Cheney Lies...You buy....Got it?

The media watchdogs are seeing it. Bloggers are seeing it, but the rest of sleepy America hears GWB and RBC frying eggs in the kitchen and closes their eyes, while the soothing tunes from the big media radio soften the rough edges, fogging their awareness in a pre-November reverie, confident that the bacon is going to be saved.

Ray Charles has left us.

Ray Charles has left us at 73. Too soon for our aching soul, but after several lifetimes of contribution to the American fabric.

Ray Charles discovered America. Everyone knows that. You didn't have to try hard to love that voice. Rich, soulful, pure. The man created that. No Godfather, King, Prince, or nom de guerre. His name. Ray Charles was the original.

Way too many of the young soul-singers and teen band wailers over-use the Ray Charles fluorish, and they squeeze every last drop of soul out of it till it becomes a sickly-sweet, hair-on-the-back-of-your-neck cringe line. They do the man a disservice. And sadly enough, they'll be the ones honoring him during some tribute.

God bless you, Ray. Sing it sweet. Sing it pure.

There are a few things to admire about Ronald Reagan...his presidency isn't one of them.

Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, the winner of the Cold War, the -- okay enough, already.

Things to admire about Ronald Reagan?

1) Some of his films weren't all that bad. He was actually, a decent actor, but if his agent had really been looking out for him, why the hell couldn't he have gotten "The Rear Window", or "The Man who Knew Too Much", or something else besides "Bedtime for Bonzo" or "She's Working Her Way Through College"?

2) His relationship with Nancy Davis was quite public by most standards. Two romantics who became the most powerful family in the country for awhile. Their relationship could be on a poster for the institution of marriage, if it weren't practically the only damn good public example out there.

3) Self-deprecation with an edge. Reagan raised it to an art. He wasn't arrogant. Ignorant, yes, arrogant, no. Reagan personified the paternal president.

4) Nope. Not gonna mention the Cold War. That honor goes to Gorbachev. Did Reagan help? Sure, but someone better duct tape your local Republican's mouth here. Reagan responsible? Bah! Funny how they'll latch on to any big idea and call it their own.
Actually, Reagan probably facilitated the end of the cold war by not dealing with Gorbachev like a stereotypical conservative Republican. Yeah, we all thought he was crazy enough to push that button, but in the end, he saw through the propoganda, and let Gorbachev rise to his own historical relevance.

Things that Reagan disappointed us with:

Uh, too many to name. Swelling the ranks of Homelessness, Iran-Contra, abandonement of the Mentally Ill, Poverty, race relations, giant deficits, tax cuts and tax hikes, being a figurehead for petty-minded, selfish, money-hoarding "conservatives", PATCO, etc., etc.

Gallant man, decent actor, warm-fuzzy American Grandpa. Lasting legacy? For Americans of all races and status, let's hope not!

Okay, I'll admit it...There is a part of me that is worried that Iraq could become a success story before November.

//link What has really become annoying is that the Iraq war is going to be the central issue in the reelection of the Incompetent Bush. There are so many other important issues that most of us rarely think about. The deficit, the environment, civil rights, foreign relations, the economy and the middle class, and of course, our war on terror. Each of these areas hold numerous reasons to vote Bush out of office in November, but because the electorate is a one-issue monster, the most visible reason may in fact be the deciding factor -- the war in Iraq.

Never mind that thousands of Iraqi civilians and hundreds of coalition troops have died needlessly (I say needlessly, not in the sense that the war shouldn't have been fought (it shouldn't), but in the sense that the transition from Saddam's rule to the American occupation was SO mismanaged,that needless suffering and death were allowed to set up camp). Had the coalition authority listened to ordinary Iraqi outrage at the looting and anarchy at the fall of Saddam, and had sent in enough troops to establish martial law initially, there wouldn't have been the resentment or the despondency of Iraqi citizens we've seen in places like Fallujah, or Najaf, or Kosul. The world's greatest military under our illustrious Pentagon management became the world's most shamed military.

What really irks me, is that if things turn out well in Iraq (and I actually hope they do) with the new appointment of Allawi as the new [interim?] Iraqi Prime Minister, then all of the Pentagon and Bush's efforts will be seen in a very positive light. And this issue alone could be the one that pushes public opinion into approving the record of the incumbent. Now we're starting to see the makings of a government that can assume some sovereignty. Now, the truth is, as promising as this appointment is, there is still going to be a long difficult road ahead. This is by no means over.

Does it make sense for Kerry to start talking about bringing the troops home? It isn't an option I've been in favor of ever since we made the plunge, but perhaps some intimations towards that point might be Kerry's piper. It would certainly diffuse some of Nader's support. If the new Iraqi government truly begins to take shape, this issue might not seem too drastic.

The bottom line is, Bush really needs to go. And I'm not a Bush-hater. I think the man's unfaltering sense of purpose has its place in the American psyche. And Bush is very, very good at it. Unfortunately, his supporters and close aides, see so much opportunity to push their anti-America value agenda under the shield of Bush's appearance of strength and determination, that we're truly headed for a disaster. I'm not talking about terrorism, or another war (though both are extremely high in the list of probables), but about implosion of the American social-political state. We're losing the middle class, the consumers. We're losing earnings. Yes, the economy is rebounding at a great rate, but it will be short lived as consumers and the country itself, receive the credit card payment due notice. Says Cheney, "...deficits don't matter...", and an entire body of political minds are with him on that. And that's indicative of a whole slew of issues that this Administration embraces.

Please, let Bush lose public referendum, despite a victory in Iraq. America needs to be rescued from occupation, too.

Trajectory Of Cause

link

After murdering Nicholas Berg, there is a good chance that Al Qaeda will win this next battle, too.
Since September 11, America appears to be motivated solely by revenge. The problem is that this revenge in many cases is both racist and without a particular object. Americans want someone to pay for the suffering or murder of innocents. If the recipient of our revenge is also innocent, the usual justification one hears is along the lines of "Look what they did to us on September 11!" To many Americans, the attacks of September 11 weren't perpetrated by Al Qaeda, instead, they were perpetrated by Arabs or more specifically Muslims.

The calls to revenge are stirring again. And this time, they are reaching deeper and are about to create a very dangerous tip in national identity and awareness. Already we can hear the outrage by some Americans about how the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq do not compare to the brutality of Nick Berg's horrific murder. And they are beginning to lash out at those who feel shamed by the prison abuses and who feel that the American military owes the Iraqis contrition.

Nick Berg's murderers did not need any images of abuse by American MP's to justify their barbaric act. It was simply an excuse to inflame and taunt the American Occupation and American people. Mr. Berg's murderers are not innocent Iraqi citizens. They are terrorists. Not insurgents, not Iraqis but true terrorists.

The danger here is that the real victims will be innocent Iraqi citizens if American anger is permitted to take over the objectives of our occupation in Iraq.

America does owe the Iraqi citizens an apology. There is absolutely no comparison here. Nick Berg's beheading and the Abu Ghraib abuses are not related. Mr. Berg was murdered by lawless terrorists in a most cowardly display of brutality. Iraqis were humiliated and tortured by figures of authority in an American military-run prison. The authority-subject models are so disparate in these two situations that they defy comparison.

What is really telling here is the outrage being expressed by Iraqis and many Muslims throughout the world by this savage and brutal killing. Even Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah has denounced this act. While they may not agree with America's objectives, they have decried this execution as being aberrant to the laws of Islam. These are truer followers of Islam.

What Al Qaeda has been able to bank on is the fury with which we Americans react to any violence against us. They know by now that America overreacts, hurling back the ball of engagement with more enthusiasm and anger after each incident. Al Qaeda's grand objective is to keep feeding the perceived American-Arab rift and bring the great uprising closer and closer. Each time we act in revenge, we begin to alienate even more Arabs or Muslim people who have otherwise envied us, but wished us no harm.

If we try to compare the humiliation of the Iraqi citizens with the brutality and inhumanity of Al Qaeda, we are feeding the flames of Al Qaeda's objective. Al Qaeda does not speak for the citizens of Iraq. Not yet. Apologize for the abuses of Abu Ghraib and commit enough military manpower and planning to end the lawlessness in Iraq that has taken over ever since the U.S. created the power vacuum a little over a year ago. Only a comprehensive strategy can provide the stability needed to separate the citizens from the true enemies of all.

John Kerry is the right choice for Democrats. There is a considerable amount of hand-wringing by Democrats concerning a perception of John Kerry's campaign being lackluster. I think that this concern is misguided. This election cycle is unlike any other. There is an entirely new perspective on the country's political future, now.

What in the world has happened to Joe Lieberman? It's plain to see at the Rumsfeld hearing today that Senator Lieberman's Mr. Hyde is beginning to take over. Would Al Gore even recognize his ol' running mate anymore?

Mr. Lieberman, we are Americans, not terrorists. We respect personal liberty and dignity (usually). For you to compare our obligation of contrition for the abuse of prisoners in Abu Gihraib prison to that of the September 11 perpetrators and planners is to negate our stature in the global community. It is almost akin to saying that the United States adopts a much milder variation of Sharia law. Eye for an eye, apology for apology.

True war is hell, and all is fair, etc. But when fighting a war of the hearts and minds, you don't gleefully display a lack of concern for your objective. The U.S. Armed forces aren't part of a repressive regime. They're supposed to be liberators, right? The images and nuance of the abuse these Iraqi citizens endured under control of the American liberators is not only troubling because of the sexual and humiliating type of abuse, but because it illustrates the systemic lack of structure in the operation over there. To say that these were an aberrant few is to elevate naivete almost to the level of that our President possesses. Anyone who has studied the Stanford prison experiment understands that this dynamic between prisoners and guards isn't unusual.

Some of our right-wing fanatics have likened the scenes depicted in the images to secret society or sports hazing incidents. At first mention, one might be extremely offended by the comparison, viewing it as an excuse, but if you think a little more about it, it isn't that far off. After all, we've taken college-age young men and women, placed them in an unsupervised situation where they have absolute power over their subjects. These were obviously considered no more than pranks by the perpetrators. Given time and leeway, just what would you expect? Now I'm not saying that college-age men and women are prone to such behavior, but I do think that differences in maturity are still evident from that age to the next. There should have been more adult supervision.

What is deeply troubling here is that Senator Lieberman is towing the "war is hell" line, and allowing those in charge to do the next stanza of the Unaccountability Rag. What happened in Abu Gihraib happened because there was no supervision. There was no supervision because there is no comprehensive management plan. There is no management plan because that structure is lacking. Structure is lacking because the Bush Administration operates on emotion only. "This is a moral war, the world will be better off, Iraqis will welcome us with open arms", so to hell with planning for any other contingencies.

Senator Lieberman is a bright man, but he too has let emotion push out the intellect. It was positively imbecilic for him to mention that we never received an apology from the September 11 planners in context with the discussion of these abuses.

Maybe Senator Lieberman is seeking an opening in Rush's EIB network lineup for his retirement years.

As the Democratic Presidential nomination process nears its conclusion, I found to my surprise, feelings of wistfulness about Howard Dean that I'd not anticipated. I have been a strong supporter of John Kerry ever since he announced his intention to run. Like many others, I thought that he was the crown prince of Democratic contenders, a tailor-made opponent for the incumbent President. I did give Dean credit: for creating a movement and motivating people; and giving voice to the anger that many of us felt towards the war, the Patriot Act, and the apparent abandoning of middle class concerns by the ruling class. But I supported Kerry because I thought, like many, that Dean was not elect-able.

Surprisingly, as I have learned more about both John Kerry and Howard Dean, I have developed an intellectual leaning towards Howard Dean. While both men have ideals that appeal to non-conservatives and centrists, Dean seems to have more conviction, personal and political. Looking back on the mid-term elections, it was disappointing and unsettling to see the losses of so many Democratic seats -- especially since national politics were already spiraling in a disturbing direction. It made many of us wonder why the Democrats lacked a message if not just a messenger. If only someone had had the courage to speak out and deliver a message.

Someone did, but they weren't considered a voice for the Democrats at the time - Howard Dean. Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich were the bright beacons of dissent when Bush and Co. were dragging America into the murky fog of war. Howard Dean still has that message.

Now, gauging Kerry's politics by his voting record is very confusing at best. He appears neither consistent nor principled when compared with Howard Dean's political past. His votes seem more motivated by convenience. Dean is far less liberal than the media paints him, but has a freshness about him that contrasts with the Washington “insider” profile. I no longer think that he’s un-elect-able. Actually, to the contrary, perhaps now, more than ever, Howard Dean is the voice the Democrats need when facing the dangerous juggernaut of political inertia in November.

I’m getting very concerned about how polled Americans regard our country’s actions and relationship to the global community. I’m also extremely concerned about our country and its future security. I’m wondering if you’ve thought about this, too…

On Friday, I happened to stop the channel on the Fox News network briefly, to hear host John Gibson asking a new liberal talk radio host that if he opposed the war, would he prefer that Saddam Hussein were still in power. His guest replied that it was a wrong-spirited question. Gibson repeated the same question to provoke a response. At that point, I could stand it no longer and switched the television off. Is that going to be the new right-wing mantra, in response to the question about the need for war? “Would you prefer that Saddam Hussein remain in power?”

Well, I thought of a question for all of those who ask that. “In light of all we’ve discovered concerning the imminent danger from the failed [and toothless] regime in Iraq, are you pleased that not only over 500 of our best and brightest young generation have been taken from their wives, husbands, children and parents, but America has ushered in a new global political era of fear and resentment?”

Think about it. Five hundred (and counting) men and women, ten thousand civilians later, we have left a country in shambles, destabilized, and sparked a world filled with growing resentment of American principles and arrogance. And for what, exactly? Regime change? You see, I think many who opposed the war were surprised (and very pleased back in February of 2003) to see Saddam begin a new era of cooperation with the weapons inspectors prior to our invasion. Sure, he was initially hesitant and secretive, but he was already showing blatant signs of acquiescing. Progress was being made. But because our current administration had this invasion in their sights for their own misguided and very “un-American” principles, (we didn’t need Paul O’Neill to tell us that – many of us knew it from the very beginning) Saddam could not have avoided it in any way.

The big problem is that the administration set the tone for future dealings with our country and a dangerous precedent. If George Bush is elected President and remains in office for another four years, I’m afraid it’s going to look pretty bad for us, folks. He has created a Machiavellian machine in this current administration that does whatever it deems necessary, without any consideration whatsoever to the opinion of the rest of the civilized world. Instead of being a participant in the global political community, it reaches out slapping the hands of the entire world, like an aggressive bully. If we as Americans elect him into office for the next four years, we’ll be telling our enemies (and friends alike) that we like and approve of the maverick tactics taken by the Texas cowboy and a small group in the political boardroom. We’ll be telling the rest of the world, “Americans have had it. We’re no longer going to be the country for you to admire or aspire to emulate. We’re going to be the country to fear, so you’d better get in line, or you’re next.”

What’s really upsetting is not that 15% of us believe that what the President has done is proper and exactly what he should have done, whether Iraq was a sovereign nation or not. They’re the right-wing neo-conservatives. No, what’s really upsetting is that another 40% of us think to ourselves, “Yeah, okay. Whatever…that sounds good to me, I guess,” and support it because it’s easier than getting riled or involved. That creates a majority of Americans who aren’t truly thinking at all about our future. And that is incredibly upsetting!

Why should we be concerned? Here’s why: we’re dooming ourselves to having to elect new leaders that will carry on in the tradition of George Bush – changing the very definition of what it means to be America. Do you think that after four more years of Bush and Co. we’ll be able to elect someone in office who exhibits compassion and concern for our country and who desires the spirit of cooperation with the rest of the world? – Not very likely, at least for the foreseeable future. If George Bush continues to strong-arm the rest of the world for another four years on our behalf, the resulting backlash from Europe, Muslim countries, and Asia once he leaves office is going to be so severe, and with an economic cost that will not be supportable – especially after the fiscal mess this administration is creating and perpetuating, that we’ll have no choice but to continue to elect George Bushes and Dick Cheneys for posterity.

Lastly, do you honestly think having Bush in office for another term will have kept us safe from terrorism? His administration incites and angers people all over the world. All he’s really done is temporarily contain them by latching the lid on the pressure cooker. But he’s also plugged it in. Four more years of cooking that anger, we’re going to be dangerously vulnerable. But unlike Bush, the rest of us won’t have a Secret Service entourage or an underground tunneling network to protect us.

Folks, whether you like Bush or not, it’s time to take a serious look at the course this administration has set for us on all fronts: Global, Economic, Political, Environmental and our American way of life. There really isn’t all that much to cheer or feel reassured about. Sure, our economy appears to be rebounding right now, but at what long-term cost? A deficit that is going to drag down a future of prosperity for our children? Who knows? You may really enjoy seeing Liberals, Environmentalists, Unions, the Press and the rest of the world take a beating from this administration. And as much fun as that is, this you must never forget: all of those groups are desperate to see a livable long-term future awaiting all of us. Not so with our current leader. For our safety, for our children, and the security of our future as Americans, it's time to accept that he really must go.

We constantly see the same argument: "It is better to go after Saddam Hussein now instead of waiting for Iraq to attack us with nuclear weapons."

This argument is absolutely absurd. Saddam is a megalomaniac with delusions of holiness, but he isn't suicidal. Neither are North Korea, China, Russia and the other nuclear powers. Every one knows very well that launching a nuclear attack against the United States would trigger an extremely swift response that would devastate the aggressor. This war cannot be justified.

That Saddam would have the capability to launch a nuclear weapon at the United States much less develop one for such an attack are nothing more than fabrications by the administration to justify launching a "winnable" war, one that will provide Bush a hollow victory in light of his utter failure to win a war on terrorism. Pre-emptive strike? For crying out loud, this is the United States of America. We've been the one country that is supposed to set an ideal example for the rest of the world on how to be a beneficial participant to the human community. Are we now supposed to be the abusive parent?

Every action by this administration seems to be an attempt to orchestrate global anti-American sentiment (and terrorism) just so it has something to respond to. It helps sustain Bush's popularity ratings. Perhaps it is meant to illustrate Bush's ability to function in the global arena, thereby disproving the negative press prior to his presidential appointment. Funny thing is, the harder he tries, the more he fails.

The Trajectory of Cause, Cause and Effect, Action and Reaction, incremental and discreet steps towards entropy, each with its own system of equilibrium for the moment. Life happens, matter changes, creating millions of ripples in known and unknown continuums exending through an untold number of dimensions...

Distill each discreet step to find the truth of the moment.

Get over it?
We see it all the time: “Bush won. Get over it.” It is a cry that is thrown up to put dissenters in their place. To those that tell everyone to get over it, I say this: You’ve completely missed the point. It isn’t and wasn’t a competition for the sake of declaring a winner. It was a decision by concerned citizens all over the country on whom they wanted to lead this country for the coming term. More appropriate would be the cry: “We all lost, live with it.” The closeness of the election illustrates that neither candidate was a glowing choice in his own right. Many democrats were loath to elect Gore, so George Bush’s numbers were inflated by default. Whether Bush won or not is now completely irrelevant. He’s in the Executive office, and there is no political way to change that fact.

Bush supporters always like to point to his approval ratings. They’ll assault you by pointing out that Bush has an approval rating of over eighty per cent, and “so there!” Bush’s execution of the war against terrorism has a high approval, because frankly, we all feel a bit vulnerable and frightened these days. Does that translate to an 80% approval of George Bush as our nation’s President? Oops, looks like the point was missed again! Look at the polls and read the questions that are being asked. Do Bush’s policies on tax cuts and budget deficits meet with the same approval? Wait, don’t walk away, we’re not finished discussing this yet! What was the approval rating of his economic stimulus plan? What’s Bush’s approval rating on his involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

People say they are relieved to have a man with integrity in the White House for a change. There is no denying that George Bush is a man of personal integrity. But what about ethical integrity? A man who would further tip the economic balance to the wealthy while the poor begin to intensify their suffering is not a man of ethical integrity. A man who has up until recently ignored the increasing violence in the Middle East when we have established our responsibility as the sole neutral party with the interest and resources to further the efforts of peace, is not a man of ethical integrity. A man who would just as soon see Congressional oversight disappear despite Constitutional precedence is lacking a little political integrity, don’t you think? A man who would reduce the government coffers and increase the outlay – in some questionable projects, no less – to the detriment of the country’s financial well-being, is not a man of ethical integrity. Does our nation become stronger, safer and prosperous because of one man’s personal integrity? Gosh, if that’s all it takes, why hadn’t we thought of that sooner?

Okay, so Bush was elected to / appointed to / stole / deserved the Presidency. Whatever.

But, “Get over it!” ? Not on your or my life. Thank your lucky stars that there are those of us who will not get over it. You can sleep better, knowing we’re out there. We are the vigils of ethical integrity. We are the ones who stand in the way of blind ambition and cronyism. Because of us, the Bush Administration won’t succeed at destroying ecological balance, social institutions, and constitutional freedoms. They won’t succeed at making us the most despised country in the western world, and endangering American citizens because of global hatred. Because of us this country will continue to be a beacon of freedom, fairness and respected leadership.

Sincerely and not getting over it,