Monday, July 19, 2004

Questions about the Separation between Church and State are kicking into high gear...and well they should!

I certainly don't see a problem with churches trying to get their congregations registered to vote -- even when they do so to promote religious value voting. I don't like it, but I don't see a problem. What I do object to is any church or religious group trying to make one candidate out to be more, uh, not religious, let's say holy than the other. When they start attacking the religious values of one candidate or another, they begin to cross the ad hominem line.

When one party endorses the view that another party is less worthy or less, God forbid, holy (save for an Atheist party, perhaps), then they are over the line and slogging through no-man's land.

Well, one party isn't doing it to another party, but you're seeing a lot of sanctioned speech about John Kerry's catholicism, and how that relates to his idea of values. I think politics are getting dangerously close to this line. My biggest fear is that as they approach the line more and more, it will lose its significance. Religious underpinings will become commonplace in the political discourse.

Friday, July 09, 2004

The Photoshop Age

The mainstream media have absolutely no desire to be practicers of the craft any more. Eric Severeid introduced the idea, and Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS...CBS! killed it.
Why is there such a political divide in this country? Because the mainstream media does all they can do to spin the rotors of hyperbole, without elevating the discourse. It's the Gingriching of society, plain and simple.
The most damaging effect of all of this is that there are actually close to 50% of polled citizens who support one of the most un-American, secretive, Machievellian Executive Branches this country has ever seen. Their ideals are not American ideals. They feed upon fear. And mainstream media is wholly complicit in this ruse.
Don't believe me? Ask yourself, how could a nation sacrifice its most precious commodity over faulty intelligence? No, wait, I'm not blaming the administration. I am blaming the media. They had a job to do, and they did not do it. They never questioned a) the Executive Branch on its objectives, b) the Intelligence Community on its intelligence, c) the Pentagon on its war planning. For crying out loud, we all sat on our hands, knowing that the Pentagon refused to tell Congress how much they estimated this war would cost. They didn't know, and yet, we allowed them to invade Iraq and kill our young men and women.
American mainstream media has become nothing more than a propaganda machine. You can see how embedded the media is in the policies of George Bush. They keep quoting figures that illustrate Americans' support for the war. Americans did not support the war -- not until 'major combat operations' were concluded. On the day of invasion of Iraq, support for a largely unilateral war was almost evenly split - 47% to 51% for, 49 to 53% against.That is not overwhelmingly supportive of the war in Iraq.
In his State of the Union speech Bush claimed that 34 countries supported the war in Iraq. What the media should have followed that assertion with is that the leaders of 34 countries supported the war in Iraq. The vast majority of citizens in every single one of those 34 countries vehemently opposed the war.
Revisionist history is so rampant, that one has to wonder who'll write the history textbooks. In this day and age, at the flowering of the information age, we've hijacked objectivity. Facts aren't reported any longer. We now hear the ramblings of journalists everywhere talking about how they didn't question the Administration in the run-up to war. Hell, they're not questioning the Administration's assumptions now, any more than they did then.
A Photoshop artist can re-touch any photo to represent any reality. And it can be done so well that reality becomes (like quantum physics) entirely dependent upon the observer. Re-touch the photo, artificially change the experience of the observer, and you've altered one's sense of objective reality. It's that simple. A practice that is in abundant use with our mainstream media. They are the Photoshop artists with the facts and public opinion. In my book that's abuse of the information age. It's the Photoshop Age.
Someone or something needs to instigate a groundswell change in our media. Thankfully, the efforts of the FCC are being challenged as they strive to perpetuate the death of media responsibility. Media ownership is a very important issue, and looking at the new power of the media, vital to our national preservation.
Where are you Howard Beale? Thanks for the photo, Digby

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

WMD in IRAQ????

You see? This is what I'm talking about!

If the Bush Administration was led down the wrong path by the CIA, why did they allow the looting? If Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, the lack of Pentagon and Bush Administration leadership on the ground situation in Iraq might have been the match that lit the fuse of our destruction.

The Pentagon's incompetence put our country in very grave danger.

To me this blows away the protection afforded the Bush Administration by the upcoming criticism of the CIA's WMD intelligence. Regardless if the CIA fed Bush good or bad information, the fact that the Bush Administration "stood by" (and Rummy dismissed the looting as "natural after the fall of a repressive regime", or words to that effect) while all of this was going on is reason enough to cry "foul" on the execution of his "war on terror".

Furious? I sure am.

Nucular Weppins

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Nucular Weppins, Nucular Presdint
John Edwards is too inexperienced to be Presdint. So says George Bush. Bush was too stupid to be Presdint. So will say history, when all of this b---sh-t is over.

One would hope the media would latch on to the irony, the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black." But they won't. They're shacking up with this administration.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

Two Johns

link here

So John Kerry chose John Edwards. I think Edwards will be a great asset in getting John Kerry's message out, but he'll also be a slight liability for the Kerry ticket. John Edwards' litigation record really isn't one to be ashamed of. It's pretty admirable. But...John Edwards was a trial lawyer after all, and the GOP have made a lot of fuss about the Democrats' support of trial lawyers and non-support of Tort reform. This is going to be a little interesting. Hopefully John Edwards' record and fresh optimism will far outweigh the naive optimism and misleading attacks of our fearless and clueless leader.

Monday, July 05, 2004

The case for Michael Moore - more persuasive than WMD

Richard Reeves -- Hindsight????

"But Wolfowitz does have a point about press cowardice. Most of us were afraid of showing and shouting that the Bush administration was misleading Americans into a war of choice. Now we know. This week alone, three great journalists or gentlemen, scholars and patriots have conceded that they were misled or deliberately deceived in the crazed run up to unnecessary invasion."

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Blame where blame isn't due.

Give it a rest, will all of you? There is so much fiction behind the Sudanese connection, but it is their only defense of the absolute bungling of this "War on Terror" that our fearless leader likes to speak of. So Clinton turned his back on Mansoor Ijaz, an opportunist, putting "noble and altruistic" objectives far in front of any business objectives, and thereby gave up a chance to capture Usama Bin Laden. Republican conspiracy enthusiasts throw this up every chance they get.

A couple of things to say about that: The world was different then, (pre 9/11), and diplomacy was the standard. Don't blame Clinton for behaving like a leader of the free world. Secondly, post 9/11, George W. Bush had the entire world behind him, NATO BEGGING to assist us in against the Taliban in Afghanistan. (Of course, Cowboy George said, 'No thanks') Diplomacy took a back seat, and at that time, the rest of the world approved. What happened to Usama Bin Laden? With all of our resources and international support,where the f--- did he go?

Don't talk about Clinton's dereliction of duty. The greater dereliction is this foolish and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE war in Iraq, distracting us while UBL has been allowed to re-organize in the anarchic hills of Afghanistan.

Give me a damn break!

A Personal note

Godspeed, Frank.
Frank Carbaugh has given a grand fight. Having been a pugilist, football coach, and mentor to troubled kids, he knew where to summon the fight. He has fought against a very tough cancer, one without any mercy. He gave it his all. Alas, Frank's body has gone its own way, against the wishes of its temporary owner. Frank is being called home too soon.

May these last days be swift and free of care and pain. So much left undone, and yet, Love transcends any task list. May all of those whose lives you touched elevate you with their prayers and thoughts, so that you may gaze into the bright, loving face of the Creator.

We're all going to miss you terribly. With love, prayers and much sadness... so long, dear friend.

Monday, June 21, 2004

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.

Thursday, June 10, 2004

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.

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

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!

Saturday, May 29, 2004

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

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.

Sunday, May 09, 2004

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.

Friday, May 07, 2004

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.

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

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.

Saturday, January 17, 2004

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.

Monday, December 16, 2002

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.

Saturday, September 07, 2002

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.