Theft=Highest Form of Flattery?

Relaying a link on request.

Yesterday, my pal Darren Di Lieto, from The Little Chimp Society website, emailed with some upsetting news. Turns out someone scraped the contents of his website and published it into a 350-page book being sold online for $100. You can read more on this post in Darren’s blog.

This book — which reprints without permission several dozen artist interviews which Darren had posted on the LCS blog — transcribes these interviews word-for-word, including the artwork, and was “published” under the title “Colorful Illustrations 93°C”. The book even includes a CD with all the illustrations from the book, all lifted off the site as well.

(snip)

The publisher — one very fake sounding “Great Creativity organization” [sic] — is allegedly in Hong Kong, so pursuing legal action seems pretty pointless, seeing as China has such a sparkling reputation for respecting copyright law. The ISBN they provide — ISBN 978-988-98142-0-5 — is also a fake. You can easily search ISBN databases online, and this number comes up empty.

The international black market for intellectual property has done some good (see certain Thai revolutions during which the government couldn't prevent DVD footage of government massacres from being distributed), but stuff like this is still immensely frustrating. Still more frustrating are some of the comments on this blog. One girl actually posted,

perhaps, if approached, they will give you some of the money. and perhaps they are interested in future projects. theft is, after all, the highest form of flattery. regardless, you can feel proud that you have influenced another culture.

ps. i am broke, too.

And when she was told this is ridiculous and that profiting from someone else's work without crediting them--let alone paying them--is theft, she replied,

personally, i find that theft comes in a little higher on the scale, than flattery, but i am certain we can agree to differ.

That's what should really be alarming. Someone else posted that things posted in electronic format can't be copyrighted. The hell, people.

But really, China does this kind of crap all the time. I'm not sure what can be done beyond just reposting this and cluttering up search engines with bad press.

Theft=Highest Form of Flattery?

Relaying a link on request.

Yesterday, my pal Darren Di Lieto, from The Little Chimp Society website, emailed with some upsetting news. Turns out someone scraped the contents of his website and published it into a 350-page book being sold online for $100. You can read more on this post in Darren’s blog.

This book — which reprints without permission several dozen artist interviews which Darren had posted on the LCS blog — transcribes these interviews word-for-word, including the artwork, and was “published” under the title “Colorful Illustrations 93°C”. The book even includes a CD with all the illustrations from the book, all lifted off the site as well.

(snip)

The publisher — one very fake sounding “Great Creativity organization” [sic] — is allegedly in Hong Kong, so pursuing legal action seems pretty pointless, seeing as China has such a sparkling reputation for respecting copyright law. The ISBN they provide — ISBN 978-988-98142-0-5 — is also a fake. You can easily search ISBN databases online, and this number comes up empty.

The international black market for intellectual property has done some good (see certain Thai revolutions during which the government couldn't prevent DVD footage of government massacres from being distributed), but stuff like this is still immensely frustrating. Still more frustrating are some of the comments on this blog. One girl actually posted,

perhaps, if approached, they will give you some of the money. and perhaps they are interested in future projects. theft is, after all, the highest form of flattery. regardless, you can feel proud that you have influenced another culture.

ps. i am broke, too.

And when she was told this is ridiculous and that profiting from someone else's work without crediting them--let alone paying them--is theft, she replied,

personally, i find that theft comes in a little higher on the scale, than flattery, but i am certain we can agree to differ.

That's what should really be alarming. Someone else posted that things posted in electronic format can't be copyrighted. The hell, people.

But really, China does this kind of crap all the time. I'm not sure what can be done beyond just reposting this and cluttering up search engines with bad press.

Theft=Highest Form of Flattery?

Relaying a link on request.

Yesterday, my pal Darren Di Lieto, from The Little Chimp Society website, emailed with some upsetting news. Turns out someone scraped the contents of his website and published it into a 350-page book being sold online for $100. You can read more on this post in Darren’s blog.

This book — which reprints without permission several dozen artist interviews which Darren had posted on the LCS blog — transcribes these interviews word-for-word, including the artwork, and was “published” under the title “Colorful Illustrations 93°C”. The book even includes a CD with all the illustrations from the book, all lifted off the site as well.

(snip)

The publisher — one very fake sounding “Great Creativity organization” [sic] — is allegedly in Hong Kong, so pursuing legal action seems pretty pointless, seeing as China has such a sparkling reputation for respecting copyright law. The ISBN they provide — ISBN 978-988-98142-0-5 — is also a fake. You can easily search ISBN databases online, and this number comes up empty.

The international black market for intellectual property has done some good (see certain Thai revolutions during which the government couldn't prevent DVD footage of government massacres from being distributed), but stuff like this is still immensely frustrating. Still more frustrating are some of the comments on this blog. One girl actually posted,

perhaps, if approached, they will give you some of the money. and perhaps they are interested in future projects. theft is, after all, the highest form of flattery. regardless, you can feel proud that you have influenced another culture.

ps. i am broke, too.

And when she was told this is ridiculous and that profiting from someone else's work without crediting them--let alone paying them--is theft, she replied,

personally, i find that theft comes in a little higher on the scale, than flattery, but i am certain we can agree to differ.

That's what should really be alarming. Someone else posted that things posted in electronic format can't be copyrighted. The hell, people.

But really, China does this kind of crap all the time. I'm not sure what can be done beyond just reposting this and cluttering up search engines with bad press.

Senator Clinton blames activist democrats for her losses...

Well, I mean, not that she's wrong. Hillary would have much more success in a country where Democrats weren't paying attention to what a scumbag she is. But what a thing to say in a political climate where increased voter turnout is supposed to be a good thing. Except, evidently, for when they vote for someone else.

Clinton trashes "activists" and MoveOn at closed-door fundraiser

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and It's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

MoveOn's Eli Pariser responded:

"Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

As insomnia stated in his journal:

In a newly released campaign recording today, Hillary Clinton blamed "the activist base of the Democratic Party" and MoveOn.org for her repeated losses throughout the election, and accused both of voter intimidation.

(snip)

The audio of this is available over at Huffington Post.

As a highly informed Democrat who takes an active role in my country's politics, I reject and denounce Senator Clinton's statements. This is just further evidence that Hillary Clinton will viciously attack *ANYONE* who decides for any reason that Barack Obama is the superior, more intelligent, more conservative candidate.

And no, I don't mean conservative in the sense of neoconservatives... who are, in fact, willing to disregard intelligence and common sense in order to risk everything for their hollow dreams of a global Pax Americana. I mean conservative in the best possible sense... prudence, care, and a nuanced approach to foriegn policy, rather than the kind of hamfisted hackery we've seen over the past seven years, going into not one, but *TWO* simultaneous longterm occupations, with no exit strategy for either of them.

(snip)

So yes, we Democratic activists do "turn out in great numbers" to vote for Barack Obama... but we're not some kind of infestation, Senator Clinton. We're reasonable, rational Americans who are fed up with Bush-era incompetence... the kind that you bought into, hook, line, and sinker.

We're Americans, Hillary. And your belittling of Democrats who actually give a damn about their country is an elitist statement that insults us all.

Just... what. The. Hell. I strongly recommend the rest of insomnia's journal entry. For the sake of evading a "tl;dr" reaction I mercilessly and viciously cropped out lots and lots of really good stuff in there.

Senator Clinton blames activist democrats for her losses...

Well, I mean, not that she's wrong. Hillary would have much more success in a country where Democrats weren't paying attention to what a scumbag she is. But what a thing to say in a political climate where increased voter turnout is supposed to be a good thing. Except, evidently, for when they vote for someone else.

Clinton trashes "activists" and MoveOn at closed-door fundraiser

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and It's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

MoveOn's Eli Pariser responded:

"Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

As insomnia stated in his journal:

In a newly released campaign recording today, Hillary Clinton blamed "the activist base of the Democratic Party" and MoveOn.org for her repeated losses throughout the election, and accused both of voter intimidation.

(snip)

The audio of this is available over at Huffington Post.

As a highly informed Democrat who takes an active role in my country's politics, I reject and denounce Senator Clinton's statements. This is just further evidence that Hillary Clinton will viciously attack *ANYONE* who decides for any reason that Barack Obama is the superior, more intelligent, more conservative candidate.

And no, I don't mean conservative in the sense of neoconservatives... who are, in fact, willing to disregard intelligence and common sense in order to risk everything for their hollow dreams of a global Pax Americana. I mean conservative in the best possible sense... prudence, care, and a nuanced approach to foriegn policy, rather than the kind of hamfisted hackery we've seen over the past seven years, going into not one, but *TWO* simultaneous longterm occupations, with no exit strategy for either of them.

(snip)

So yes, we Democratic activists do "turn out in great numbers" to vote for Barack Obama... but we're not some kind of infestation, Senator Clinton. We're reasonable, rational Americans who are fed up with Bush-era incompetence... the kind that you bought into, hook, line, and sinker.

We're Americans, Hillary. And your belittling of Democrats who actually give a damn about their country is an elitist statement that insults us all.

Just... what. The. Hell. I strongly recommend the rest of insomnia's journal entry. For the sake of evading a "tl;dr" reaction I mercilessly and viciously cropped out lots and lots of really good stuff in there.

Senator Clinton blames activist democrats for her losses...

Well, I mean, not that she's wrong. Hillary would have much more success in a country where Democrats weren't paying attention to what a scumbag she is. But what a thing to say in a political climate where increased voter turnout is supposed to be a good thing. Except, evidently, for when they vote for someone else.

Clinton trashes "activists" and MoveOn at closed-door fundraiser

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and It's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

MoveOn's Eli Pariser responded:

"Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

As insomnia stated in his journal:

In a newly released campaign recording today, Hillary Clinton blamed "the activist base of the Democratic Party" and MoveOn.org for her repeated losses throughout the election, and accused both of voter intimidation.

(snip)

The audio of this is available over at Huffington Post.

As a highly informed Democrat who takes an active role in my country's politics, I reject and denounce Senator Clinton's statements. This is just further evidence that Hillary Clinton will viciously attack *ANYONE* who decides for any reason that Barack Obama is the superior, more intelligent, more conservative candidate.

And no, I don't mean conservative in the sense of neoconservatives... who are, in fact, willing to disregard intelligence and common sense in order to risk everything for their hollow dreams of a global Pax Americana. I mean conservative in the best possible sense... prudence, care, and a nuanced approach to foriegn policy, rather than the kind of hamfisted hackery we've seen over the past seven years, going into not one, but *TWO* simultaneous longterm occupations, with no exit strategy for either of them.

(snip)

So yes, we Democratic activists do "turn out in great numbers" to vote for Barack Obama... but we're not some kind of infestation, Senator Clinton. We're reasonable, rational Americans who are fed up with Bush-era incompetence... the kind that you bought into, hook, line, and sinker.

We're Americans, Hillary. And your belittling of Democrats who actually give a damn about their country is an elitist statement that insults us all.

Just... what. The. Hell. I strongly recommend the rest of insomnia's journal entry. For the sake of evading a "tl;dr" reaction I mercilessly and viciously cropped out lots and lots of really good stuff in there.

10 Debate Questions John McCain Will Never Be Asked

Disclaimer: I don't feel that all of these questions are of dreadful importance (the pastor issue, the adultery issue, etc.) but through all the Democratic infighting, McCain's sitting by totally clean. If he were subjected to the kind of inquiry and scrutiny that Democrats are facing, these are the issues we would be hearing about.

10 Debate Questions John McCain Will Never Be Asked

1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

In February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were "very proud" to have his endorsement. You also called the Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who said of Islam "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed", your "spiritual guide." Do you believe America's mission is to destroy Islam? Do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed? Is that why you joked about "bomb bomb Iran?" If not, why will you not renounce the support of Hagee and Parsley?

2. Doesn't your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?

Your anger, even toward friends and allies, is legendary. You purportedly dropped the F-Bomb on your own GOP colleagues John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley. In the book, The Real McCain, author Cliff Schechter claims you got into a fist-fight with your fellow Arizona Republican Rick Renzi. Allegedly, you even publicly used a crude term, one which decorum and the FCC prohibit us from even saying on the air, to describe your own wife. Which if any of these episodes is untrue? Don't your anger management problems make you too dangerously unstable to be president of the United States?

3. Doesn't your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?

On four occasions in one month, you confused friend and foe in Iraq by describing Sunni Al Qaeda as being backed by Shiite Iran. Then you showed a misunderstanding of the U.S. chain of command when you claimed you would not back shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan "unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that," a decision which Petraeus himself told you and your Senate colleagues only the week before rests not with him but with his superiors. Doesn't your lack of understanding and judgment when it comes to basic facts of America's national security disqualify you as commander-in-chief?

4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?


You are the nominee of a Republican Party which claims to support so-called "family values." Yet you commenced an adulterous relationship with your current wife Cindy months before the dissolution of your previous marriage to your first wife Carol. Should Americans consider you to be a moral exemplar of family values?

5. Doesn't your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an "agent of intolerance" show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?

In 2000, you famously called the late Jerry Falwell "an agent of intolerance," a statement which may have cost you the decisive South Carolina primary. But as you ramped up your next presidential run in 2006, you embraced Falwell and gave the commencement address at his Liberty University. When Tim Russert asked that spring if you still considered him an agent of intolerance, you said, "'no, I don't." Why shouldn't the American people consider you a flip-flopping opportunist who cynically courted the religious right to further your 2008 presidential ambitions?

6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren't you - and not Barack Obama - the elitist?

You have called Barack Obama an elitist. Yet you recently returned to your exclusive private high school, one which now costs over 38,000 dollars a year to attend. Your wife is the heiress to a beer distribution company, reputedly owns 8 homes and has a net worth well over $100 million. Your children all attended private schools, academies which also happened to be the primary beneficiaries of funds from your supposed charitable foundation. Shouldn't the American people in fact view you as the elitist, and a hypocritical one at that?

7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?

I want to ask about your seemingly ever-changing religious beliefs. In June 2007, McClatchy reported, "McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian." In August 2007, as ABC reported, your campaign staff identified you as "Episcopalian" in a questionnaire prepared for ABC News' August 5 debate. But as the primary in evangelical-rich South Carolina neared, in September 2007 you said of your religious faith, "It plays a role in my life. By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist." But in March 2008, Pastor Dan Yeary of your North Phoenix Baptist Church refused to comment on why you have refused to finally undergo a baptism ceremony. Congressional directories still list you as an Episcopalian. In the past, you've said, "When I'm asked about it, I'll be glad to discuss it." So what is your religion? And couldn't Americans be forgiven for assuming your changing faith is tied to your changing political needs?

8. Didn't President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren't you a hypocrite for voting "no" on the Senate waterboaring ban?

You've said that "we can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured". And in December 2005, you famously reached a compromise with President Bush on the Detainee Torture Act banning cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. But just two weeks later, President Bush issued a signing statement making it clear he would ignore the compromise you just reached. Then in February 2007, you voted "no" on a Senate bill banning waterboarding. Isn't it fair to say President Bush betrayed you with his December 30, 2005 signing statement? And isn't it fair to say you caved to the right-wing of your party on the issue in order to win the Republican nomination?

9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?

You twice voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now you support making them permanent. In 2001, you said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." Now, according to the Center for American Progress, your tax plan would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade and "would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers, offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers." Isn't it true that you flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts? Isn't it fair to say that you now favor a massive expansion of the federal budget deficit in order to fund a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans who need it least?

10. With the economy tanking, shouldn't Americans be concerned over your past statements that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should?"


Americans consistently report that the economy is the issue that concerns them most. Yet more than once, you proclaimed your ignorance when it comes to the economy. In November 2005, you told the Wall Street Journal, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Then in December 2007, you admitted, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." Shouldn't the American be worried about President McCain's ability to lead the United States out of recession? Given your past statements, shouldn't the American reject out of hand your claim that "I know the economy better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do?"

10 Debate Questions John McCain Will Never Be Asked

Disclaimer: I don't feel that all of these questions are of dreadful importance (the pastor issue, the adultery issue, etc.) but through all the Democratic infighting, McCain's sitting by totally clean. If he were subjected to the kind of inquiry and scrutiny that Democrats are facing, these are the issues we would be hearing about.

10 Debate Questions John McCain Will Never Be Asked

1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

In February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were "very proud" to have his endorsement. You also called the Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who said of Islam "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed", your "spiritual guide." Do you believe America's mission is to destroy Islam? Do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed? Is that why you joked about "bomb bomb Iran?" If not, why will you not renounce the support of Hagee and Parsley?

2. Doesn't your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?

Your anger, even toward friends and allies, is legendary. You purportedly dropped the F-Bomb on your own GOP colleagues John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley. In the book, The Real McCain, author Cliff Schechter claims you got into a fist-fight with your fellow Arizona Republican Rick Renzi. Allegedly, you even publicly used a crude term, one which decorum and the FCC prohibit us from even saying on the air, to describe your own wife. Which if any of these episodes is untrue? Don't your anger management problems make you too dangerously unstable to be president of the United States?

3. Doesn't your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?

On four occasions in one month, you confused friend and foe in Iraq by describing Sunni Al Qaeda as being backed by Shiite Iran. Then you showed a misunderstanding of the U.S. chain of command when you claimed you would not back shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan "unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that," a decision which Petraeus himself told you and your Senate colleagues only the week before rests not with him but with his superiors. Doesn't your lack of understanding and judgment when it comes to basic facts of America's national security disqualify you as commander-in-chief?

4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?


You are the nominee of a Republican Party which claims to support so-called "family values." Yet you commenced an adulterous relationship with your current wife Cindy months before the dissolution of your previous marriage to your first wife Carol. Should Americans consider you to be a moral exemplar of family values?

5. Doesn't your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an "agent of intolerance" show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?

In 2000, you famously called the late Jerry Falwell "an agent of intolerance," a statement which may have cost you the decisive South Carolina primary. But as you ramped up your next presidential run in 2006, you embraced Falwell and gave the commencement address at his Liberty University. When Tim Russert asked that spring if you still considered him an agent of intolerance, you said, "'no, I don't." Why shouldn't the American people consider you a flip-flopping opportunist who cynically courted the religious right to further your 2008 presidential ambitions?

6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren't you - and not Barack Obama - the elitist?

You have called Barack Obama an elitist. Yet you recently returned to your exclusive private high school, one which now costs over 38,000 dollars a year to attend. Your wife is the heiress to a beer distribution company, reputedly owns 8 homes and has a net worth well over $100 million. Your children all attended private schools, academies which also happened to be the primary beneficiaries of funds from your supposed charitable foundation. Shouldn't the American people in fact view you as the elitist, and a hypocritical one at that?

7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?

I want to ask about your seemingly ever-changing religious beliefs. In June 2007, McClatchy reported, "McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian." In August 2007, as ABC reported, your campaign staff identified you as "Episcopalian" in a questionnaire prepared for ABC News' August 5 debate. But as the primary in evangelical-rich South Carolina neared, in September 2007 you said of your religious faith, "It plays a role in my life. By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist." But in March 2008, Pastor Dan Yeary of your North Phoenix Baptist Church refused to comment on why you have refused to finally undergo a baptism ceremony. Congressional directories still list you as an Episcopalian. In the past, you've said, "When I'm asked about it, I'll be glad to discuss it." So what is your religion? And couldn't Americans be forgiven for assuming your changing faith is tied to your changing political needs?

8. Didn't President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren't you a hypocrite for voting "no" on the Senate waterboaring ban?

You've said that "we can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured". And in December 2005, you famously reached a compromise with President Bush on the Detainee Torture Act banning cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. But just two weeks later, President Bush issued a signing statement making it clear he would ignore the compromise you just reached. Then in February 2007, you voted "no" on a Senate bill banning waterboarding. Isn't it fair to say President Bush betrayed you with his December 30, 2005 signing statement? And isn't it fair to say you caved to the right-wing of your party on the issue in order to win the Republican nomination?

9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?

You twice voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now you support making them permanent. In 2001, you said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." Now, according to the Center for American Progress, your tax plan would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade and "would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers, offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers." Isn't it true that you flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts? Isn't it fair to say that you now favor a massive expansion of the federal budget deficit in order to fund a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans who need it least?

10. With the economy tanking, shouldn't Americans be concerned over your past statements that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should?"


Americans consistently report that the economy is the issue that concerns them most. Yet more than once, you proclaimed your ignorance when it comes to the economy. In November 2005, you told the Wall Street Journal, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Then in December 2007, you admitted, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." Shouldn't the American be worried about President McCain's ability to lead the United States out of recession? Given your past statements, shouldn't the American reject out of hand your claim that "I know the economy better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do?"

10 Debate Questions John McCain Will Never Be Asked

Disclaimer: I don't feel that all of these questions are of dreadful importance (the pastor issue, the adultery issue, etc.) but through all the Democratic infighting, McCain's sitting by totally clean. If he were subjected to the kind of inquiry and scrutiny that Democrats are facing, these are the issues we would be hearing about.

10 Debate Questions John McCain Will Never Be Asked

1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?

In February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were "very proud" to have his endorsement. You also called the Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who said of Islam "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed", your "spiritual guide." Do you believe America's mission is to destroy Islam? Do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed? Is that why you joked about "bomb bomb Iran?" If not, why will you not renounce the support of Hagee and Parsley?

2. Doesn't your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?

Your anger, even toward friends and allies, is legendary. You purportedly dropped the F-Bomb on your own GOP colleagues John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley. In the book, The Real McCain, author Cliff Schechter claims you got into a fist-fight with your fellow Arizona Republican Rick Renzi. Allegedly, you even publicly used a crude term, one which decorum and the FCC prohibit us from even saying on the air, to describe your own wife. Which if any of these episodes is untrue? Don't your anger management problems make you too dangerously unstable to be president of the United States?

3. Doesn't your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?

On four occasions in one month, you confused friend and foe in Iraq by describing Sunni Al Qaeda as being backed by Shiite Iran. Then you showed a misunderstanding of the U.S. chain of command when you claimed you would not back shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan "unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that," a decision which Petraeus himself told you and your Senate colleagues only the week before rests not with him but with his superiors. Doesn't your lack of understanding and judgment when it comes to basic facts of America's national security disqualify you as commander-in-chief?

4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?


You are the nominee of a Republican Party which claims to support so-called "family values." Yet you commenced an adulterous relationship with your current wife Cindy months before the dissolution of your previous marriage to your first wife Carol. Should Americans consider you to be a moral exemplar of family values?

5. Doesn't your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an "agent of intolerance" show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?

In 2000, you famously called the late Jerry Falwell "an agent of intolerance," a statement which may have cost you the decisive South Carolina primary. But as you ramped up your next presidential run in 2006, you embraced Falwell and gave the commencement address at his Liberty University. When Tim Russert asked that spring if you still considered him an agent of intolerance, you said, "'no, I don't." Why shouldn't the American people consider you a flip-flopping opportunist who cynically courted the religious right to further your 2008 presidential ambitions?

6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren't you - and not Barack Obama - the elitist?

You have called Barack Obama an elitist. Yet you recently returned to your exclusive private high school, one which now costs over 38,000 dollars a year to attend. Your wife is the heiress to a beer distribution company, reputedly owns 8 homes and has a net worth well over $100 million. Your children all attended private schools, academies which also happened to be the primary beneficiaries of funds from your supposed charitable foundation. Shouldn't the American people in fact view you as the elitist, and a hypocritical one at that?

7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?

I want to ask about your seemingly ever-changing religious beliefs. In June 2007, McClatchy reported, "McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian." In August 2007, as ABC reported, your campaign staff identified you as "Episcopalian" in a questionnaire prepared for ABC News' August 5 debate. But as the primary in evangelical-rich South Carolina neared, in September 2007 you said of your religious faith, "It plays a role in my life. By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist." But in March 2008, Pastor Dan Yeary of your North Phoenix Baptist Church refused to comment on why you have refused to finally undergo a baptism ceremony. Congressional directories still list you as an Episcopalian. In the past, you've said, "When I'm asked about it, I'll be glad to discuss it." So what is your religion? And couldn't Americans be forgiven for assuming your changing faith is tied to your changing political needs?

8. Didn't President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren't you a hypocrite for voting "no" on the Senate waterboaring ban?

You've said that "we can't torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured". And in December 2005, you famously reached a compromise with President Bush on the Detainee Torture Act banning cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. But just two weeks later, President Bush issued a signing statement making it clear he would ignore the compromise you just reached. Then in February 2007, you voted "no" on a Senate bill banning waterboarding. Isn't it fair to say President Bush betrayed you with his December 30, 2005 signing statement? And isn't it fair to say you caved to the right-wing of your party on the issue in order to win the Republican nomination?

9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?

You twice voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now you support making them permanent. In 2001, you said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." Now, according to the Center for American Progress, your tax plan would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade and "would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers, offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers." Isn't it true that you flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts? Isn't it fair to say that you now favor a massive expansion of the federal budget deficit in order to fund a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans who need it least?

10. With the economy tanking, shouldn't Americans be concerned over your past statements that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should?"


Americans consistently report that the economy is the issue that concerns them most. Yet more than once, you proclaimed your ignorance when it comes to the economy. In November 2005, you told the Wall Street Journal, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Then in December 2007, you admitted, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." Shouldn't the American be worried about President McCain's ability to lead the United States out of recession? Given your past statements, shouldn't the American reject out of hand your claim that "I know the economy better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do?"

Was it a scratch?

Does this look like a man scratching his face, or a man giving the middle finger?


Image courtesy of http://mediamatters.org/

Why would I ask such a silly thing, you say? What could possibly be the relevance of such a piddling matter?

Because this is all over the news right now. Yes, real live news networks are including this in their Election 2008 coverage.

Los Angeles Times.
Fox News.
US News & World Report.

There is a reason that Americans are widely viewed internationally as uninformed. Look at what our news sources are publishing like it matters. Plz stop shaming us worldwide kthx.

Was it a scratch?

Does this look like a man scratching his face, or a man giving the middle finger?


Image courtesy of http://mediamatters.org/

Why would I ask such a silly thing, you say? What could possibly be the relevance of such a piddling matter?

Because this is all over the news right now. Yes, real live news networks are including this in their Election 2008 coverage.

Los Angeles Times.
Fox News.
US News & World Report.

There is a reason that Americans are widely viewed internationally as uninformed. Look at what our news sources are publishing like it matters. Plz stop shaming us worldwide kthx.

Was it a scratch?

Does this look like a man scratching his face, or a man giving the middle finger?


Image courtesy of http://mediamatters.org/

Why would I ask such a silly thing, you say? What could possibly be the relevance of such a piddling matter?

Because this is all over the news right now. Yes, real live news networks are including this in their Election 2008 coverage.

Los Angeles Times.
Fox News.
US News & World Report.

There is a reason that Americans are widely viewed internationally as uninformed. Look at what our news sources are publishing like it matters. Plz stop shaming us worldwide kthx.