Liberal Blog

Talk about a frivolous lawsuit...

2007-05-24T20:33:00.000-04:00

I guess the family is still a little upset...

Obama Bin Laden

2007-05-06T13:45:00.001-04:00

Cmon Paul, GTFO.

2007-04-30T19:57:00.000-04:00

Wolfowitz needs to resign. Irrespective of what he did wrong, there is obviously zero support for him as the World Bank leader. Instead of quietly disappearing he is whining like a 2 year old about how he is being persecuted. When Americans have the chance do get rid of these morons in 2008 I hope that they send a message that admitting you are wrong is not a fault, it is a quality.

Even more concerning than Wolfowitz's nepotism is the charge that he is spreading Bush's failed policies around the world. I'm always hopeful this adminstration's blundering is limited to Iraq and the US. Unfortunately, that is a naive perspective. Instead Wolfowitz is using the bank to sell Bush's faith based bullshit and debunk global warming.

Wolfowitz's punishment for orchestrating history's least successful war was the World Bank presidency. It's extraordinary how arrogant this guy was to take the position then go ahead and push the same failed policies.

New Orleans

2007-04-26T20:31:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine went to New Orleans to work on building houses for Habitat for Humanity. He said at this point of the 200,000 homes that were destroyed by Katrina only a few hundred had been rebuilt. He described seeing one habitable home every 5 blocks. It got us talking about what could be done to speed up the process. He had an interesting idea. Offer amnesty and citizenship to illegal residents in exchange for 3 years of labor in the New Orleans area.

The Choice Of A New Generation of Mourners

2007-04-18T08:06:00.000-04:00

Did anyone else notice that mourners at the Virginia Tech memorial ceremony were all holding candles in Pepsi cups? I wonder if Pepsi was the event sponsor...

The NRA - Protecting our right to die at the end of a gun

2007-04-16T21:55:00.000-04:00

Coincidentally the NRA is holding their annual meeting in St Louis, it ends tomorrow. I wonder how they announced the shooting deaths of 32 people today. Did they say "Get ready to protect your second amendment rights" or "Sadly some people were killed today with a gun our lobbying ensured could hold more bullets" or did they just ignore it? No idea, but I hope there can be some serious discourse on gun control following this tragedy. I was living in Australia when Martin Bryant killed 35 people in Tasmania. Gun laws were changed quickly and resulted in a massive reduction in the availability of firearms. Since then the number of gun related incidents in Australia has dropped. Get rid of the guns and you won't solve all the worlds problem, but if it stops just one slaughter it has to be worth it. Ask the parents of the dead kids at Virginia Tech what they think...

Imus

2007-04-13T07:18:00.000-04:00

One thing is certain. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the Gloria Aldred's of racism. They don't care who they are attacking as long as they get their sound bites in. Imus is an idiot and crossed a line with his comments. But tell me, has anyone listened to Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and for that matter half of the commentators on Fox? They make blatantly racist comments that don't end up in their firing or even their censure. Imus calls his wife "the green ho", is it astonishing that he'd use a similar term to describe a women's basketball team? Racism is always going to be an issue if the reaction is to censor anyone opening their mouth with an opinion. This culture is too fast to use punitive measures when dialog could actually lead to a better solution.

The upbeat White House

2007-04-11T21:43:00.000-04:00

We are winning the war in Iraq
Brownie was doing a great job
Now Tony Snow is beating incurable cancer.
You can't fault their optimism. Sad it doesn't align with reality...

A mochi poem

2007-04-09T01:39:00.000-04:00

A man walks,
His life: “the human experience”,
Years lost in a futile race,
Ambition clouded by faith,
Family lost to greed,
Leaves slow his ancient gate,
An unwilling participant in a certain experience,
The path ends.

On the Money Again

2007-04-08T19:35:00.000-04:00

Agreeing with Gingrich twice in a week. Amazing.

Gingrich is right

2007-03-31T17:09:00.000-04:00

Gingrich is right in saying that immersion English is a better solution than the current bilingual mess. Ballot papers should be in English, as should everything else in our lives. Bilingual education should be seen as a barrier to the advancement of Spanish speaking students not a way for them to get ahead. You can be a liberal and still understand that "soft" solutions to social issues aren't always the best way to advance society. Here's a tip when you do a search on Monster and the job says "excellent written and verbal comunication skills required", the company usually isn't look for great Spanish speakers...

MC Rove

2007-03-31T08:24:00.000-04:00

And how many US soldiers were fighting for their lives while Rove perfomed this bullshit?

Rove's Mini Me

2007-03-29T13:03:00.001-04:00

I wonder who Sampson wants to be when he grows up...

Now You Know

2007-03-28T06:47:00.000-04:00

This is the number 3 video on Pixau this morning. It's really an awesome piece that everyone should take the time to watch. Truly scary.

Tony Snow

2007-03-27T13:53:00.000-04:00

Although I don't agree with anything that comes out of his mouth I feel really bad for Tony Snow and his family. He has a really tough job in a really bad government and I'm sure the stress hasn't helped his situation. Laura Ingraham was on the Today show this morning empathizing with Elizabeth Edwards. Here's a women not far removed from Ann Coulter putting her political differences aside. I wonder whether these events will help with some of the political healing this country needs...

Bush Alone

2007-03-26T15:10:00.000-04:00

By Robert Novak - Washington Post

Two weeks earlier on Capitol Hill, there was a groundswell of Republican demands -- public and private -- that President Bush pardon the convicted Scooter Libby. Last week, as Alberto Gonzales came under withering Democratic fire, there were no public GOP declarations of support amid private predictions of the attorney general's demise.

Republican leaders in Congress (asking not to be quoted by name) early last week predicted Gonzales would fall because the Justice Department botched firing eight U.S. attorneys. By week's end, they stipulated that the president would not sack his longtime aide and that Gonzales would leave only on his own initiative. But there was still an ominous lack of congressional support for the attorney general.

"Gonzales never has developed a base of support for himself up here," a House Republican leader told me. But this is less a Gonzales problem than a Bush problem. With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.
Republicans in Congress do not trust their president to protect them. That alone is sufficient reason to withhold statements of support for Gonzales, when such a gesture could be quickly followed by his resignation under pressure. Rep. Adam Putnam, the highly regarded young chairman of the House Republican Conference, praised Donald Rumsfeld last November, only to find him sacked shortly thereafter.

But not many Republican lawmakers would speak up for Gonzales even if they were sure Bush would stick with him. He is the least popular Cabinet member on Capitol Hill, even more disliked than Rumsfeld had been. The word most often used by Republicans in describing the management of the Justice Department under Gonzales is "incompetent."

Attorneys general in recent years have ranged from skilled political operatives close to the president (most notably Bobby Kennedy under John F. Kennedy) to non-political lawyers detached from the president (such as Ed Levi under Gerald Ford). Gonzales is surely close to Bush, but nobody has accused him of being skilled at politics. He puzzled and alarmed conservatives with a January public speech in which he claimed that he would take over from the White House the selection of future federal nominees.

The saving grace that some Republicans find in the dispute over U.S. attorneys is that, at least temporarily, it blurs debate over an unpopular war. But the overriding feeling in the Republican cloakroom is that the Justice Department and the White House could not have been more inept in dealing with the president's unquestioned right to appoint -- and replace -- federal prosecutors.

The I-word (for incompetence) is used by Republicans in describing the Bush administration generally. Several of them I talked to described a trifecta of incompetence: the Walter Reed hospital scandal, the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act and the U.S. attorneys firing fiasco. "We always have claimed that we were the party of better management," one House leader told me. "How can we claim that anymore?"

The reconstruction of his government after Bush's re-election in 2004, though a year late, clearly improved the president's team. Yet the addition of extraordinary public servants Josh Bolten, Tony Snow and Rob Portman has not changed the image of incompetence.

A few Republicans blame incessant attack from the new Democratic majority in Congress for that image. Many more say today's problems by the administration derive from yesterday's mistakes, whose impact persists. The answer that is not entertained by the president's most severe GOP critics, even when not speaking for quotation, is that this is just the governing style of George W. Bush and never will change while he is in the Oval Office.

Regarding the Libby-Gonzales equation, unofficial word from the White House is not reassuring. One credible source says the president never -- not even on the way out of the Oval Office in January 2009 -- will pardon Libby. Another equally good source says the president never will ask Gonzales to resign. That exactly reverses the prevailing Republican opinion in Congress. Bush is alone.

Fat chance

2007-03-25T17:08:00.000-04:00

Hagel mentioning that Bush's impeachment is a possibility is a step in the right direction for a Republican senator. Unfortunately impeachment is not going to happen any time soon. The reality is that despite the continuing civil war in Iraq, the justice department scandal and growing public discontent, the wheels of congress turn slowly. On Meet the Press this morning Arlen Specter indicated that if the administration goes to court to fight subpoenas then it could be 2 years before a decision is reached on whether Rove et al should testify. By that time, Bush will be back to sipping Margarita's and doing lines of coke in Crawford.

Bush the comedian

2007-03-21T06:43:00.000-04:00

Bush in reference to Karl Rove testifying in front of congress:
"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants."

Rove is a lot of things, an honorable public servant he is not. Maybe it was meant to be a joke. Just like "Brownie you're doing a hell of a job", while thousands of people were dieing at his feet.

Is it surprising that the public doesn't trust these guys when they won't testify under oath or allow a transcript of the proceedings? Do you think maybe they have something to hide? The arrogance is starting to turn to blind stupidity.

Justice department scandal

2007-03-14T07:24:00.000-04:00

This whole thing reeks of Karl Rove. It makes a lot of sense to fire prosecutors not sympathetic with the Administrations goal of investigating Democratic law makers. Turning the whole corruption scandal wave back against the Democrats was a good political strategy, even if legally dubious. That's the Rove way.

The Coulterization of the American right

2007-03-13T12:44:00.000-04:00

Partial by Gary Kamiya (salon.com)

The John Edwards "faggot" episode "isn't really about Coulter at all. This is about a pact the American right made with the devil, a pact the devil is now coming to collect on. American conservatism sold its soul to the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world to gain power, and now that its ideology has been exposed as empty and its leadership incompetent and corrupt, free-floating hatred is the only thing it has to offer. The problem, for the GOP, is that this isn't a winning political strategy anymore -- but they're stuck with it. They're trapped. They need the bigoted and reactionary base they helped create, but the very fanaticism that made the True Believers such potent shock troops will prevent the Republicans from achieving Karl Rove's dream of long-term GOP domination."

PIXAU Updated

2007-03-12T01:03:00.000-04:00

Check out the video page. We have automated the indexing, worked on the search algorithm and changed the interface.

In Memoriam

2007-03-11T11:38:00.000-04:00

I'm not a big fan of George Stephanopoulos' This Week show on ABC. It is a substandard rip off of Meet the Press, and George is really nauseating. However, without fail his In Memoriam Lives of Note section gets me in tears each week as he reads off the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. I'm always struck by the number and age of the men a women dieing each week. Can anyone in the Administration or Congress watch this without feeling a deep sense of guilt? I hope not. After years of being told they should start a diplomatic dialog to end the war, the Administration is now reluctantly coming to the table. It's too little too late, if the President was a Democrat the White House would have already been over run with civilian militias demanding change.

A parallel universe...

2007-03-08T07:01:00.000-05:00

Partial from David Remnick (New Yorker)

"Saturday Night Live is erratic in middle age but rarely cruel. An exception came late last spring, when, at the stroke of eleven-thirty, an NBC announcer gravely told the American people to stand by for a “message from the President of the United States,” and Al Gore, surrounded by Oval Office knickknacks, came into focus to deliver what could best be described as an interim report from a parallel, and happier, galaxy. President Gore reviewed some of his actions and their unintended consequences:

In the last six years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine. But I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Nor was this the only problem. Although Social Security had been repaired, the cost had been high: the budget surplus was down to a perilously low eleven trillion dollars. The price of gas had dropped to nineteen cents a gallon, and the oil companies were hurting. (“I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.”) After winning the plaudits of a grateful world—and turning Afghanistan into a premier “spring-break destination”—Americans could no longer risk travelling abroad, for fear of “getting hugged.” Even the national pastime was in danger. 'But,' Gore added hopefully, 'I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, 'We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!'

The cruelty here was not to Gore, who probably requires no prompting to brood now and then about what might have been, but to the audience. It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate.

Libby

2007-03-06T12:16:00.000-05:00

The only unfortunate thing about Lewis "Scooter" Libby's guilty verdict is that we didn't get to see Cheney perjure himself in court. They would make great cell mates. Although Libby is probably tired of being Cheney's bitch...

Hmmm

2007-03-05T15:49:00.000-05:00

WSJ AND SALON.COM: "President Bush said he intends to nominate Michael Baroody, a lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers, to be chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission."

Crazy Coulter

2007-03-04T11:49:00.000-05:00

If there's one thing to be said for Ann Coulter, she isn't afraid to wear her bigotry on her sleeve. I'm not sure what's more disturbing; that she thinks it's OK to use the word "faggot" during a public speech or that it was followed by applause from the CPAC audience. Ideally Coulter and her followers would disavow the Republican party for becoming too "liberal" and establish a right wing party similar to Jean-Marie LePen's Front National in France. That way Republicans who agree with her could "come out" and freely air their intolerances.

Jack Bauer - Bush's ambassador for torture

2007-02-26T13:02:00.000-05:00

There is a very good article in the New Yorker that discusses the role shows like 24 have in shaping public attitudes to torture. 24 creator Joel Surnow is a conservative who calls Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh friends. The administration loves the show and so do many US troops. Apparently it's not uncommon for soldiers to watch the show in Iraq then interrogate suspected insurgents with some of the techniques Jack Bauer uses to illicit information from terrorists. Prior to 9/11 on average there were 4 acts of torture on prime-time television, now thanks to shows like 24 there are more than one hundred. It's no longer the terrorists doing the torture, more and more it's the good guys.

Fuzzy Math

2007-02-22T14:08:00.000-05:00

Something doesn't add up. The Bush administration plan is to send upwards of 21,000 more troops into Iraq, yet when Tony Blair says Britain is pulling out troops Cheney has his usual "I don't give a crap" attitude.

I think we can all agree that the ingredients in the "coalition" have always been principally USA, a cup or two of UK, and a few insignificant dashes of other countries for flavor. Nevertheless, the Bushies maintained that Iraq wasn't just our fight; the world had a stake in it, and "the willing" were gladly participating.

Let's do the dreary math. At the end of this year, if Bush and Cheney have their way, the United States troop level will be over 160,000 and all the rest of the "coalition" combined will amount to less than 6,500. That means, in very real terms, we will own over 96 percent of the war. 96% seems a lot more like conquest than multinational support.

It looks to me like we're the only clowns who are stilling "willing."

WTF Anderson Cooper???

2007-02-19T14:00:00.000-05:00

"Kenny Chesney discusses his brief marriage to actress Renee Zellweger and confronts gay rumors during a segment airing Sunday (Feb. 18) on 60 Minutes on CBS. In an interview with correspondent Anderson Cooper, Chesney denies the rumors by declaring, 'It's not true. Period. Maybe I should have come out and said, 'No, I'm not [gay],' but I didn't want to draw any more attention to it. ... I didn't have to prove to anybody that I wasn't. I didn't feel like I really did."

Wow, I really wouldn't have guessed after Cooper broke down reporting on hurricane Katrina that he would end up doing this kind of crap. Who is Kenny Chesney anyway...

Business as usual

2007-02-18T06:26:00.000-05:00

After the elections last November, one thing was clear: whether you agreed or disagreed with the administration's Iraq war policy it was the number 1 issue on voters' minds. Why did the American people hand both the house and the senate to Democrats? Because by a margin of 2:1 they think that Bush has the wrong idea about how to run Iraq. Sure the economy, health care, terrorism and immigration were on people's minds, but the main message was to the Democrats and it was "Do something about the mess in Iraq".

I'm not sure about you, but I hoped a Democratic win would give them the boost they needed to really get to work. Instead we get Pelosi's "First 100 hours", followed by business as usual, oh yeah, and the "non-binding Iraq war resolution". The voters demand a change in direction and instead we get a resolution telling Bush what he can read in the newspaper every morning (if he read news, which apparently he doesn't). This is an unpopular war that will never be won. Ever. It's impossible for a western army to forcibly mend the relationship between three historically hostile communities.

Sure I support the troops. I don't support their deployment in Iraq. I support bringing them home and letting them know that we should never have sent them their in the first place, and apologising. Does that mean soldiers were killed and wounded without good reason? Unfortunately, yes.

Democrats need to give up on non-binding resolutions and really take it to the President. They have the support of the American people. Finish this war and let's move on to managing the fall-out of further destabilizing an already volatile region.

PIXAU

2007-02-17T15:32:00.000-05:00

I haven't had the chance to comment lately as I have been working on a new site. Neolibs.com will now become the blog of pixau.com. Pixau.com is going to serve video content. Once we get it right, it will hopefully be primarily news content. At the moment we are getting content from YouTube, LiveLeak and Google Video.

When targeted advertising goes wrong

2007-01-25T10:43:00.000-05:00

Search for "foster kids" on google and this shows up:

Foster Kids
Great deals on Foster Kids
Shop on eBay and Save!
www.eBay.com

Five Years Later

2007-01-24T16:10:00.000-05:00

Taking a break

2007-01-14T21:41:00.000-05:00

I'll be back in February.

What's Bad About GM? The Cars.

2006-12-30T14:44:00.000-05:00

An editorial in today's Boston Globe by Robert Kuttner expresses extreme disappointment with General Motors and their production. I couldn't help but think about the role GM plays in America and worldwide, not just economically, but symbolically. With all this outsourcing these days and foreign automakers clearly surpassing American automakers in sales and quality of their automobiles, what is GM thinking? Why do they allow this to happen? I cannot disagree with Kuttner, that they are more concerned with marketing their shoddy product than quality of the product itself.

I would even go so far as to say that a company like GM, with all their potential, has an ethical obligation to deliver a better product. America has fallen in recent years, our standards sure have slipped in so many ways. Our politicians are not going to dig us out of this hole and- believe it or not- I think it is our businesses that have to. Of course, this has to start at the top with the top guys who seem to think more of themselves these days, and do just enough to get by. Or they are just incredibly ignorant. Either way, GM really comes to mind when thinking about how complacent and fat America has become.

Holiday Philosophy

2006-12-18T14:37:00.000-05:00

We fear what we do not understand. It is an automatic reaction that is part of our survival instinct. Every animal approaches new things with extreme caution. If it didn’t, those things might kill it. Fear of the unknown is natural, effective, and necessary.

As humans we are different from other animals by virtue of self reflection. Animals are not introspective. We humans have used our gift to create languages, tools, moral codes, etc., etc. The society that was born from those building blocks separates us even further from our primitive counterparts. We are not animals.

Yet we still fear the unknown. Since the dawn of human consciousness we have dealt with the unknown by, well, getting to know it; developing a definition that can be somewhat universally understood. We define our existence through shared languages, and we use those definitions to guide our lives. This distinctly human capacity to classify our surroundings and our actions down to the smallest detail is also natural, effective, and necessary. It is at the very core of our humanity.

The fact that humans love to label, organize, and departmentalize, then, is perfectly understandable. If a person has a certain point of view, she is lumped in with others that share that view. On the surface, this is not a nefarious practice. It helps us navigate the endless possibilities of our world. Without labels, the universe would be cripplingly overwhelming to those who question it; those who seek to understand even a small portion of it.

Unfortunately, labels routinely fail us. The very system we rely on to guide us often leads us astray because it cannot adequately represent the infinite colors of our world. In essence, we understand most things as if we were computers. Computers know only two things: on or off, yes or no, true or false, 0 or 1. When combining billions upon billions of true or false statements the illusion of color can be made, but it is still an illusion. It is not color. We humans are subject to that same problem. It is very hard to reconcile a mass murderer being an otherwise model citizen, for example. It is hard to imagine that an unborn child is ever better off not being born. It is hard to think of our enemies as humans, built from the same stuff we are, who might be our friends if circumstances were different.

We are now well into “the holiday season.” Which brings with it a different level of weight for each individual. I don’t think much of shopping. I do, however, enjoy celebrating family, friends, community, and life. And although I think we should be more civil and kind to one another every day of our lives, I feel it is especially important during “the holidays” when, ironically, many people feel at their absolute worst, and there is much about our world that can be improved.

I’ve been labeled many things, and I admit I am as guilty as anyone of subscribing to convenient pigeonholes. This holiday season I am endeavoring to empathize more with all my brothers and sisters, even if they don’t return the favor. Because despite our human need to think like computers, we also have the ability to challenge ourselves. We have the ability to rise above differences in religion, politics, race, and social standing. As far as I am concerned, all of that begins within ourselves.

A Few Republicans Do Have Brains

2006-12-18T14:00:00.000-05:00

[Powell] said the United States is losing in Iraq and should seek to turn the situation around by making plans to hand over responsibility to Iraqis by mid-2007.

Say the course! Stay the course!

Rangel is Right

2006-11-22T13:40:00.000-05:00

In this Post article Kurtz discusses Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft. Kurtz writes that the notion of implementing a draft so that lawmakers will withdrawal troops based on fears that their on families will be sent "has to be weighed against the broader impact on millions of young Americans whose lives, studies and fledgling careers would be disrupted by such a policy. Why resort to a draft when we can fill the military ranks with those who, for reasons ranging from financial incentives to patriotism, are willing to sign up on their own?"

Take a look at this DOD report that looks at trends in enlistment propensity. In 1996 almost 60% of recruits stated they joined for educational funding and job training while only 1 in 10 cited duty to country as their reason for joining. So we aren't filling military ranks with patriots we are filling them with people who can't afford education and believe the military is their only option for getting ahead.

If college education was made affordable to the people who join the military then I wonder whether recruitment would drop 50%. That aside, Rangel's draft proposal is a good idea. It's about time that young Americans be forced to stand behind our foreign policy. If they aren't prepared to support it then it needs to change, which I think is Rangel's point...

Just a thought...

2006-11-16T19:49:00.000-05:00

Watching Cops tonight it was all about the DEA taking down some dealers. In four hours, ten cops arrested three different black guys selling $280 of drugs. The police spent most of the time congratulating each other on their “success”. The dealers were all driving pieces of crap; one even had a baby seat in the back. It just wasn’t right. First, what a waste of tax payer money. I’m sure it cost a lot more to put the operation together than $300, on top of that society now has to shelter and feed these guys in jail. If it’s too hard to go after the drug lords and police need to justify their existence with small time arrests then it seems the system is a little broken.

Legalize drugs and make them a public health issue? Build social policy so that a guy doesn’t have to sell crack to buy his baby formula? All way too hard, especially when we could be doing some real good -- like banning gay marriage and making sure women can’t get abortions.

Not impressed

2006-11-14T20:56:00.000-05:00

Pelosi needs to get her act together. Why Murtha is claiming he is being persecuted by right-wing democrats is beyond me. Now is a time for the democrats to show what that can accomplish over the next two years, not a time to start in-fighting. Murtha should back off and let Hoyer run the house and Pelosi should get a brain. She needs moderates as the voice of the house not representatives that are going to advocate a total policy reversal. Iraq is a fuck-up but leaving it now is only going further destabilize a chaotic situation. I hope James Baker comes up with some good ideas, perhaps he can sell the war to Saudi Arabia.

Booyakasha

2006-11-09T16:41:00.000-05:00

I really won't have much to complain about until Lieberman starts supporting Republican Iraq policy and the Democrats get the blame for not moving things forward.

It really is nice to know that Americans are taking notice of how screwed up the GOP has become. It's also nice to be able to count on Bush's stupidity. I'm not sure that the Dems would have had the same result if Rumsfeld was booted last week.

Weird...

2006-11-08T00:14:00.000-05:00

I'm folowing the VA race and this is what CNN is reporting with 99% counted:
Webb: 1,141,052
Allen: 1,138,676

But the state of VA website has this with 99% reported:
Webb: 1,139,885
Allen: 1,141,753

I don't get it. Not that it matters they will be recounting anyway.

Ted Haggard saves John Kerry and...

2006-11-04T21:22:00.000-05:00

Democrats win the house and tie the senate. That's my prediction and the last thing I will say until after Tuesday.

Irrelevance and Fallacy: My Letter to Michelle Malkin

2006-11-01T18:43:00.000-05:00

Let me begin by saying John Kerry is the biggest opportunist ever and I wish he never ran for President.

Let me continue by saying that Michelle Malkin is really unintelligent in every capacity as a "political pundit" and a "writer"- I quote 'political pundit' and 'writer' because the fact is, and I say this with utmost honesty (and arrogance): the fact that she is loaded off the idiocies she spews tells me that someday I should have my face on the one dollar bill. I have never ever ever ever read anything she wrote, or heard an argument she posed that doesnt contain a fallacy. Never. I am not exaggerating. My favorite one ever was her talking to Bill OReilly about Liberals being so racist because she has been called a gook before in response to something she wrote. Yes, all liberals must be racist then.

I frequent townhall.com and like anywhere you go, you encounter some boneheads and some smart people. Today, I counted at least 8 articles about Kerry's stupid quote. Are you kidding me? Suffice it to say, the people I expected would beat this with a stick are the ones who did. The people who provide meaningful writings haven't. People may argue that this is as horrible as the Foley scandal- which I dont think needed to be covered for over a week and would not swing every election in the country in the Democrats favor (and it didn't)- but no one here committed a perverted act, and no one tried to (allegedly) cover it up. If there is any meaningful article about what Kerry did, here it is.

I read what the folks had to write about Kerry. Presidential candidate, yes, there is reason for it to be covered. But every "conservative" having to write their opinion about it? Don't they get together and say "Hey, how about one or two of us say our piece, and not everyone?" It was mostly a bunch of rambling nothings to me, but nothing that pissed me off. Then I came across Malkin's writing. Now, whenever I have read anything she writes, there are many, how do I say this, retarded arguments- she makes David Limbaugh intelligent. I mean, anything she ever does is like ipecac to me, but this was cholera.

In response to what I equate to a bad political campaign advertisement- her article is titled "The Democrats' military disdain"- I composed a lil letter to Ms. Malkin. I dont even know what she is arguing- she is all over the place and nothing she wrote makes any sense given what her ultimate argument is (see headline):

Wow, John Kerry said that? Because I haven't heard about it anywhere, thanks for writing about it. Our liberal media sure has made no mention of it.

You know, John Kerry is a jerk, but you and everyone else (it seems at least 7-8) of you on Townhall should focus on why we should vote for the Republican party as opposed to why we shouldnt vote for Democrats. I am not going to be voting for Democrats, but you wont find me voting for the Republicans who took their majority standing and completely abused it, failed in their mission and have pretty much handed it back to the Democrats. The Republicans have become as or even more reckless than the Democrats- I can prove it to you if you want me to.

Kerry's statement was stupid, but so are the people who write opinion columns on it as if you people are educating us. Why the hell does it matter what Kerry said? He is not up for election and people act like its going to swing everything back to the GOP. If it does, I'll write you an apology email.

We saw it and read it- yesterday. It was a ridiculous thing to say. Is there really that little to write about that a handful of people on the same website needed to give Kerry's statement any more attention? You could have written about something important instead of this. Then again, maybe you couldn't have... I mean, look at the illogical headline of your article. Kerry, Durbin and Murray did/said ridiculous things. So the Democrats all have disdain for the military? But of course Dick Cheney, Tom Ashcroft, Tom DeLay and George Bush supporting, and chickening out of Vietnam is acceptable I am sure. I mean based on that premise, using your logic, Republicans have disdain for the military too! So I guess both parties share that disdain. Man, we are screwed!

So, you covered a boring, stupid topic about some moron who I cannot wait to not vote for, that really wont change anything (really it wont) and your writing is one enormous fallacy. If you titled it "Kerry's military disdain" or "Some Democrats military disdain" I would have found it acceptable. But like anything I find that you write, it lacks any substance, logic or meaning. Way to go. Take a philosophy class on logic.

Hit me back,
Danny

I am such a jerk (this statement was not part of my email).

The Google

2006-10-27T12:08:00.000-04:00

Like the President I use the Google on the internets too...

"One of the things I've used on the Google is to pull up maps. It's very interesting to see that. I forgot the name of the program, but you get the satellite and you can - like, I kind of like to look at the ranch on Google, reminds me of where I want to be sometimes. Yeah, I do it some."

It's Official

2006-10-24T19:43:00.000-04:00

The GOP is the party for racists. I thought Deval Patrick had it bad in Massachusetts, this is an advertisement the RNC has put up against black candidate Harold Ford Jr in Tennessee.

Poll: Voting Still Important

2006-10-24T09:14:00.000-04:00

Just 19% of those surveyed say the United States is winning in Iraq, an all-time low. And 38% say their own member of Congress doesn't deserve re-election, an all-time high.

If only US citizens were this motivated last November. I won't be so naive as to suggest Democrats having control will make everything better, but it will be the right statement to make: "we don't like getting kicked around."

Voting Republican

2006-10-23T08:45:00.000-04:00

Reasons to vote Republican on November 7:
1) You are a white male
2) You earn more than $200,000 per year
3) You believe the Iraq war is "winnable"
4) You see abortion and infanticide as the same thing
5) You are a member of the NRA
6) You think that religion and politics do mix
7) You support lowering taxes in a time of war
8) You approve of pork barrel spending
9) You have a confederate flag bumper sticker
10) You feel sorry for Mark Foley

If you can associate yourself with three of these categories then go ahead and vote Republican.

Scary North Koreans

2006-10-17T20:08:00.000-04:00

CNN has had this gem up all day. I wonder what the reaction would be if Australia decided to become a nuclear power. I'm sure the UN would respond with a resounding, "Who cares?"

Polls

2006-10-15T19:06:00.000-04:00

Around election time it's always interesting to see what Rasmussen and Zogby are doing in terms of polling. I emailed Rasmussen a couple of weeks ago to see if they would do a poll correlating the 20% of Americans who strongly approve of Bush with World Wrestling Federation viewers. They never responded.

Anyway, both of these sites are interesting. Unless, like the President, you don't believe in polls, science, mathematics and all that other extreme left propaganda.

The heart of the Republican party

2006-10-14T15:57:00.000-04:00

It never ceases to amaze me that a political party can be so successful based purely on their ideology of fear and prejudice. Of course there are similar parties in other countries (Le Pen's Front National in France is a great example) but they don't have the mainstream popularity Republicans find in this country.

In Massachusetts there is an interesting governors race between a black man (Deval Patrick, Democrat) and a white woman (Kerry Healey, Republican). The Democrats have refused to run negative ads, in contrast the Republicans have being trying to paint Patrick as a soft on crime, cop-killer protector who is related to a convicted rapist. If there is anything small-minded people are fearful of it's a black man freeing all "the brothers" in a position of power. Apparently the campaign is working even though Patrick hasn't done anything any defense attorney wouldn't. The rapist he is related to is his brother-in-law who his sister pressed charges against 13 years ago, they have since reconciled.

It would be refreshing to see Republicans start debating the issues. They may never win another election...

Make no mistake

2006-10-09T18:59:00.000-04:00

Thank George W. Bush for the situation in North Korea. Failure to open bilateral talks with the nation is the reason they tested a weapon today. Remember Kerry during the Presidential debate?

"With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialogue of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here. And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn‘t talk at all to North Korea. While they didn‘t talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this president‘s watch. Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send."

Is there anything else left for them to screw up?

Then what?

2006-10-08T10:11:00.000-04:00

It looks like Republican's are going to have a tough time this November. Now that a page has come forward claiming to have sex with Foley its not going to get much better for Hastert et al.

So let's assume congress goes back to the Democrats, what then? Pulling out of Iraq and impeaching the President would be logical first steps. That will quell some of the anger but it's not going to address the larger issues. Republicans scream about Democrats not having an alternate plan, but it's for good reason. What exactly are they going to once they are in power? Will they halt spending, lower the deficit, ratify the Kyoto treaty, trash the PATRIOT act, build our world image, fund social security, rewrite No Child Left Behind, intervene in Darfur, repopulate New Orleans, toughen gun laws, stop funding Israel, talk to the axis of evil and send Rumsfeld to Guantanamo Bay? One can only hope...

Democrat: The Party of Conservatives

2006-10-03T09:39:00.000-04:00

Why do Republicans think supporting warrantless wire taps is not hypocritical to conservative ideals? Oh yea, there are no conservative Republicans left. They've all become fascists. Republicans uber alles!

Not a great week for the Republican party...

2006-10-01T17:23:00.000-04:00

I thought the Catholic church had a monopoly on pedophile scandals. I never realized being a congressional page is analogous to being an alter boy. I guess anywhere you find a bunch of old white men claiming the moral high ground you are bound to find a few NAMBLA members. Mark Foley should face criminal charges and the GOP leadership should face the consequences for trying to cover this up. Hastert should be the first to go.

Bush released a report he claimed would show the public that Iraq isn't such a bad place after all. Instead it backed up everything the New York Times reported. The war has made us all less safe. As we have been told "freedom isn't free" apparently it costs 400 billion and a new terrorist breeding ground.

Al Qaeda distributed a home video of the 9/11 terrorists having a great old time at Osama's retreat in Afghanistan. Another reminder that Iraq is a distraction we really can't afford.

Finally Bob Woodward released an insightful book that the White House described as "cotton candy". Cotton candy must be code for a fact-ladened book written by a non-biased investigative reporter. After all his last 2 books were supportive of the administration.

Assuming the Democrats have a spine November should be a cake-walk; but that is a big assumption...

Good versus evil

2006-09-22T23:11:00.000-04:00

The November elections are clearly a referendum on whether Americans want to walk further down a path of unretractable chaos or attempt to pull the country back to a point through which there can be a semblance of stability. This administration and Congress has devastated US interests both locally and internationally. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic effects of Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 coupled with tax cuts and massive over-spending have left this country weak and vulnerable.

Republicans are claiming they are keeping Americans safe. Instead tax payer dollars are being used to fund terrorist havens created by this government's incompetence. The current Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan funded by the production of opium is only possible because an army stretched thin is dying to protect a Shiite fundamentalist government in Iraq. While billions of dollars in aid were given to ensure Israel could stockpile cluster bombs to drop on Lebanon, a democratically elected government in Lebanon was given little money and was left to be devoured by an increasingly popular Hezbollah. Safe? I don't think so.

Now with America so focused on a war that can never be won, we are paralyzed to participate in conflicts that require the leadership of a country worthy of being called the "leader of the free world". In Darfur we are moving at a snails pace to intervene in a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions of people. The notion that Americans should "stay the course" and work towards winning the "War on Terror" would be funny if it wasn't costing so much in terms of lives and resources. When are people going to realize that Bush has as much chance of winning the War on Terror as a Miss America contestant has of achieving world peace? Winning hearts and minds will keep America safe, that's not something that will ever happen on a battlefield. In November Americans should cast their vote against war mongering politicians, irrespective of their party affiliation. They should vote for good versus evil.

What Would Iran Do?

2006-09-15T09:13:00.000-04:00

Interesting blog post from a friend.

Fun

2006-09-12T16:23:00.000-04:00

http://www.figarospeech.com/

I guess I'm a new type of fascist

2006-08-29T14:28:00.000-04:00

According to Rumsfeld anyone that doesn't agree with the administration's policies on Iraq is a fascist.

"Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from moral and intellectual confusion about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back."

What an asshole. At this point that they are still trying to make the case that Iraq is part of the war on terror shows just how stupid they think the general population is. It's amusing that he references the Nazi's. I have no doubt if Rumsfeld was living in Germany during WWII he would have been one of Hitler's most vocal supporters.

A Heartbeat Away From The Presidency

2006-08-26T12:57:00.000-04:00

This Op-Ed piece by Robert Kuttner in today's Boston Globe sums up my thoughts I have had about the presidency for a couple of years now. For those of you unfamiliar with Robert Kuttner, this link provides a little background on him. I do not always agree with what he has to say, but he is an extremely intelligent man either way and I could not agree any more with what he has offered in today's column.

It's Hard to Look Back with Blinders On

2006-08-18T10:22:00.000-04:00

"The very concept of destroying Hezbollah or dismantling it is based on a faulty belief that it is somehow external to the fiber of Lebanon. It is not." This sums up the folly of the West's entire Middle East strategy nicely, doesn't it?

As we all know, a dangerous precedent was set over fifty years ago with the Korean War. Our country turned its back on its beloved Constitution to wage a war in the name of "security." Since then we have committed countless troops and trillions of dollars to unconstitutional causes, including myriad conflicts in the Middle East.

When will this end? We must get back on the right path. Israel has a different constitution than we do, obviously, and I won't claim to know anything about it, but if this were a United States issue what we should have done was officially declare war on Lebanon because they are the legitimate government that is inextricably tied to a terrorist organization.

This is also what we should have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban was an official government, so we had every right to declare war, yet we didn't. We circumvented the Constitution in the name of expediency. Saddam was obviously the official ruler of Iraq, so we should have declared war against Iraq if our nation was seriously in danger (of course, we know now that it wasn't).

This issue is one where I am proudly conservative. We can't keep pushing the limits of how we declare war. There is a specific method expressly detailed in our Constitution that we haven't followed since WWII. Every "military action" since "the big one" has technically been unconstitutional. We've become so ambivalent towards wiping our butts with the Constitution that we are currently waging a war against an abstract idea! Seriously, this has gone waaaaaay to far.

The reason why groups like Hezbollah get strong footholds in the Middle East is because they offer very real services that common folks would otherwise go without. They bring a modicum of order to madness. If we truly want to compete with that we have to be more orderly and offer more hope than they do. How can we possibly expect ordinary people in the throws of chaos to embrace our ideals if we can't even live by them?

What about the soldiers?

2006-08-17T09:43:00.000-04:00

The latest "most dangerous jobs" list is out. There is one glaring omission... working as an American in Iraq. Statistically it is much more likely to lead to death than any of these professions at an annual rate of 300-500 per 100,000. The rate of injury after which a soldier cannot return to combat is 1200 to 2000 per 100,000. It is a tough job protecting freedom.

Source: www.cnn.com

Not the Golden Gate, terrorists pick the Mackinac

2006-08-14T08:50:00.000-04:00

After each new terror alert there are inevitably stories of over-zealous law enforcement agents arresting Muslim men for living their lives. Does the Tuscola county district attorney seriously think that men with a thousand cell phones and some photos of a bridge were going to commit a terrorist act? Where are the explosives? What's the motive? Do they hate freedom? Since buying cell phones and having photos isn't illegal what crime can they possibly be charged with? No offense to the people of Michigan but I've never heard of the Mackinac Bridge. I don't think it's going to be high on Al Qaeda's hit list...

The revenge of the terror alerts

2006-08-10T08:54:00.000-04:00

Is anyone else skeptical that 1 month prior to 9/11, and more importantly 3 months prior to an election, Michael Chertoff and Alberto Gonzalez are all over the television telling us to be afraid? I never realized the terror alert system is selective. It's red for flights from the UK, orange for flights in the US and yellow for everything else. I feel so much safer now. As long as terrorists strike with laptops filled with liquid explosives or cups of Dunkin Donuts coffee, we will all live happily ever after. Not sure what we will do once terrorists start swallowing explosives, ban passengers I guess. Meanwhile we still aren't doing enough to scan checked baggage.

Instead of fighting terrorists from nations like Saudi Arabia we are now seeing home-grown groups begin to form. They have little if any affiliation to Al Qaeda but they appear just as determined to kill as many people as possible. Perhaps the US and UK governments should analyze their foreign policies and determine whether they can take a more preventative not reactive approach to fighting terrorism. The British should know that repressive foreign policy can be problematic (the IRA).

Meanwhile where is that place we are fighting and defending freedom? Starts with an I, I think.

Unbelievable

2006-08-07T12:40:00.000-04:00

This reads like a feel good story until you get to:

"He carried the boy to the lifeguard stand but witnesses said on-duty lifeguards refused to give the boy CPR without a mouthpiece to protect themselves. That's when several beachgoers who were CPR-certified stepped forward."

White lifeguards and a black child. Makes you wonder...

Lebanon

2006-07-22T21:32:00.000-04:00

Israel is wading into murky waters with the continuing escalation of their attack against Lebanon. I have listened all week to comments about Israel's right to defend herself with no mention of Lebanon's sovereignty. I've also heard claims that if the Lebanese army defends it's borders it will prove that they support Hezbollah. Let's turn this around for a moment. If an anti-Canadian group in Chicago traveled to Toronto and kidnapped a handful of Canadian citizens before heading back to the US, would that give the Canadians the right to attack Chicago? Do you think the government would let US citizens die at the hands of the Canadian army? Probably not.

The US administration whole heartedly supports Israel's air strikes against Hezbollah. It diverts attention from the disaster in Iraq and gives them a chance to be seen as peace makers by the public at home. Condi's trip to the middle-east serves no purpose. In this administration she's in a job that is completely ineffectual. Rumsfeld is calling the shots and they continue to follow Wolfowitz's plan that would have theoretically resulted in the disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Israel is just helping things along.

The problem is with Wolfowitz'z plan is that it hasn't worked. If Syria and Iran come to Hezbollah's defense the entire Middle-East could erupt in war. Would the US fight alongside Israel? That would put us at odds with the rest of the world and considering our current commitments would leave the armed services stretched very thin. If the administration is smart they will broker a cease fire and stabilize Lebanon with a peace keeping force. But they aren't...

Philosophy

2006-07-19T11:29:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about an intrinsic hurdle in sociopolitical ideology that it seems can never be surmounted: religion's place in our lives. I am not a religious person. I do feel, however, that people should be free to worship whatever they want in any way they see fit, as long as it does not harm others. This is generally the basis of all the decisions I make in life; if what you do doesn't negatively affect anyone, I don't care.

Recently I have debated with a few devout Christians on matters such as gay marriage. It is frustrating for me because the Christian argument at some point always becomes cyclical. It always gets to "god says [blank]," which is fine if you're a Christian and you're referring to the Christian god. But speaking personally, I don't believe in god at all, so that [blank] has absolutely no authority for me. I imagine this is frustrating for anyone who is [fill in the religion that's not Christianity], or simply non-religious.

I believe in facts that can be proven through the scientific method. Facts don't give us all the answers to the universe by any means, but they give us a foundation with which to coexist (e.g. this desk is "hard" and "brown" and made of "wood"). I feel that humans MUST use facts, as limiting as they can be, to deal with each other in times of strife. If someone tells me I can't do [action] because of [non-factual reason], I'm going to get upset. This is the problem with all religious arguments in the end. "Because god says so" is not a factual argument.

The religious argument, at its core, requires the other side to convert. The factual argument, at its core, needs dogmatists to stretch their dogma. Neither is ever acceptable to the other side. This delta between fact and faith becomes palpable and often deadly in law and politics. It has been the source of countless wars and unimaginable acts throughout human history. It also affects myriad smaller arguments in American life, such as public display of the ten commandments, school prayer, gay rights, etc. How can this delta be crossed, or at least shrunk? It's obviously not easy. My view is already apparent. I feel we must use facts, despite their limitations, as the basis of our interactions. Most people won't argue with facts, they only argue that the facts should be ignored - but that is a different problem.

If every person on Earth were to willfully and sincerely convert to [fill in the religion], we would come closer to world peace than we've ever been. But compare the likelihood of that happening against all religions letting their dogma slide just a little from time to time, using fact and equity as the guiding principals. I like our chances better there.

I’ve heard the line of reasoning that people need a strict, black and white code of conduct by which to govern their lives; a moral compass that never waivers, so to speak. I don’t necessarily disagree with that assertion, but I give humankind more credit. I think people instinctively know what’s really right and wrong. We call these instincts “empathy” and “love” and “selflessness.” Instead of ending an argument at “god says [blank],” we could consider “what if I were in this situation?” Also, different religions have vastly different “moral compasses” and trying to get all those aligned brings us back to the start of the conundrum.

Again, I strongly believe that people have the right to practice any religion in any way they see fit if no harm is caused (and we do know when harm is caused). Faith is a necessary and powerful part of human existence, but it is frequently misapplied. The overwhelming power of faith can be harnessed away from dogma and moved toward empathy; it is possible. Some of us have already taken the first step.

Russia's big and so is China

2006-07-18T11:51:00.000-04:00

Bush talking to Chinese President Hu Jintao

Bush: "Gotta go home. Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home. How about you? Where are you going? Home?

Bush: "This is your neighborhood. It doesn't take you long to get home. How long does it take you to get home?"

....wow
Reply is inaudible.

Bush: "Eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country."

At this point, the president seems to bring someone else into the conversation.

Bush: "It takes him eight hours to fly home."

He turns his attention to a server.

Bush: "No, Diet Coke, Diet Coke."

He turns back to whomever he was talking with.

Bush: "It takes him eight hours to fly home. Eight hours. Russia's big and so is China."

You have got to hand it to the President, like most 5 year olds he knows that Russia and China are big countries.

Is that really the definition of irony?

2006-07-17T16:19:00.000-04:00

Apparently not expecting an open mike to pick up his remarks, Bush told Blair: "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."

Moron.

Tuvalu

2006-07-09T06:40:00.000-04:00

There are a group of low lying islands in the Pacific Ocean called Tuvalu that are disappearing due to higher sea levels as a result of global warming. Climate change will be a major issue during the 2008 presidential election. The US needs to ratify the Kyoto Protocal and start making some serious steps towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Neolibs.com

2006-07-02T11:52:00.000-04:00

Some stats I thought someone might find interesting:

Are we really that stupid?

2006-07-02T11:08:00.000-04:00

While the Middle-East falls apart our government is debating bills on indecency, homosexuality and abortion all while waging a war against the New York Times. Meanwhile in some real wars; Israel is on the verge of wiping out Palestine, Iraq has fallen even further into civil war and the Taliban has resurrected themselves in Afghanistan.

Surely this year the "values" voters are going to look beyond the fabricated bullshit and see the issues they really need to vote on. If this becomes yet another referendum on gay marriage I'm going to seriously contemplate moving to a progressive country like Turkmenistan.

"Truth Seen Too Late"

2006-06-28T14:23:00.000-04:00

Although it is now over two years old, this article is a good defense of Massachusetts' historic and heroic decision to allow gay marriage.

Bittersweet

2006-06-26T16:18:00.000-04:00

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has just received a gift of $30 billion, thanks to Mr. Buffett. This will make it by far the largest charity on Earth.

On the surface, that is pretty cool. The foundation has done some outstanding things in world health and with access to education. For those of you who don't know, however, there is a dark spot in the foundation's educational philanthropy. It's name: small schools.

Now, if you read the page from the last link you will see all kinds of superficial buzz words about how kids are being left behind, there's an achievement gap, etc. It's basically stuff everyone already knows. What you WON'T find are solid reasons for implementing small schools the way they have been implemented so far. In general, it's a good idea: take huge urban schools and transform them into small ones. Brilliant! Kids get more access to adults, teachers, and other mentors. Great thinking, Bill & Melinda. The problem is: these dollars are NOT spent on decreasing class size, as one might logically infer from the site. Hmm...

What the B&MG Foundation means by small schools is NOT more teachers, NOT more resources, NOT more educational equity. What they mean is more administration, more red tape, more internal strife. The small school initiative basically turns the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" on its head.

"But public schools are broken," one might say; and he or she would be right. But these grants are the equivalent of fixing a flat tire by driving the car off a cliff. My wife and Mochi's wife work in one of the guinea pig schools in Boston. Maybe one of our better-halfs will be kind enough to post a follow up that will surely be much more insightful than this post, but I want to get the conversation started.

Let's do some simple math. A school before the grant had 'X' amount of money. X is a fixed number that's not likely to increase any time soon. Each school has to do the best it can with 'X'. Now the Gates come along and give the school a finite amount of money to divide itself into several smaller ones. This money gets blown through rather quickly on enormous logistical challenges: how do the new schools share the cafeteria, the gym, the library; how are team sports and arts (if the school originally had them) divided, etc. This is not to mention the substantial increase in payroll from hiring several new, highly-paid (relative to teachers) headmasters and their assistants. Then, at the start of the first year as several smaller schools, you have the same amount of kids per class and the same level of resources. The only difference, besides the new sense of intra-school resentment (I mean, healthy competition), is that there are several more headmasters.

Another old adage: "too many chiefs and not enough Indians." That is exactly where this formula leads. You have more administrators, who don't interact with the students as regularly as teachers, fighting over the remaining scraps of capital like starved, wild hyenas. What was the purpose of this exercise again? Oh yea, to help children.

The generosity that the Gates and Buffett families have shown over the years is amazing. They are to be commended. But such incredible gifts must be given only after careful research has been conducted. Otherwise, all that money and promise go to waste.

Interesting Bumper Sticker

2006-06-11T14:31:00.000-04:00

I was in a parking lot this afternoon and saw a car with this bumper sticker:

Chai Vang 8
Wisconsin 0

Chai Vang is the Hmong who killed 6 people and wounded 2 hunting in Wisconsin. Then I looked online and found this gem:

Save a Hunter, Shoot a Mung.

Crazy.

You don't know the history of psychiatry

2006-06-09T22:27:00.000-04:00

Ann Coulter and Tom Cruise have something in common. They both made complete asses of themselves in front of Matt Lauer. 9/11 widows don't make the easiest target for a conservative writer particularly when you are mildly retarded. Coulter sounded extremely weak even when defending her position on Hannity and Colmes . But she's number 1 on Amazon.com's list. What a bitch...

Keillor on San Franciscophobia

2006-06-07T11:01:00.000-04:00

We're stuck with a terrible war and a worse president, and all the GOP can do is scream, "Pelosi and her Nancy boys are coming"? This is pathetic.

By Garrison Keillor

Jun. 07, 2006 People who live in mud huts should not throw mud, especially if it comes from their own roofs. As Scripture says, don't point to the speck in your neighbor's eye when you have a piece of kindling in your own.

I see by the papers that the Republicans want to make an issue of Nancy Pelosi in the congressional races this fall: Would you want a San Francisco woman to be Speaker of the House? Will the podium be repainted in lavender stripes with a disco ball overhead? Will she be borne into the chamber by male dancers with glistening torsos and wearing pink tutus? After all, in the unique worldview of old elephants, San Francisco is a code word for g-a-y, and after assembling a record of government lies, incompetence and disaster, the party in power hopes that the fear of g-a-y-s will pull it through in November.

Running against Nancy Pelosi, a woman who comes from a district where there are known gay persons, is a nice trick, but it does draw attention to the large shambling galoot who is speaker now, Tom DeLay's enabler for years, a man who, judging by his public mutterances, is about as smart as most high school wrestling coaches. For the past year, Dennis Hastert has been two heartbeats from the presidency. He is a man who seems content just to have a car and driver and three square meals a day. He has no apparent vision beyond the urge to hang onto power. He has succeeded in turning Congress into a branch of the executive branch. If Mr. Hastert becomes the poster boy for the Republican Party, this does not speak well for them as the Party of Ideas.

People who want to take a swing at San Francisco should think twice. Yes, the Irish coffee at Fisherman's Wharf is overpriced, and the bus tour of Haight-Ashbury is disappointing (where are the hippies?), but the Bay Area is the cradle of the computer and software industry, which continues to create jobs for our children. The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco, Texas. There may be a reason for this. Creative people thrive in a climate of openness and tolerance, since some great ideas start out sounding ridiculous. Creativity is a key to economic progress. Authoritarianism is stifling. I don't believe that Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard were gay, but what's important is: In San Francisco, it doesn't matter so much. When the cultural Sturmbannfuhrers try to marshal everyone into straight lines, it has consequences for the economic future of this country.

Meanwhile, the Current Occupant goes on impersonating a president. Somewhere in the quiet leafy recesses of the Bush family, somebody is thinking, "Wrong son. Should've tried the smart one." This one's eyes don't quite focus. Five years in office and he doesn't have a grip on it yet. You stand him up next to Tony Blair at a press conference and the comparison is not kind to Our Guy. Historians are starting to place him at or near the bottom of the list. And one of the basic assumptions of American culture is falling apart: the competence of Republicans.

You might not have always liked Republicans, but you could count on them to manage the bank. They might be lousy tippers, act snooty, talk through their noses, wear spats and splash mud on you as they race their Pierce-Arrows through the village, but you knew they could do the math. To see them produce a ninny and then follow him loyally into the swamp for five years is disconcerting, like seeing the Rolling Stones take up lite jazz. So here we are at an uneasy point in our history, mired in a costly war and getting nowhere, a supine Congress granting absolute power to a president who seems to get smaller and dimmer, and the best the Republicans can offer is San Franciscophobia? This is beyond pitiful. This is violently stupid.

It is painful to look at your father and realize the old man should not be allowed to manage his own money anymore. This is the discovery the country has made about the party in power. They are inept. The checkbook needs to be taken away. They will rant, they will screech, they will wave their canes at you and call you all sorts of names, but you have to do what you have to do.

Bush Says (Again):Constitution = Toilet Paper

2006-06-06T09:24:00.000-04:00

"As debate began Monday, analysts were hard put to see any other motive than political for putting the issue forward now."

It's clear to everyone with half a brain (including Christian Scientists) that this is a lame GOP strategy to motivate what's left of their conservative base to go out and vote for a Republican congressperson. What about the actual humans who are yet again marginalized by this idiotic spectacle? Hooray for partisan politics!

Hang on a minute

2006-05-24T13:53:00.000-04:00

Hastert and other Republican Senators are running to the defense of besieged Democrat William Jefferson? That doesn't sound right. Unless of course Republicans are concerned that the search of Jefferson's office is a prelude to what they can expect during future justice department investigations into corruption. After all a corrupt Democratic Senator would appear to be an anomaly compared to the rampant corruption in the Republican party.

Justice Department tries to Dismiss EFF’s Wiretapping Suit

2006-05-23T11:28:00.000-04:00

By: MIKE MILIARD, Boston Phoenix

As we learn more and more about the scope and extent of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program, we’re also learning — to the surprise of precisely no one — how difficult it will be to challenge such domestic espionage in court.

Even as USA Today reports that the NSA “has been secretly collecting the phone-call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth,” and even as a new federal lawsuit was filed in Manhattan last Friday seeking $50 billion in civil damages from Verizon, the government has moved to quash the wiretap debacle’s first lawsuit, filed five months ago.

Back in January, the digital-rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation brought a class-action suit against AT&T, accusing the telecom giant of offering the NSA unfettered access to key facilities and databases, and of continuing to assist the government in the surveillance of phone and Internet communications among millions of Americans.

Last Saturday, in the wee hours of the morning, lawyers from the Justice Department filed a motion in San Francisco federal court seeking to dismiss the suit, claiming that a trial would reveal state secrets and compromise national security. The motion was classified — it was kept secret even from EFF and AT&T, the suit’s two parties; only a heavily redacted version was made public — and was accompanied by declarations from Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Lieutenant General Keith Alexander, director of the NSA. “Any attempt to proceed in this case,” wrote Alexander, “will cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.”

“We’re not alleging anything in our lawsuit that isn’t all over the news already,” counters EFF media coordinator Rebecca Jeschke. (Cindy Cohn, the foundation’s legal director, was unavailable for comment.) “Saying that we’re causing grave danger to national security is simply not true. And our lawsuit going away isn’t going to change the national debate about this program. The facts are all out there, reported by a lot of different organizations who have all done a lot of independent research.”

Once upon a time, the executive branch rarely used its state-secrets privilege. (It was invoked 55 times between 1954 to 2001, according to the Washington Post, and 23 times in the four years since 9/11.) But if Saturday’s murky Justice Department gambit is any indication of the difficulties that legal challenges to NSA wiretapping will face, it also means groups like EFF will redouble their efforts.

“It definitely makes things more difficult when there’s a motion to dismiss that we can’t read,” notes Jeschke wryly. “But we’re certainly going to fight it as hard as we can and defend it vigorously because we think this is a case that needs to go forward. We believe it’s important in America that corporations follow the law. There’s very clear law that says you have the right to private communications — through your telephone and through your computer. These companies broke that law.”

US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker will hear its dismissal notion on June 21.

Giuliani

2006-05-21T20:40:00.000-04:00

I had the chance to watch Giuliani speak the Suffolk Law School commencement ceremony this afternoon. I'd be shocked if he doesn't run for President in 2008. The message is clear:
1) Strong leadership even in the face of unexpected tragedies.
2) Optimism and a belief in your vision.
3) Before you have a vision make sure you get some good advice from people who know what they are talking about.
4) Reagan Republican.
5) Doesn't believe God appoints Presidents.

His campaign advertisements are going to include images of the burning towers, it's central to his message. I counted 9 references to 9/11 in his speech. Including a graphic description of a man jumping from one of the towers for effect. It was well received by a conservative audience. Even in "liberal" Boston a Republican is always safe at a law school commencement.

Giuliani centered his speech on the 6 principles echoed by his consulting firm; integrity, optimism, courage, preparedness, communication and accountability.

He was trying to distance himself from Bush but I think some past quotes are going to come back to haunt him in 2008.

"We will see an end to global terrorism. I can see it. I believe it. I know it will happen. Look how quickly the Berlin Wall was torn down, the Iron Curtain ripped open and the Soviet Union disintegrated because of the power of the pent-up demand for freedom. When it catches hold there is nothing more powerful than freedom. Give it some hope, and it will overwhelm dictators, and even defeat terrorists. That is what we have done and must continue to do in Iraq. "

"Bush will make certain that we are combating terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York. Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense. He will not let them set our agenda. Under Bush, America will lead rather than follow."

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. Since 9/11 Bush has remained rock solid. It doesn't matter how he is demonized, and what the media does to ridicule, misinterpret, or defeat him. They ridiculed Churchill. They belittled Reagan. But like Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom. Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership. Bush has the courage of his convictions."

A sinking ship

2006-05-17T13:05:00.000-04:00

So Rove's big political strategy was to throw the President into an immigration debate with his own party. Seems pretty dumb to me. Democrats are conspicuously absent from this debate, while hard-line Republicans are making it clear that the Presidents policy won't fly. I'm just not sure what the Administration is trying to achieve. Is this a last grab at some kind of legacy beyond the misses the President has had with Bin Laden, Iraq, taxation, healthcare, education and social security? Or maybe they are just trying to distract us from this whole NSA spying on American people thing...

My nightmare

2006-05-11T19:10:00.000-04:00

So I haven't been blogging much. I have been stuck in this mess with 7-Eleven and my insurance company. Thankfully a local news station has taken up my cause. The government department that deals with gasoline verified my complaint. The gas station closed for a day to clean their tanks but I'm still out $1,200 at the moment. I've attached a photo of the gas/water mixture that the dealership took from my tank. Premium gasoline on the top, rusted water on the bottom.

Don't buy your gas from a 7-Eleven

2006-05-06T13:53:00.000-04:00

I filled my tank at a 7-Eleven yesterday for $3.09 cents a gallon. I traveled about 50 yards down the road and my car stopped. A tow truck took it to the dealer. After draining some of the tank they found not just premium gasoline but a 50/50 mixture of gasoline and water. Nice. My $40 tank of gas is going to cost me about $2,000 in repairs. I guess the moral of the story is don't buy gasoline from a convenience store.

Unsustainable Energy Policy

2006-05-02T20:11:00.000-04:00

Politicians can not handle the responsibility of creating a sustainable energy policy. Between Frist’s proposal for a $100 tax rebate and Menendez’s tax holiday, it’s pretty obvious that Senators aren’t serious about correcting a real problem facing the US economy. When it comes to oil, natural gas, electricity and water I’m in full agreement with Chavez and Morales. The natural resources should be controlled by the state for the good of the people. Citizens should not be held ransom by corporations bowing to greedy shareholders. There’s a large difference between healthy competition and the monopolization of the energy sector that is rampant in US. Unless the government can do something to break up the big 5 oil companies the trend will be towards further consolidation and even less of a chance of relief for Americans. Rebate and tax holidays hide an issue that the government should be openly addressing: a shortage of fuel grade ethanol, coupled with price manipulation by large oil companies and OPEC.

Colbert on Bush ...

2006-04-30T19:34:00.000-04:00

... at the White House Correspondents' Dinner

On Iraq: "I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."

On Cheney's hunting incident: "To sit here at the same table with my hero, George W. Bush...I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You now what, I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough...Somebody shoot me in the face."

On Bush's response to global warming: "[Talking to Jesse Jackson] is like boxing a glacier...Enjoy that metaphor, by the way, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is."

To Senator John McCain: "So wonderful to see you coming back into the Republican fold. I've actually got a summer house in South Carolina. Look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University."

On Bush's "steadfastness": "The greatest thing about this man is that he's steady, you know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday--no matter what happened Tuesday."

On the press response to the White House shake-up and the metaphor of "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic": "This administration is soaring, not sinking...If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg."

On Bush's approval rating: "Now I know there's some polls out there that say this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.'

Pay no attention to people who say the glass is half empty...Because 32 percent means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash."

On Bush's response to disasters: "I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers, and rubble, and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."

My Conservative Voice

2006-04-29T07:26:00.000-04:00

As someone who wasn't born in this country, who came here legally and followed the complex process required to live in America I'm angered by the attitude of illegal immigrants and the governments response. I'm now inclined to follow the opinion of hard-line Republicans even though initially I was more sympathetic. Two things have really annoyed me, the first is the protestors waving Mexican flags, the second is the Spanish version of the American anthem. This country gives people a sense entitlement that has extended beyond the citizenry to people who came here illegally and remained.

Amnesty is wrong, rounding up 11 million people and sending them back to their country sends the right message, irrespective of the cost. I was subjected to multiple interviews, background checks, finger printing, health examinations and ridiculously long lines. Why should anyone else who wants to live in this country not have to endure the same?

Bush the Decider

2006-04-18T13:43:00.000-04:00

"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."

Not much to say really...

Old Dog, Old Tricks

2006-04-13T13:24:00.000-04:00

What can we do to stop Iran from utilizing nuclear technology? More importantly, how do we justify stopping them? Obviously Iran is not the most stable, western-loving country on Earth, but what specific reasons do we have for telling them to "do as we say and not as we do?"

As various types of technology become more affordable and ubiquitous across the globe, we are going to realize serious repercussions from our cavalier attitude. Don't you think we'd have stronger legs to stand on with countries developing nuclear programs if we started to phase ours out? If the USA led by positive example, just once in the history of the world, I think humankind would be astonished at the good that would come of it.

A man of peace

2006-04-12T09:35:00.000-04:00

Updated: Republican Family Values x 3: 2 Repukes and 1 Dem Gone Wild!

2006-04-05T23:37:00.000-04:00

Homeland Security Official Arrested

"The deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was arrested Tuesday for using the Internet to seduce what he thought was a teenage girl... [he] had a sexually explicit conversation with what he believed was a 14-year-old girl whose profile he saw on the internet... The girl was an undercover Polk County Sheriff's Computer Crimes detective... Doyle sent the girl pornographic movie clips and had sexually explicit conversations via the Internet... [he] revealed his name, that he worked for the Homeland Security Department and offered his office and government issued cell phone numbers."

Republicans: the party of national security and traditional American values.

Wait! There's another one!

"...a senior Homeland Security Department law enforcement agent was busted last October for exposing himself to a girl in the food court of a mall... that law enforcement agent, Frank Figueroa, used to run Operation Predator."

They put him in charge of catching child molesters!

But wait! There's another one!

"Michael Burks: My father was a police officer. I was a police officer. I work for the Department of Homeland security. I understand you guys have a job to do and I’m not trying to tell anything else other than that. I swear to God, as God as my witness, I’m wearing a St. Michael’s medal right now, okay? I was not going to do anything with her."

I watched that one on television, on Nightline!

AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH! REPUKES! GEORGE BUSH AND HIS SICK REPUBLICAN PERVERTS WANT TO HAND OVER YOUR NATIONAL SECURITY TO CHILD MOLESTERS! WHERE WILL IT STOP!?

A Realistic Plan from a Real Leader

2006-04-03T15:46:00.000-04:00

If you're like me, you despise the job our president has done. On almost every conceivable leadership metric, I'd give him an F. During the last Democratic National Convention I had an opportunity to see Barack Obama speak. It was an outstanding speech that gave me a glimmer of hope for our political landscape.

Here's a transcript of remarks he made recently in Chicago. The words describe a realistic plan for reducing our fossil fuel dependency, as well as illustrate what an incompetent our shameful president is (of course, Obama doesn't subscribe to the type of name-calling I do). I hope Mr. Obama continues to grow in the right direction, and his influence is felt across the nation. It's true leaders like this that have a chance of turing our country around.

The Bush "Guest" Worker Program

2006-04-01T20:50:00.000-05:00

Time has released a poll that indicates Americans overwhelming favor a guest worker program. I wonder what the result had would have been if the question was "Do you favor a program that is equivalent to sanctioning slavery?" Not sure 80% of Americans would think that’s a great idea. So basically this program allows illegal immigrants to work without the rights afforded to other Americans then after a few years of paying taxes they are sent back to the third world countries they came from. Sounds awesome.

Moussaoui

2006-03-28T13:07:00.000-05:00

Does anyone else think Zacarias Moussaoui is full of shit? Of all his co-conspirators he identifies Richard Reid, the shoe bomber... Come on. The government is going after this guy so that they can convict someone for 9/11. The reality is that Moussaoui is trying to get some infamy by associating himself with a plot he had nothing to do with.

Yippee!

2006-03-24T10:51:00.000-05:00

"If Iraq was not a terrorist hub prior to the U.S. invasion, it has become one, U.S. military officials say, with fighters gaining experience and making contacts there, then moving to other places where they could start new terrorist cells."

Just a thought: what if the billions of dollars, human lives, and special training we're donating to Iraq, in the end, becomes their strongest weapon to use against us? What if we're simply providing them the means to better attack us? It's happened before... several times. More importantly, why didn't our leadership speak candidly about this very real possibility when they were cheerleading this unconstitutional war?

I guess I have nothing new to say. I'm just as sick to my stomach as ever. God help us all.

It's Often Said...

2006-03-18T02:37:00.000-05:00

...that "government is the problem."

You've read it in this blog and elsewhere. It's a popular catchphrase, uttered as a convenience when one can't be bothered for thoughtful analysis. It has become a slogan, scrawled on the banner waved by reactionaries who embrace such notions as, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Such absolutism is comforting because it presents no intellectual challenge. Everything is cut and dried. No room for compromise. A blanket of conviction. Love it or leave it.

But is "government the problem"? No, it is not.

With sympathies toward my friend who is an anarchist (anarchy is the true expression of disdain for government, and advocacy for its dismantling), government is only an expression of humans' natural inclination to form groups, and to form hierarchies within those groups. Such behavior is human nature, and my observation is that humans loathe to rise above it. Another aspect of human nature is people's predilection for remembering the bad things vividly, and forgetting about the good things; taking them for granted.

No, government is not the problem. Bad government is a problem. Good government is a solution.

Eliminate government, and you eliminate law enforcement and fire departments. You eliminate public libraries, and the world of good they do for children who hunger for knowledge. You eliminate the health codes that try to limit the amount of cockroaches in your salad at Applebees. You eliminate the agencies who struggle to provide you with clean air and water. You eliminate paved streets and highways. You eliminate border protection, what there is of it; in fact, you eliminate all national defense except for that "well-armed militia" you've heard so much about. You eliminate county agencies who provide vaccinations and nutritional programs. You eliminate WIC. You eliminate your right to a safe work environment, a 40 hour workweek and overtime pay (oops, I forgot, they already went after that one). You eliminate enforcement of child support against deadbeat absent parents (oops again - they're chopping off that limb, too).

Some say private industry or charities are the answer, but that is untrue. Industry acts only in self-interest, and is therefore incapable of adequately providing certain services for the public. Charities, for all their good intentions, have simply never been up to the task.

My point is, there is a plethora of good things that people take for granted, things that they like, things that they need, which government provides. It's easy to condemn the whole thing when one part of it is in need of repair. But that's like bulldozing your house because your roof leaks.

"Government is the problem"? Bad government is a problem. Good government is a solution. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not.

Told you so.

2006-03-17T02:10:00.000-05:00

House GOP Bans County Health Clinics From Providing Birth Control

Bush's Leviathan

2006-03-15T15:29:00.000-05:00

This is not mine, it was written by a friend who was inspired by reading Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. I find it interesting...

At a Republican Debate in Iowa on December 13, 1999, George W. Bush was asked, "Who is your favorite Political Philosopher?" He answered "Christ." While no surprise to Bush-haters, it turns out he lied. For purposes of this contention we will ignore the innumerable religious scholars, clergymen and lay people who have challenged this assertion. And, we will ignore the fact that Jesus was far from a political philosopher – his Kingdom was centered in neither in Crawford nor Washington, but in the hereafter. I am not going to look at whom Bush does not follow, but instead whom he, in fact, does.

To answer such questions we need to find a philosopher who would find the President's actions acceptable. Why would the Bush Administration attempt to destroy the careers and lives of people who have challenged their policies? Why would the Bush Administration refuse to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission? Why would the Bush Administration feel it did not have to answer questions that challenged the validity of the Iraq War? And, finally why would the Bush Administration spend Billions of Dollars fighting terrorism in Iraq when the perpetrators of 9/11 are in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? Unfortunately for the American People, careful review of these policies and actions show us that they are not some ragtag extemporaneous reactions to the issues of the day. Such a thing would be understandable if not forgivable.

These issues and actions seem perfectly clear if we remember our Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes had lived through the destruct and the destitution of the English Civil Wars (1642-1651). His Leviathan was a powerful state with unlimited power – the kind that might be able to halt a rebellion. Separations of Powers and questioning of the sovereign were absent and unthinkable. The sovereign, whether elected or monarchial, was all-powerful and unquestionable. His powers were absolute. The sovereign was neither questioned nor challenged since he had the health of the commonwealth in mind. If Hobbes were alive today he would see the President and his administration as the ultimate sovereign of the American Commonwealth – while congress would be a minor annoyance to merely placate the masses.

The Administration has shown the ability to strike back against those who merely use their Right of Free Speech. They put pressure on ABC to fire Bill Maher. (And Rumsfeld may have threatened his life.) Members of the Administration leaked the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, immediately after her husband, Joseph Wilson, exposed the Niger-uranium connection as a fraud. How could a democratically elected officer believe he had such powers that were so obvious contrary to the Constitution? Hobbes states in Chapter 18, "Because the major part hath by consenting voices declared a sovereign, he that dissented must now consent with the rest; that is, be contented to avow all the actions he shall do." Whether a major part did consent is still a question, yet, it is obvious "48 percent of the people voted for us and the Supreme Court confirmed it, so shut-up."

The Administration has a propensity for secrecy. The people do not get to see the transparency they would want. Nor, do they see the translucency found in other administrations. The Administration was the single biggest obstacle to the 9/11 Commission, refusing to tell what it knew of the attacks. The Administration made no bones about the fact that it could make an Energy Policy that would effect us until 2025, without telling anybody how it was determined in closed door meetings, with the shades pulled. All of this seems alien to those of us raised in a democracy with open decision-making, until you consider Hobbes again. In Chapter 17 he writes, "He that carryeth this person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides, his subject." It is as if the Bush and his staff say, "We make the decisions here and you don't have to know how or why."

How could the Administration think it could get away with inventing and lying about Iraq for the purposes of going to war? The Administration has continually challenged those who argued then or now that the war is wrong. These people have been called the lovers of Saddam or "revisionist historians." In what has been seen as hubris in the Administration, it has refused to open to public debate issues surrounding war and peace. People outside the administration have seen this as undemocratic and totally illogical. Yet if we look at Hobbes again it is completely logical. In Chapter 18 of Leviathan he says, it "is annexed to the sovereignty the right of making war and peace with other nations and Commonwealths; that is to say, of judging when it is for the public good, and how great forces are to be assembled, armed, and paid for that end, and to levy money upon the subjects to defray the expenses thereof."

Why have we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives, American and Iraqi, fighting terrorism in Iraq while those who committed the heinous actions of 9/11 are still in Afghanistan? We have been bombarded with orange alerts, unspecified "specific information," and instructions to purchase duct tape. Yet, we do not seem to be any closer to catching Osama bin Laden. We are told that we are safer, yet we still have to be afraid. The Administration appears to be playing both sides of the fence on this issue.

At first it seems odd that the President of the United States would tell us to continue to live in fear. But then – ah-ha. Hobbes is probably most famous for his reasoning behind the development and maintenance of the commonwealth. In Chapter 13 he declares, "The passions that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them." The Administration has attempted to maintain its sovereignty over the people by instilling this most basic fear. Therefore, it can peacefully spy on us, redistribute wealth to the rich and limit the populace's ability to unionize or even boycott products and industries. They tell us, "Allow us to give tax cuts to the rich or you're all gonna die!"

The Administration excuses itself in these actions with its own belief in sovereignty. George Bush has repeated declared that the government rest not in the people, nor in other parts of government, but in the office of the President. After the 2000 debacle – where the Lady of the Lake in the Supreme Court through him Excalibur – Bush called elections, "the peaceful transfer of authority." In 2005, he remodeled it "the peaceful transfer of power." To Bush power solely rests in his own office. He has shown disdain for Congress, ignoring and obstructing its investigation in all manner of things – 9/11, energy policy, etc. But, he has saved his greatest venom for the Courts, "activist judges." To Bush, Congress, the Courts and the people are meaningless. In Hobbesian style he declares, "je suis l'etat!" (but probably says, "gee, swiss le tate!")

Updated: A study in contrast: Clinton ran a more effective war against terrorism... and republicans did everything they could to sabotage it.

2006-03-09T01:22:00.000-05:00

I did not originally intend to offer this post in Liberal Thought, but it was so well-received on my blog that I decided to post it here, too, as a different "audience" frequents this forum.

Recently, I listened to one of those people who claim that Clinton did nothing to combat terrorism, while claiming, amazingly, that the Bush-Cheney neocon fiasco is actually a way of keeping us safe from terror. Sadly, this myth will probably persevere, because people are more inclined to remember Clinton's sex scandal than the fact that the Clinton-Gore administration ran a more effective war on terror than the Bush regime. I know all about the bad things that Clinton did. But like him or not, he was not only a far better president than Bush, he did a better job against terrorism, and not only that, but the republicans actively opposed the war on terror, especially when it stood between them and their god, the almighty dollar. Supporters of the neocon republicans should always be reminded that the republican party values the acquisition of wealth and power for a small power elite over the lives and welfare of the citizens of the United States.

Here are a couple of articles that I enjoyed on the subject; I like the way they spell things out. I pasted 'em whole on my blog, but to preserve valuable space here, I will just offer the links:

Clinton vs. Terror, Republicans vs. Clinton

Republicans Sabotaged Clinton's Anti-Terror Efforts

The bottom line is, the Clinton administration saw terrorism as a high-priority, national security issue, while the Bush administration sees terrorism as an opportunity to seize more wealth and power for themselves and their associates.

Hey, kids: added fun links!

Clinton's "Lies" vs. GOP Crimes

Eight Great Years

Never send a Bush to do a President's job

Shame On You, President Clinton!

Bush Borrowed More Than All Previous Presidents Combined

Angry Catholics

2006-03-08T07:47:00.000-05:00

The Da Vinci code movie seems to be making Catholics even angrier than when the book was released.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, also criticizes the movie's release.

"Obviously we're going to have a problem with it but all I'm asking for is a disclaimer" from director Ron Howard and the film's producers, he says. "I'm not asking for the moon. My feeling is this: If there's a disclaimer prominently displayed at the beginning of their movie, that this is a work of fiction, that will relieve my objections."

By the way, Donohue's organization just released a book criticizing the Da Vinci code. I'm sure the Catholic League isn't just interested in making some money out of this.

I have a proposition. Let's demand that a disclaimer be printed with each bible, indicating that it is a work of fiction. That would only be fair.