much. The whole chamber and many of my fellow spectators laughed.
All in all, not a bad day on the Hill, though I had to wait with anticipation to find out later whether the bill passed (it did). Nothing hugely surprising, but it was certainly entertaining watching the two parties battle it out and shout at each other.
Published 10 months ago
One of the interesting - and remarkably persistent - arguments that the right have been using lately is to try and claim that liberals treat our current president as some sort of "messiah." It is also often assumed, by those on both the right and left, that the other side must support anyone on their "side" or in their party unequivocally. Cases of fraud, marital infidelity, and even more trivial things like choices of pets or movie tastes somehow reflect, to many, an inherent failing from the other side of the political aisle that proves their uselessness and the inherent righteousness of the side that person subscribes to.
Now, don't get me wrong. On a nightly basis I drink the blood of my holy messiah, and pray to him to grant me forgiveness for my sins and lapses in loyalty. But I'm not here to talk about Jon Stewart.
No doubt there is a certain cult of personality that is inherent in politics. John F. Kennedy had it. Ronald Reagan had it. Our founding fathers most certainly have it. Ron Paul has it even among people that don't seem to have any real understanding of he is, like people that read Infowars. Every successful politician, particularly on any kind of national stage, has on some level managed to mine a cult of personality that leads people to follow them. This is why people get riled up and excited at campaign rallies and plaster bumper sticker proudly on their cars. It is why people get invested in campaigns and get into heated debates right up to election day and even beyond. For any truly successful politician, there can't just be a derision of the other guy among your ranks but also a certain tendancy among supporters to like you and what your own policies are. They have to feel that you truly represent them and their values.
However, the suggestion that the vast majority of people on either the right or left would universally condone every action of everyone on their side, let alone treat them as gods to be worshipped, is quite simply foolishness. The vast majority of people fall SOMEWHERE in the middle of those extremes, even if they are predominantly on the right or left. Some may extend further to the right or left of their given party. Regardless, the point is that any free thinking person doesn't agree with even their own party or the people they vote for %100 of the time. That would be lunacy, and it is something only a small proportion of people actually do.
And yet, while most people are able to identify some policies of even their supposedly "worshipped" leaders that they disagree with, there is always the assumption made by those on the opposite side of the aisle that a failing of those leaders is somehow a reflection on everyone who might have voted for them, that they MUST treat them as some sort of perfect leader because of the fact that they voted for them. The irony of this is that it utilizes the same simplistic black-and-white thinking that it accusses the other side of using. When one makes the assumption that everyone on the opposing side politically is uniform in their thinking, it commits the same fallacy that it is trying to place on the other guys.
Perhaps our divisive party system is largely to blame; the party line dictates that those elected into the statement focus their public statements on supporting the party and painting the opposition as wrong at all costs, even if behind the scenes, or at least at lower levels, things are actually much friendlier and legislators are able to compromise and cross party lines more than most people would think. Furthermore, the news media has become overrun with pundits, who commonly if not always thrive on being partisan hacks; a Sean Hannity or Paul Begala may occasionally concede some minor point to the opposition just to maintain plausibility, but by and large any news item, no matter how innocuous or even non-political, will eventually be spun by them as concrete proof that liberals/conservatives are inherently right and conservatives/liberals are inherently wrong.
However, as our president himself as said, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Not every debate has to involve total demonization of the opposition. And when you get past thinking that everyone on the other side is dumb and evil, you might just find that you can actually talk to them, learn some things...and maybe even get some things done.
Published 10 months ago
I should preface this by saying that I am an agnostic. There may or may not be some kind of higher power out there. I find most stories behind religions to be pretty implausible and I doubt I'll ever believe in any of them. To me, people arguing over which religion is "right" is like arguing which person has the superior imaginary friend. Harsh I realize, but that is my bias.
With that stated, I obviously don't have any preference for the religion of Islam. I don't see it as being any more or less strange or crazy than the others. It's just a set of beliefs like any other, which people have the right to believe or not believe in. As with any religion, some will use that set of beliefs for good and others will use it to justify some pretty awful actions.
With that stated, it is disturbing to see the level of hatred and inherent distrust that many people in our great country still have for the people of the Muslim faith. People who are essentially just human beings like anyone else are still continually derided by some simply for subscribing to that faith instead of their own. Even worse, there is a clear racial element to this prejudice; many people, often not understanding that there are many differences in the first place between arabs and people of middle-eastern descent, assume that anyone roughly of that descent is automatically a muslim. They also assume that anyone from either group is automatically of a pro-terrorism mindset and can't be trusted. These are just human beings, with the same emotions and imperfections and dreams and needs as anyone else. And they are being treated as dangerous, sub-human individuals who must be deported at all costs for essentially no reason other than that they exist. Oh, for the days when racists just wanted to keep other people off their lunch counters and away from their drinking fountains instead of advocating for them to get kicked out of the country entirely.
Some of the recent talk involves conspiracy theories as to President Obama's heritage and religion of choice. All the actual evidence of course suggests that Obama is a Christian, as with every president before him. But I'm not here to debate that point anyway. What's disturbing about these theories isn't just the blatant disregard for fact and logic but the fact that anyone would care. What exactly would it matter if we did have a Muslim president anyway? Is it somehow bad for people of other races, creeds, and religions to want to serve the people and contribute to the American dream? What does it say about the lingering hate in our country that the mere thought of someone of a different race or religion serving in our government still inspires such overt bigotry and fear?
Our constitution says that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means any religion. Anyone, regardless of religious beliefs, can still participate in our society, enjoy the same rights, and, yes, openly serve the public. Clearly, we have a long way to go before every one of our fellow citizens is willing to recognize that fundamental right.
Published 10 months ago
For months we've been attempting to track down the secrets of Obama's elusive history. I'm pleased to say that sources at the deli down the street from me have made a breakthrough, and they've finally discovered the true identity of Mr. Obama.
Here's the proof: not long ago, Obama spoke to an audience in Cairo, which I'm told is the place the nazis go to in the first Indiana Jones movie. That's enough right there, people! Deli researchers are working around the clock to examine VHS tapes, and we're confident we'll find Obama shooting at Indy somewhere in the footage. More importantly, though, Obama rebuked deniers of the holocaust by asserting that it did, in fact, happen.
Think about it, though. Obama was born in 1961...or rather, so he claims. But the holocaust and World War II happened in....dun dun dun....the 40s!!!! How could Obama know something for sure that happened before he was even alive, unless...
We've found the missing link, people. How else could Obama know it happened unless he was there?
Open up your eyes, people. We've been lied to. Examine the footage. Don't you see the resemblance? Has anyone checked Obama's birth certificate for nazi symbols? And why won't Obama submit to strip-searches? Could he be hiding a swastika tattoo on his ass?
We're through the looking glass people. End your blindness and wake up. We thought we'd stopped Hitler, but he's been alive the whole time, and looking remarkably young I might add. In any case, we must stop him now. For America. For the world. For Indiana Jones.
For the children.
Published 10 months ago
Recently, in political...let's generously call it "discussion," I've seen a lot of people on the internet and various talking heads on the ol' video box throwing around words like "socialism" and "fascism" as if they have almost any relevance at all to current American politics. Usually, they are applied to our President, Mr. Obama.
Now, I am no blind supporter of the current administration. Keeping "rendition" is pretty questionable. Failing (so far) to pursue prosecution for criminal behavior in the last administration is pretty questionable. Giving tons of money to the banks instead of people is pretty questionable. Not that I suddenly hate the guy, and I think the administration has done a lot of good as well, but I think there is room for constructive - even harsh - criticism of the administration as long as it comes from an intellectually honest place, and it doesn't just have to center on those items I listed either (which I realize largely fall under the category of "he's not liberal enough").
But the whole socialism and fascism thing is just really stupid. Now, I'm no expert in political theory, but as I tend to understand the political spectrum, there are a few truths that bear stating:
-Socialism is on the "liberal" end; as such, the Democratic party is closer to socialism than the Republican party is.
-Fascism is on the "conservative" end; as such, the Republican party is closer to fascism than the Democratic party is.
-Both parties are far closer to EACH OTHER (and the middle of spectrum) than they are to either socialism or fascism, which are at far extreme ends; indeed, neither is remotely close to either true socialism or true fascism.
-For that matter, fascism and socialism are not the same thing at all, and certainly do not go hand in hand.
Even Fox News star Glenn Beck, for all his paranoia, stupidity, and probable diagnosable insanity, at least understood this when he "corrected" himself on his assertion that Obama is marching us towards socialism; he understood, as he asserted that Obama is in fact leading us towards fascism, that there is a clear difference between the two. He's also prone to random crying spells, believes Woodrow Wilson inserted secret symbols into the dime to make us all fascist, and once claimed to hate the families of 9/11 victims' families for being sooooo upset by the deaths of their loved ones. But I digress.
Unfortunately, a lot of people entering the political discourse recently aren't quite as knowledgeable as Glenny boy, and believe (if their signs at "teabagging" rallies are any indication) that both are in fact one in the same. Not to mention, they don't seem to understand the distinctions between recent government policies and either the socialist or fascist extremes.
Perhaps more troublingly, they also don't seem to understand a little thing called "strategy." We on the left have finally found our groove again recently, but don't you guys remember what we were like just a few years ago? Arguably, one of the reasons the left failed to convince those on the fence about the Iraq war to join our side is that just enough dumbasses decide to show up at otherwise peaceful rallies and burn flags, wave "Bush=Hitler" signs, and sport fashionable "Anarchy" symbols on their t-shirts. They were perfectly within their rights to do such things, but they didn't seem to understand how this would play on news outlets that would choose to zero in on them. Other movements have been just as troubled. Even many animal lovers like myself (I spend every Saturday caring for homeless pets at a shelter) don't care for PETA because they choose to hurl fake blood at people and generally act like morons. Religious groups that show bloody pictures of dead infants just revolt people (often out with their own children) who might otherwise be sympathetic.
And now, we have the people equating a slight increase in the taxation of the wealthy as a move towards totalitarianism (or, they would if they could actually spell "totalitarianism"). They've got all the requisite rage, but not the ability to articulate their positions in an intelligent way that would be worth discussing. And they (however unintentionally) discredit the more intelligent people out there who might otherwise side with them, not to mention alienate anyone else who might otherwise be willing to engage with them.
So rightists: get out there and speak your viewpoints. Debate, discuss, and maybe even protest to make your voices heard. Enjoy some delicious tea. But remember that not long ago we on the left looked like the loony, unorganized, and outright hateful group that some of your lesser members are making you look like now. We had to join together, form a real agenda, and improve the quality of our discourse to get where we are here in 2009.
And for god's sake, stop saying "fascist" and "socialist" every five seconds. It makes you look like morons.
Published 10 months ago
Last August on a hot summer day in Denver, I thought I would mosey over the MSNBC booth near Mile High Stadium and see what famous figures showed up that day to be interviewed. MSNBC was in town for some event - a political convention or something - and the streets were covered with people: spectators, protestors, convention-goers.
This particular day, though, on which I had chosen to meet up with my sister to see some of the sights, we ran into a group of people carrying signs that said "9/11 Truth" and shouting "9/11 was an inside job!" over and over. Now, I'd witnessed this sort of thing before, including at political rallies and even just in regular conversation with others. I tend, however, not to believe the theories myself. WIth all due respect to our government, they couldn't get trucks of water into New Orleans after a hurricane. They totally messed up on Iraq, and certainly didn't think to plant any WMDs there just in case they'd need to justify our presence there. Just a few days ago they accidently released the locations of a number of secret nuclear sites on the internet. If they really wanted to orchestrate something like 9/11 themselves, I doubt they would be competent enough to do so, at least without someone finding out.
Logic didn't do much for these guys, though, so they were out shouting their slogans and generally disrupting the peace. One particular figure with an annoying voice was out there blaring through his megaphone as loudly as possible that same slogan: "9/11 was an inside job! 9/11 was an inside job! 9/11 was an insiiiiide jooooob." Needless to say, he was rather repetitive and not very informational. This figure, as I would later learn, was Alex Jones, actor-extroidanaire (check of his "Waking Life" cameo!) and owner of "Infowars," the website that allows him to broadcast his voice, face, and self-centered political demagoguery around the world.
Now, my sister was more sympathetic to Alex and his ilk than I was, so she tried to engage with them. Remarkably, she had some success. She told them that they had every right to do what they were doing, but were only turning off all the people around them that were increasingly annoyed and shouting back at them. She reasoned with them that just shouting "9/11 is an inside job!" over and over into people's faces wasn't an effective way for them to get their message across, because it carried no other substance and was annoying to the people they were trying to convince and engage with. As well, she pointed out the other groups that had become drowned out by their megaphones and speakers, and were becoming increasingly annoyed as well as having their own right to protest infringed on because of a louder and more obnoxious group. Some of the group clearly had doubts after speaking with her, and were less enthusiastic about shouting. It had obviously gotten to them, and they were trying to be more respectful of the people around them.
Not Alex, though. She gave him the same little rant, but he brushed it off while pretending to agree with her. Following that, he just went right back to his megaphone and refused to listen to anyone again. He was demanding that his voice - a very loud, obnoxious voice - be heard as clearly as possible, but refused to listen to anyone else that tried to engage with him. When he did finally agree to leave the premises, the whole group of people at the site cheered.
Since that incident, I've read a decent amount of Jones' work. I've stared at his creepy face on the front page of his website. It is possible the man isn't really so delusional as to think that there is a "new world order" creeping from below the surface and ready to show itself at any second, but he is most certainly self-centered. His youtube channel is put in his own name, and is more about him than it is about the actual causes; even the videos are usually titled things like "Alex Jones brings truth to Geraldo!" or other nonsense. His website is as much about him and what he's doing for you as it is about spreading information (such as it is). He's also a masterful businessman, having created many films, books, and connected products (including t-shirts!) that are now on sale to allow any burgeoning conspiracy theorist to spread the truth in style.
As much as Jones rails against supposed corporate interests and media that spread lies, he is essentially doing just that while dressing himself up as a crusader for truth. He has made himself into a celebrity for the sake of attention and dollars. Make no mistake, CNN and ABC News and, yes, Fox News are all out to make money, but they at least follow some semblance of accountability for the spreading of legitimate information. It's at least part of their business model. And if there was a "new world order" (with, hopefully, lizard people at the helm, because lizard people would be awesome) that they were all a part of, you'd think they'd be better organized and not repeatedly do things like fixing their cameras at the wrong airplanes for arriving celebrities or saying swear words on the air instead of identifying euphemisms (look up Joe Scarborough's use of the "f-word!"). They're businesses, but at least they're not pretending otherwise as our friend Alex does.
Most troubling about Alex and his ilk, though, is that they de-legitimizes real debate and discussion. On both the left and the right, it is easy to stigmatize legitimate voices because of vague similarities to conspiracy nuts. With Bush, the legitimate left often couldn't catch a break because of those who claimed that 9/11 was personally orchestrated by him and whom carried signs comparing him to Hitler; when more reasonable leftists raised questions about the motivations and planning in regards to Iraq, it was too easy for many to write them because given the association with people of more extreme views. Nowadays, we have rightists comparing Obama to, yes, Hitler, claiming he's a secret muslim out to destroy the country from inside out, and even fretting over whether Obama's birth-certificate is real. Once again, the left is laughing and passing around youtube Glenn Beck clips to each other to amuse each other, while legitimate questions from the right about economic policies and war tactics are virtually - and easily - ignored by the masses. When out-there conspiracies take precedence over honest discussion and real issues, everyone loses.
So might I suggest that we all leave old Alex alone - perhaps give him some standup figures to yell at so he doesn't feel lonely without attention - and go back to using legitimate information to inform political debate? He'll be fine without us, and he's probably got enough money saved from dvd sales to last him a while. If need be, we can give him some pens and crayons so he scrawl imaginary codes on his bedroom wall for hours. In the meantime, maybe we can improve our discourse for the better of our country and all Americans.
Published 10 months ago
According to top sources at my roommate's brother's laundromat, new information proves that Obama was not only not born in this country, but is not even of this earth. That's right, we've finally blown the lid off Obama's Martian roots.
In retrospect, can there be any doubt as to why Obama has refused to make his birth certificate available more than a couple times? The answer is no, there cannot, and this is the only feasible explanation as to why. Obama is and always has been a secret Martian.
According to laundromat sources, including a man behind the counter who seemed surprisingly amused as he told me this, Obama was raised on Mars by mixed-planetary parents; his father a native Martian, and his mother a Venusian. The father schooled the mother in all the Earth-hating ways that define Mars, and Obama was put through Martian schools where he was taught to aim his laser guns at images of Earth infants. Alas, if that were not shocking enough, it goes deeper: Martians, like most space creatures, tend to live longer than us Earth peoples, and Obama was no exception: scan the pictures, and you'll no doubt find Obama participating as a foot soldier in all of the worst attacks on America. Martians have been attack us for centuries: Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the Spanish-American War, the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, Woodstock '94. All of these horrific events were orchestrated by the Martians and then carefully covered up with fantastical stories of "world wars" and "natural occurrences" so we wouldn't suspect anything. Let it not be misunderstood: no one hates America more than the Martians, who have long conspired to steal our oxygen and our oatmeal raisin cookies.
Obama's presidency is just the latest secret assault from the socialist martians. Stand up and fight, people! We must protect our freedom and our cookies from the alien menace, and we must reject the Earth-hating policies of Barack Jabba Obama.
Loading
Philip J. Berg and the Trouble With Lawsuits
0 comments 
