Friday, August 08, 2008

Lost my head, but now I'm back

As the Democrats took over in November of 2006, it seemed a little pointless to continue posting, since most of what I had to say concerned my opposition to Republican policies and antics.

I could rant about the "spineless" Democrats, but let's face it, even at their worst, they've been better than Republican rule in the House and Senate. And one does have to realize that the Democrats haven't really had a majority in the Senate... they can set the agenda, but that's as far as they can really take it.

Thank goodness for a Presidential election because we get to see the Republicans at it again.

See the entry for "Grand Old Party" here:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/374036_ltrs8.html

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

An embarassment of leadership

First, Newt Gingrich tells us that we're in World War III (thinking, of course, that framing the explosion of conflict in the Middle East between US forces and Iraqi insurgents, Sunnis and Shiites, and now Israel and Lebanon/Hizbollah will make it politically expedient for the GOP to remain in power) What Gingrich fails to realize is that most Americans are well aware of how dire the future would be if America had to depend upon the Bush Administration's leadership during such a global conflict.

I've never liked Newt Gingrich, but I always respected his intelligence -- until I realized that he's absolutely lost his marbles. I suppose a telling sign is that he is trying to be a 2008 Presidential candidate -- that should have tipped me off. But this notion that framing the war on terror, the occupation of Iraq, and the escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas and Israel and Hizbollah as World War III is not only a stretch (at least we hope so) but just plain silly in terms of a political strategy.

But let's take Newt at his word -- World War III is upon us. The once great nation of the United States of America was in days past, a beacon of freedom and high moral clarity. The United States was the most (certainly not truest) altruistic superpower in the world. Where is the United States today?

We don't have a leg to stand on. Not only do we have a credibility vacuum in the global scheme of things, but now we've got a leader who appears to be a buffoon to the entire rest of the world. We've got a man who has proudly proclaimed his intention of exporting Democracy to one of the most troubled areas, but by force and through some of the most breathtaking incompetence ever imagine. The Iraq democracy has become a sad joke to the rest of the world. The very notion of which is sufficient to publicly ridicule Bush -- the "man with vision" (as Russia's Putin did in front of a chuckling audience of world leaders and representatives). We've got a man who uses diplomatic presence to talk about roast pig, a man who (as leader of what used to be the world's most influential nation) is now saying that "they" need to talk to Syria and get Hizbollah to "stop this sh*t". Bush is from Texas and a plain speaking man. The fact that he used the word sh*t is entirely trivial and unimportant. More important is that he is abbrogating the traditional role of the U.S. President to broker (if not peace) a cessation of hostilities between Israel and her many enemies. Bush is clearly not up to the task, and as such, talks about an external "they" as having the means and diplomatic channels to effect such a change. Bush is content to play second fiddle to Kofi Annan of the United Nations.

Dr. Annan has always pursued diplomacy as is wont of his position. But for the first time in many, many years, we are seeing a second rate President of the United States, who not only doesn't appear to care too terribly much about what is happening in the world, but seems at all unable to do anything about it -- unable to function in his traditional role.

Bush is, was, always has been a PR man. In my opinion, that is what his presidency is all about. Real issues, reality, and the integration of American policy within the global community are simply beyond his abilities and competence. And sadly, for the United States, he's been given two terms. Well, five years later, it's plain to see to all but the most die-hard fans of Bush, that this Administration has actually created a climate of conflict and aggression in many parts of the world. The Cowboy Diplomacy, as it has been described, has been an utter and incontrovertible failure. The world is not safer -- not because of September 11, but because of the Bush Adminstration's ineffective and misguided response to September 11. The war on Terror isn't about defeating terrorists. It's about profiting by propping up the military-industrial-energy alliance to the detriment of America's influence abroad, and especially the the troops who are nothing more than necessary sacrifices in the pursuit of profit.

Bush's foreign policy ineptness is coming home to roost. America is not only far less influential than it has been in the last fifty years, it is also becoming a laughing stock because of the embarassing buffoon who is the current "leader of the free world." God help America. It's appearing more and more that America is absolutely devoid of leadership.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Democrats and the White Flag

There it is... the same old tired argument about how the Democrats want to cut and run. I'll tell you one thing. Even though, that isn't the Democrat position, if it were actually distilled down to it, cutting and running is probably a lot smarter than simply keeping America's youth in Iraq for target practice.

There's a lot of good being done by our troops in Iraq, but the amount of progress is, unfortunately, being negated day by day as the country slips further into anarchy and civil disintegration. Even our embassy in Iraq says that the situation is showing fewer signs of being able to develop into a secure and democratic Iraq. That's OUR embassy, folks -- our government.

The choice of the Democrats in Iraq is not a white flag. Sadly, that appears to be their choice in politics here in the states. For every report that the "left wing" of the democratic party is trying to hijack the party, I have to ask...if a vast majority of independents are opposed to the war, does that mean that all independents are therefore liberals? Why are the Democrats afraid of stating their position forcefully? With the exception of Jack Murtha, and I suppose John Kerry (who probably feels safe letting Murtha take the brunt of the invective) most Democrats are still too timid to call the Bush Administration on their FAILED POLICY. Why they want to let Karl Rove beat them into submission time and time again is beyond me. Perhaps Hillary, Maria Cantwell and Joe Lieberman are wiser than many Democrats give them credit. If the other Democrats won't stand up and tout their differences with the status quo (or the retarded "stay the course" strategy) then the only other option is to deflate Karl Rove's accusation that Democrats are weak on national security by making themselves appear to be Republicans. It shouldn't be that way.

Ask our servicemen and women. What do they think? Recently, increasing numbers of reports state that most Representatives who are in contact with our troops are reporting more and more that our troops see the objective failing in Iraq and want to get the hell out of there. It's true. Jack Murtha didn't come to his conclusion because he woke up one day and decided to oppose the Bush plan. Murtha had the goddamned CURIOSITY to learn what was going on, and decided that the current situation is insanity. Contrary to Rove, Bush, Cheney and yes, even Rumsfeld, Murtha has the credibility and the honest-to-goodness entitlement to state his position. He's seen war, he's seen the current command, he knows what he's talking about.

Until the Iraqis understand and see proof that America is leaving them to run and support their own country, will they take the reins of the country. If America's involvement is open-ended, what motivation do Iraqis have to take matters into their own hands?

Lastly, if independents and sensible moderate Democrats (AND cloth-coat Republicans) see this war as a now-unwinnable mistake that is costing us billions and the lives of our young Americans, that isn't the left wing of the Democratic party. That's mainstream America. We already know the Republicans won't listen. If the Democrats continue to shy away from their constituents and the will of the people, then they can all go to hell, knowing they've let the entire nation down. They are the only hope for this rubber stamp, do-nothing Congress. But it sure looks like they're going to blow it once again.

Democrats will wave the White Flag in Politics. Republicans may carry the day, but they've already practically sealed America's future ruin. There isn't a child alive today who won't feel the oppression of years of bad economic health, thanks to the corrupt, power-drunk, spend-happy Republicans of today.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

The true nature of House Republicans

After Jack Murtha urged the end to new deployments and a measured withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, the GOP decided to push their typical political tactics into overdrive. Rather than create a dialog about what's best for the troops, best for Iraq and best for America, they pushed Jack Murtha's objective to the extreme -- calling for the "immediate withdrawal" of troops from Iraq.

GOPers on here point to the overwhelming defeat of the bill as evidence that the Democrats won't even stand with their own, or that they don't even hold to their convictions.

Funny thing, only the GOP sheep see things that way. The rest of the country and the world saw a display of scared, nervous Republicans trying to push back against the tide of American frustration with the war effort, the mismanagement of the Bush Administration, and the head-in-the-sand politics of the GOP.

On political blogs is this display in its full regalia. Republicans deride Democrats for a lack of spine because they didn't vote to sink the ship when all that was called for was schedule for decommission. It was just another example of how Republicans can't engage in a conversation anymore. They must simply attack anyone who offers a different view of things.

Well, America was watching. We now have the final proof of the priorities of these Republicans -- they don't care about the troops, about what's best for America, only their own rhetoric and political self-worth. The world saw a shameful stunt, and only GOPers thought it was a brilliant move.

Yes, America was watching and while most didn't like what they saw, there was a sigh of relief. Here was a welcome sign that Republicans were going to begin their immediate withdrawal in November 2006, ushered out by the voting public.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

A GEICO Commercial, sort of...

FEMA Director Allbaugh: Mr. President, we had two levees break around New Orleans, sir.

President Bush: Which levees? What are you talking about?

Allbaugh: The ones that were in the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, you know, SELA. They needed additional funds for rebuilding and upgrading pumps, but we cancelled about $250 million of scheduled repairs because of funding for the Iraq war, Homeland Security and Federal Tax cuts.

President Bush: But we didn't cut the funding of SELA.

Allbaugh: Yes, we did, sir. You even demanded that the Army Corps of Engineers budget be cut by 20% for the Lake Ponchatrain project. The levees were never finished, sir.

President Bush: Well, don't worry, Joe. I've got good news!

Allbaugh: What's that, sir?

President Bush: I just shot in the mid 60's for 18 holes, yesterday!

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Karl Rove is actually in trouble!

I am disgusted by the antics of Karl Rove as the next guy, but honestly, I never thought that going after him was going to amount to much. Democrats scream for his ouster but they're too shrill themselves.

If they'd only sit back and wait for the press to do their job, we could make this whole political arena less acidic. Of course, having been beat up so many times by Mr. Rove, I can understand why they're out for blood. But they ought to just cool it and wait.

Karl Rove is in a world of trouble. Right wing blogs and the Hannitys and O'Reilly's are constantly going on and on about how Wilson is the real criminal and that Karl Rove didn't commit a crime...except he did. More than one, in fact. Karl Rove, in addition to learning that Valerie Plame's identification was sensitive information (it was indicated as such on a State Dept memo that he had access to BEFORE he ever talked with Matt Cooper or Robert Novak), Karl Rove gave false testimony to the FBI in 2003, claiming no involvement and denying that he divulged Valerie Plame's involvement in Joe Wilson's Niger trip. Such are the facts.

One way or another, the man has serious troubles. It will be interesting to see how quickly he's pardoned by Bush once a conviction is leveled.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

The seeds of hypocrisy are being sown

Pro-Life Chemicals...

Oh, I could be very partisan and talk about the hypocrisy surrounding this story:

Unborn babies soaked in chemicals

But the fact is, this information is just being released. The hypocrisy you ask?

The hypocrisy would be that those same individuals who talk about the unborn fetus as a human being with rights also defend the industries that disregard laws allowing pollutants into the environment that harm these same unborn human beings with rights.

But I'm stepping back. There isn't any hypocrisy. At least not yet. If these revelations about how the environment affects the unborn result in no changes towards the legislation of laws related to the EPA, then I would begin screaming hypocrisy. But it's too early to do that with any integrity.

Monday, June 13, 2005

The U.S. DID have a post-war plan.

There are now new allegations by British memos that accused the Americans of little or no post-war planning. I think we all know that is patently false. The U.S. did have a plan. From observation, it can be seen that the U.S. plan was this:

  • Depose Saddam Hussein from power;
  • Rebuild the oil production facilities;
  • Give Iraqis a true sense of freedom by allowing them to enter government buildings, museums and other civic structures freely, and take whatever they needed (or felt they needed);
  • Allow anti-Hussein and pro-Hussein forces to freely associate within Iraq's cities and regions;
  • End the war by publicly declaring military operations to be over, and "Mission Accomplished";
  • Round up un-armed Iraqis, subject them to humiliation and torture in one of Saddam's prisons so they wouldn't get too comfortable with the power vacuum;
  • Allow Iraq to become truly free ("Freedom is on the march");
  • Leave Iraq in a truly free anarchic state, and pull the troops out before expectations of a representative democracy can be established.

    Given these postwar plans, I'd say the Bush team are about 80% successful. Way to go, America!
  • Tuesday, May 03, 2005

    UK and US Had PreWar Plans

    The bottomless capacity for subterfuge by the Bush Administration would be amusing or laughable if it didn't result in the loss of lives, billions of dollars, and the United State's stature in the world community.

    We learn now that there were secret meetings between Downing Street and Bush's Cabinet in July of 2002 that fixed upon a determination to go after Saddam Hussein militarily.

    Here's the clinker: [...intelligence and facts were being fixed around policy].

    We have the Bush Administration acting exactly like Third World warlords, and (if I were a betting man) most of the public will probably be completely okay with that. Or at least, the media will fail to accurately portray the dishonest and political implications of how this Administration operated -- including timing the military action announcements to coincide with the midterm elections.

    This is truly shameful. Just like EVERYTHING ELSE embraced by this Administration.

    Monday, April 18, 2005

    Goodbye, Tom Morgan.

    I just found out that almost a month ago, an old friend, Tom Morgan of the Bay area band Transcender passed away in his home from carbon monoxide poisoning. I don't know if it was at his hand or if it was accidental.

    I had lost touch with Tom, but had some difficulty when trying to locate him a few times in the past years.

    After his passing, I was able to understand why. For someone so on top of the pulse of artistic creation, Tom was resistant to joining the online community. He earned the nickname "Analog Tom" because he was so late in getting an e-mail address. I would have guessed the Tom would have been one of the first.

    I was in a high school rock and roll band with Tom, Stefan, Jim and Joel called The Spies. Tom, Stefan and Joel brought most of the talent at first, and made us somewhat popular in the suburbs of Maryland where we all grew up.

    Tom went on to write his own music and create his own artistic persona through bands in Baltimore and in the San Francisco / Oakland area. He even played a couple of gigs with Alex Chilton of Boxtops fame.

    As the years went by, Tom would pop in and out of my life, and on the rare occasion that we were both back in Maryland, visiting our respective families, we'd get together. Stefan and Tom shared a bit of musical history at the University of Michigan as well.

    I had sort of come to regard him as my untapped connection into the world of the arts. Deep down I knew, as probably many did, that Tom was going to make a name for himself one way or another. I had always imagined hearing news of a new breakout band with Tom at the helm. Well, it sounds like it was almost to be. His band's "Self-Titled Debut Album" seemed to be earning a few accolades from the indie music world. But sadly, Tom won't pilot this rocket.

    He was a fantastic musician, songwriter, artist, photographer, and an all-around interesting fellow. If I had to describe my sense of Tom it would be that he was "un-anchored" by the constraints of conventionalism. I'm quite heartbroken to hear of his passing. So long, Tom. I'll miss you.

    Sunday, November 07, 2004

    Redefining Democrats

    It is very interesting how the media begins talking about the redefinition of Democrats when the Democrats aren't ready to commit to anything right now.

    Redefining Democrats? There are essentially two indictments of the left as consistently mentioned in the mainstream media (or MSM, the anachronym used often by conservatives): The Democrats let their left-leaning base hijack the Democratic party; and the Democrats need to reconnect with middle America using the Moral Values issues.

    Both are wrong. Completely wrong. The Democrats do not need to connect with middle America using the Moral Values issues. Democrats espouse moral values. How brilliantly the Rovian strategy plays out past the election! Karl Rove and the Republicans created a Moral Values dilemma by unfairly promoting a wedge issue. It is our achilles heel. We can't marginalize these people in the interest of appearing mainstream, and we can't embrace them in the interest of proving our inclusivity. It is a weakness for which we paid dearly. Do we abandon our base? Do we abandon the gay and lesbian issue?

    No. We don't. We remain the party we've always been, accepting of gays and lesbians.

    We just need to be smarter in how we address those attacks against our plank. It is very likely that Gavin Newsom in San Francisco created the mess that pushed Gay Marriage into the national consciousness in such a way as to create a backlash. That he shouldn't have allowed gays to marry isn't the point. He shouldn't have allowed gays to marry in an Election Year.

    Our other achilles heel is the abortion issue, though it is not as divisive an issue as the MSM believe. There are far more pro-choice conservatives than there are anti-choice liberals. Democrats have faith that the pro-choice conservatives will enjoin the fight to keep abortion legal and safe.

    The absolute truth is there aren't any moral issues that separate Democrats from the "heartland." The Republicans have been brilliant in the ways they create a false sense of that.

    Where Democrats have failed is in allowing Michael Moore and MoveOn.org to become the defacto voice of the liberal left within the party. The largest tool in their toolbelt is anger. Anger at Republicans and anger at George Bush. Anger is a motivating force, but it is a lousy messenger. It is a terrible messenger, because not only does it cloud the message, it DECIDES which message to broadcast.

    MoveOn.org became a very good anti-War mouthpiece. They were on top of events, statistics and the misinformation that was disseminated by the Bush Administration. They would have served their constituency if they had remained just that. The problem that MoveOn experienced is almost entirely borne of anger. They chose sarcasm and anger to bring forth their message rather than PERSUASION.

    As an example, MoveOn enlisted the help of their members in choosing video advertisements to air on national television. There were some very creative minds behind many of these videos. Some of the messages were very direct (and angry), while others were more subtle and thought-provoking. When the membership chose the videos to broadcast, they invariably selected the ones that appealed to the base - venting anger, frustration through cynicism and sarcasm. How very bold, how very compelling...to a liberal. When it came to choosing those videos that appealed to middle America or Bush supporters, most members opted for the emotional angry message. These are the very messages that seem to be at the heart of the loss of influence the Democrats are experiencing right now.

    There is a problem with liberal anger. Liberals have been the object of much derision, negativity and ridicule by the right, ever since George McGovern's failed bid for the presidency. McGovern allowed liberalism to ascend to the ranks of the demonized, and Jimmy Carter cemented it there. Liberals are right to be angry, but wrong to employ it in politics. Politics are as conniving and underhanded as ever. The power comes in the deception, not in the appeal. Until the liberal wing of the Democratic party realizes that you catch more flies with honey, they'll consistently remain outside of the political power circles, as angry and marginalized as ever.

    There will be a lot of soul-searching (to borrow a cliche from the MSM) by Democrats, and Michael Kinsley has exactly the right self-examination and apologies in mind when Democrats ponder what they should do.

    This election was not about Moral Values. It was not about Terrorism. This election was about a fairy tale complete with immoral ogres and evil nymphs who wait to pounce upon the unsuspecting God-fearing, true-American citizen of the heartland. It is a story so compelling, it has the ogres and the nymphs wondering how they became so evil. The storyteller? None other than that masterful weaver of yarns himself, Karl Rove.

    Monday, November 01, 2004

    Eve of Choice - You will listen to us, Mr. President

    Here it is, folks, the Eve of America's choosing.

    How could a race be any fairer?

    The American public split right down the middle. For two men, that situation is somewhat comforting. Neither man's worth has been abandoned by Americans at large.

    Both Bush and Kerry can say with certainty and pride, "Half of the American people chose me to be their leader."

    There's a lesson here as well. As we gaze upon what could very well be George Bush's last political hurrah, we can honestly cite many reasons for the mighty President who crafted our response to terrorism to suffer a defeat at the hands of his constituency.

    Rather than a long post here (I'm awfully tired), let's just say that while his strength was laudable, he never fulfilled his duty to the American people. George Bush was never accountable to the American people. His administration was shrouded in secrecy, and his decisions alone seemed to guide the country in a direction that was accepted through resignation by more than half the country, and bitterly criticized by the rest.

    To a man who, when asked about the divided country, claimed he just didn't see it, it was clear that he wasn't interested. You never listened to us, Mr. President.

    George Bush, you had one of history's most advantageous opportunities to be greatness, itself. Instead, you chose Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. You could have been the leader for the 21st century, but you chose divisiveness and greed.

    There was a time, after the spy plane incident with China, after the first tax cut, when I thought I could learn to accept your 2000 victory. It was not to be. I watched in disappointment as you gazed inward as Israelis and Palestinians ramped up their violence towards each other. I felt a twinge of alarm as the faith-based initiatives began to sprout some political power. And I watched with great dismay as the first tax cut gave way to new tax cuts, our projected surplus quickly sliding out of reach.

    I thought, as so many others did, that you were going to be a reasonable man. As the deficit continued to grow, and the economy slunkered, you were redeemed by your response to the terrorist attacks.

    Violence begets violence, many of us thought, but we stood silent as Afghanistan shook with dust and blood. We praised the swift victory, and the liberation of so many oppressed women and Afghan citizens. Then we got our taste of fundamental Islamic justice with the murder of Daniel Pearl. We appreciated the forcefulness you exhibited towards that violent and unforgiving aberration of peaceful religion.

    You should have stopped there, Mr. President. You should have concentrated on rebuilding America, strengthening her economy, fighting for those who can't fight themselves. Instead you chose a direction that only a few wanted. We all voiced our opposition, and you never listened. You committed America to a mission that was not in her best interest at the time. You never listened to us.

    As powerless as we were to stop you, you added insult to injury by squandering success in front of our noses. Knowledgeable critics and colleagues beseeched you to commit America's resources to ensure victory. You cast aside their concerns, just as you dismissed the pleas of millions of your countrymen, and the world population at large. Mr. President you squandered America's destiny and paid with the lives of our soldiers. You never listened to us.

    A leader who claims to know best for his followers, without accepting advice from them is not a leader, but a dictator. Unfair comparisons abound, but you, Mr. President and your Administration, have been as close to a dictatorship this country has ever seen.

    Democratic government is a devotional structure - by the people and for the people - the many, not the few.

    These lessons were never learned during your four years, Mr. President. Perhaps on this Election Eve, the lesson will come home.

    Are you listening now?

    Saturday, October 23, 2004

    The new Bush/Cheney campaign ad is Brilliant!

    Have you seen the new Bush-Cheney ad? It is absolutely brilliant!

    It clearly illustrates that if the Democrats and their environmental-friendly candidate reclaim the White House, the wolf will remain on the Endangered-Species list, resulting in more Timber Wolves bent on attacking humans!

    Scary!


    They do look like puppies, don't they?

    Tuesday, October 19, 2004

    War on Terror vs. The Iraq War

    I'm afraid we can't all agree that the Iraq war is part of the war on terror. To see and illustration of exactly how a lot of us feel, see yesterday's David Horsey cartoon in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It pretty much says it all. Here's the link:

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1080

    The War in Iraq is a distraction. It is taking more and more effort to keep things from slipping into a bloody civil war. True, there are terrorists there, but they're not the same terrorists that would attack the U.S. on our soil. U.S. Intelligence says the same. In fact, most experts agree that going into Iraq began was a noble mission, but miscalculations and insufficient post-war planning have completely sabotaged the objective and created a bigger danger to U.S. interests than existed before.

    The whole time our military is being engaged in Iraq, the rest of the world is becoming bolder and bolder, realizing that we're overextended and focused on Iraq.

    So to say the war in Iraq is part of the war on Terror, is correct only in that the Iraq war is greatly benefitting the wrong side in the War on Terror.

    If this is just liberal thinking, then we must have an abundance of liberals in the CIA, DIA, FBI and NSA. Who'd have guessed?

    Sunday, October 17, 2004

    Reprint: 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 put our young men and women's lives on the line.

    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. Bush and Co. claim that the Duelfer Report only fortifies their pre-war positions. (crickets chirping)

    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?

    Saturday, October 16, 2004

    A Hearty Endorsement - WHAT?

    A hearty endorsement of George W. Bush by the Bloomington Pantograph in Illinois has this great statement:

    Bush's methods and rationale can be -- and have been -- questioned. The intelligence information provided to Bush and Congress before the invasion of Iraq was clearly faulty. The Bush administration also underestimated the difficulty of stabilizing Iraq after the toppling of Saddam Hussein


    Oh, they underestimated? They ignored EVERYONE who tried to counsel them on reality.

    And in trying to justify their endorsement by raising economic issues, they talk about tax cuts:

    Plenty of Democrats have gone along with the so-called "Bush tax cuts." Kerry has said he would retain tax reductions for the "middle class" and working poor.

    Both candidates -- and Congress -- should pay more attention to spending reductions and paying down the national debt rather than pandering to certain sectors with tax cuts. Use the veto, if that's what it takes.

    In determining who would better control the tax-and-spend mentality of Washington, it is revealing to look at the ratings given by the National Taxpayers Union to lawmakers. These "taxpayers scores" are based on votes with an impact on federal taxes, spending, debt and regulation.

    In the last five years, 1999 through 2003, Kerry's scores have ranged from 7 percent to 18 percent. His running mate, John Edwards, wasn't much better, with scores of 12 percent to 22 percent over the same period. Having not served in Congress, Bush was not rated by NTU. However, during Vice President Dick Cheney's service as a Wyoming congressman, 1979-88, his ratings ranged from 50 percent to 70 percent.


    In other words, because Cheney has a better record concerning "tax and spend" sensibilities, even though his running mate has ballooned the federal budget deficit to record levels, Bush is clearly the better choice to reign in that mentality.
    It looks as though the Pantograph believes (because we're engaged in a war on terror) "borrow and spend" is a much wiser policy.

    I have been asking myself (and only myself, thus far) for an articulate argument from someone about why they would support another four years of Bush in the White House. I think I've found the perfect specimen. They appear to be articulate to some degree, but I should have asked for "intelligent" as well.

    I sure hope the Bloomington Pantograph serves its community with the most outstanding coverage of local news. Given this endorsement, I can't see any reason why they should keep publishing.

    Monday, October 11, 2004

    Republicans angry at Kerry's Job Number accusations

    Okay, so Kerry can't blame Bush directly for losing jobs.

    What Kerry says is that Bush is presiding over a period of four years where there are fewer jobs than when he started. So Kerry can't blame Bush directly for the loss of jobs. But he tries to blame him for not putting into place economic policies that Kerry believes would stimulate job creation. Now the job decline in and of itself may not seem like very big deal - the job market fluctuates like any other economic factor. What is most troubling about these job numbers is that the number of people entering the workplace has been steadily increasing. So, the number of jobs required to break even means that there still must be more jobs than there were four years ago. It hasn't happened.

    There are mitigating circumstances that we can all point to: the terrorist attacks, the trickle-down effect of corporate bankruptcies, the burst of an over-valued high-tech bubble. They all contribute to the loss of jobs.

    Bush used a stop-loss strategy of tax cuts to stimulate growth. For the most part they succeeded (how could they not?). But Bush also increased spending by an enormous amount. What's really perverse is that some of Bush's policies would fit into his idea of "Compassionate Conservativism", such as a large increase in funding for Education. But he hasn't brought in the money to pay for them. Instead, he decreases the amount of liquid funding available.

    Bush also decreased taxes during wartime. This is the first time that has ever been done for the duration of the war. So now we've got enormous bills, a war that needs funding, and even less money to pay for them.

    The biggest problem we're all facing is that now Bush's economic stimulus (the tax cuts) have played themselves out. The economy is growing at a good rate in some sectors, loping along in others, and stalled in even some others. But the good effects haven't trickled down to those sectors that create jobs. What should Bush have done? Well, for one thing, he could have been more discriminating in the tax cuts, by cutting payroll taxes instead of dividend taxes. This would have put more money directly into middle class pockets, and the pockets of their employers. By giving the middle class and their employers more money, the local economy stays healthy. This in turn, aids interstate commerce, and a trickle-sideways effect.

    Remember, it is the middle class that essentially drives the economy. There are many more arguments and examples for trickle-UP than trickle-down.

    Instead, Bush chose the corporate and investor class tax cuts. We all know what happens to an investor once they've been burned by a economic downturn or a stock market deevaluation: they hold tight to their money, until they see enough indicators that the economy is turing around. Only after they're assured that the climate is suitable for investing, do they begin to pour investment back into the economy. This presents a serious lag time between the infusion of money back into business, and the creation of jobs.

    The Bush tax cuts, policies and economic stimuli have all been targeted towards the investor class, and large billion dollar companies. True, the middle class did receive a tax cut and tax credits, but their effect on the local economies spikes once or twice a year and that's it. So, here in Washington, one can complain about how the state's regressive tax structure is responsible for the loss of Boeing jobs, but the trade-off is that we would need more taxation on the citizens to soften the tax structure for business. Economically speaking, that's a dead horse.

    Too much taxation on the middle class results in a debtor's economy with deflation and higher interest rates. Bush's tax cuts have been very good for Boeing, but have they resulted in job creation? A little here or there, perhaps, but there have been quite a few layoffs, too.

    The point is, if Bush had put the tax cuts to work in areas where they were most needed: the middle class and middle class employers, the economy might have stimulated more job growth by now.

    Okay all you economists, out there. Come and tell me how full of BS I am.

    P.S. One last point. I don't pretend that John Kerry has the right answer to this. So far, I'm not convinced. Where I see an advantage to Kerry is that if something ain't working, he'll change it. That doesn't seem to be the modus operandi of our current fearless leader.

    People want to talk about the amount of taxes that are taken out during Democratic Administrations, but I must remind them that two of the biggest tax increases came about during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. I would also point out that with the exception of Jimmy Carter, most Democratic presidents have presided over very strong economies.

    As Harry Truman was reported to have said, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat."

    Friday, October 08, 2004

    2nd Debate shows Bush taking a stand.

    George Bush was much better prepared this evening, and it showed. He was also more shrill towards the beginning of the debate. He tried to use the flip-flop accusation against John Kerry, but they were only glancing blows.

    John Kerry allowed himself to get nicked here and there because he can't seem to abandon the positive talk and defend himself for a moment. Is that good or bad? It shows that he definitely has a message he's trying to put forth.

    Bush for his part, was forceful, but also a little defensive. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the post-debate spin.

    I give the decision to Kerry 57% - 43%.

    Wednesday, October 06, 2004

    John Kerry's Global Test - BE TRUTHFUL

    Unfortunately, John Kerry doesn't realize that his message is still getting lost through his rhetorical style. We now have the media all abuzz about his term "Global Test" which, I'll admit, is an unfortunate term for the concept he was talking about during the debate.

    As one Kerry supporter, I feel it is necessary to talk about what he means by a "Global Test" because so many people are misinterpreting it. Even John Edwards couldn't bring himself to explain it in terms most could understand, so here it is.

    Here's what John Kerry said:

    "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."


    John Kerry is stating that any preemptive action has to be done for a LEGITIMATE reason. Legitimate in the eyes of Americans and legitimate in the eyes of the world. It does not mean that you ask the world's permission before you act. It simply means that you can't invade Iraq because of the oil reserves and tell the rest of the world and the American people that you're invading because of Weapons of Mass Destruction. If you give the world a reason for preemptive action (before or after the action itself), it had better be truthful, and above all, it must not be for less-than-honorable objectives and THAT'S John Kerry's global test. Nothing more, nothing less.

    It is not a flip-flop, nor is it a weakness. It is to do what has been traditionally done, and in a way that upholds the standards so many of us hold dear. There is no permission slip in this quote except from the American People. That's as it should be. And, YOU TELL THEM THE TRUTH.

    Monday, October 04, 2004

    Picking on someone your own size

    At last, Tom Friedman has come full circle, finally speaking sense again.

    Bush is turning all of his strategic energies towards defeating John Kerry, instead of re-examining a strategy in Iraq. His ideological base have been dictating the game plan for years now.

    The debate clearly illustrated the fact that Bush cannot develop a strategy on his own. Perhaps he should start reading newspapers?