Take a deep whiff. Cod? Trout? Whiting? Close, that's the smell of George W. Bush talking crap again.
Abramhoff? Wiretapping? War in Iraq going bad? Well isn't it great timing then that our President just happened to thwart a possible bombing in Los Angeles yesterday, detailing how the evil doers planned to use a mix of shoe bombs and a 747 to take down the largest skyscraper in LA.
Problem is, nobody is buying it. Of course the Democrats think something is up. Why wouldn't they? That's their job. But even members of GWB's own party think that his timing was pretty bad and very transparent. Several members of US counterterrorism departments don't think that this plot was ever "set in motion," and the Democratic mayor of LA, claimed that he was never warned about any such plan to harm his city.
So here we have a President who feels that the sky is falling, and he screams about terrorism plots that no one is aware of and the Republicans wonder why no one trusts them. This administration has used the public's benefit of the doubt years ago, and our patience is wearing thin.
Even Ray Charles could read the writing on the wall, and it spells I-M-P-E-A-C-H.
Check out the whole story here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/390261p-330959c.html
Friday, February 10, 2006
We have one tough mayor...
Man, I never knew how tough Mayor Mike Bloomberg was. Just before NY Gov. Pataki's state of the State, Mayor Mike took a tour through the Albany offices where he found a worker playing solitaire at his desk. Bloomberg immediately handed the worker his walking papers. On-the-spot.
"The workplace is not an appropriate place for games," Bloomberg told reporters Thursday when asked about firing a clerical worker in the city's lobbying office in Albany.
"I expect all city workers, including myself, to work hard."
God, I hope he never comes to my job...or do you think he count blogging as work?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261224/
"The workplace is not an appropriate place for games," Bloomberg told reporters Thursday when asked about firing a clerical worker in the city's lobbying office in Albany.
"I expect all city workers, including myself, to work hard."
God, I hope he never comes to my job...or do you think he count blogging as work?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261224/
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Enough is enough Part III: It's never enough...
Well it seems that Andrew Sullivan is taking the Islamictoon conspiracy seriously now, http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/, yet I still haven't seen too much in the regular press about it. He says:
"Maybe if they'd covered the murders of von Gogh and Fortuyn more aggressively they'd have a better idea of what's going on; and stared down this intimidation. The whole business reminds me of the NYT's coverage of the Nazis in the 1930s. They didn't get the threat then. They don't get it now. "
Sullivan touches on some of the problems inherent in this when he talks about the media not covering the Van Gogh murders, yet that's only the cusp of the situation. It's not enough to show how decitful and violent some Anti-Western Islamic fundamental groups are--I mean let's face it; the West views the entire Middle East as a giant Anti-Western Islamic Fundamenal organization--but what makes the Western media toothless is that it hasn't addressed any news of substance and gave the West after 9/11 a blank check to do anything in the name of patriotism. The didn't cover the Downing Memo, the Valerie Plane leak, or the lack of evidence for going to war in Iraq. They replaced real news with Bradgelina and tabloid journalism and in the process lost their teeth, and developed a severe guilt complex. Now, instead of exposing the issue, they feel the need to asuage Musilm intrests because they know some of the situation that the Islamic world finds themselves in stems from their inaction. The US government checked in our IOUs to have our little war and now that it has (both literally and figuratively) blown up in their faces they know they're treading on thin ice. What we have left, is a stubborn right unwilling to compromise, a flaccid left, who's too busy apologizing for the right's mistakes to stand up for anything, and a media between them that's too busy acting as a propoganda machine for each side to do any actual reporting.
I know I've said this till I'm blue in the face, but I'll say it again. The West has made many mistakes in our foreign relations policies, and many of the problems and issues we are facing today are the results of past errors. These dummy dictators we've propped up over there (Saudi Arabia anyone?) are now, much like another dictator we backed named Manuel Norieaga, refusing to play ball with us. But because of our "addiction to oil," we have to play their game, and the result are these backward conspiracy's and closed door deals that raise extremism and reduce moderation. Is this whole Islamictoon problem something created by a Anti-Western Islamic front? More than possibly it now seems a reality--but the only way to defuse the issue is for the press to do their jobs on both sides of the field. They must expose the story on the right and the left. The ethics of polarize and divide have gone on long enough, and they only way to correct the mistakes of the past is to act properly now.
"Maybe if they'd covered the murders of von Gogh and Fortuyn more aggressively they'd have a better idea of what's going on; and stared down this intimidation. The whole business reminds me of the NYT's coverage of the Nazis in the 1930s. They didn't get the threat then. They don't get it now. "
Sullivan touches on some of the problems inherent in this when he talks about the media not covering the Van Gogh murders, yet that's only the cusp of the situation. It's not enough to show how decitful and violent some Anti-Western Islamic fundamental groups are--I mean let's face it; the West views the entire Middle East as a giant Anti-Western Islamic Fundamenal organization--but what makes the Western media toothless is that it hasn't addressed any news of substance and gave the West after 9/11 a blank check to do anything in the name of patriotism. The didn't cover the Downing Memo, the Valerie Plane leak, or the lack of evidence for going to war in Iraq. They replaced real news with Bradgelina and tabloid journalism and in the process lost their teeth, and developed a severe guilt complex. Now, instead of exposing the issue, they feel the need to asuage Musilm intrests because they know some of the situation that the Islamic world finds themselves in stems from their inaction. The US government checked in our IOUs to have our little war and now that it has (both literally and figuratively) blown up in their faces they know they're treading on thin ice. What we have left, is a stubborn right unwilling to compromise, a flaccid left, who's too busy apologizing for the right's mistakes to stand up for anything, and a media between them that's too busy acting as a propoganda machine for each side to do any actual reporting.
I know I've said this till I'm blue in the face, but I'll say it again. The West has made many mistakes in our foreign relations policies, and many of the problems and issues we are facing today are the results of past errors. These dummy dictators we've propped up over there (Saudi Arabia anyone?) are now, much like another dictator we backed named Manuel Norieaga, refusing to play ball with us. But because of our "addiction to oil," we have to play their game, and the result are these backward conspiracy's and closed door deals that raise extremism and reduce moderation. Is this whole Islamictoon problem something created by a Anti-Western Islamic front? More than possibly it now seems a reality--but the only way to defuse the issue is for the press to do their jobs on both sides of the field. They must expose the story on the right and the left. The ethics of polarize and divide have gone on long enough, and they only way to correct the mistakes of the past is to act properly now.
Sheik tells Rice to "Shut up"...she replies "Neener, Neener, Pumpkin eater!"
In Lebanon yesterday there was a huge but peaceful protest of the Danish cartoons that was sponsored by Hezbollah. This came after Bush and Sec of State Rice has told the Arab world to remain calm in light of recent events:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11251690/
Who would have thought WWIII would be started by a cartoon.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Now the BBC is catching up...
Check out the article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4686536.stm. Looks as if the BBC is starting to investigate the charges that some of the Islamictoons might have been doctored by anti-western groups. At this rate the US will start reporting this in another month. Is it any wonder that more people are looking at blogs for their news?
Bipartisan criticism of Bush's deficit reduction plan...
Turns out I'm not the only one that thinks Bush's deficit reduction plan sucks. Seems that the only thing that brings Democrats and Republican's together more than Jack Abramhoff is a mutual hatred of this bill. Check out the full story here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11216962/
Previously I has only reported the cuts to student loans, but it turns out the full bill puts a huge burden on social programs including a $36 Billion cut over five years for Medicare, $5 Billion in farm subsidies, $4.9 Billion in Medicaid support for poor children's health care and $16.7 from other agencies to bail out the government's pension benefit plan.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11216962/
Previously I has only reported the cuts to student loans, but it turns out the full bill puts a huge burden on social programs including a $36 Billion cut over five years for Medicare, $5 Billion in farm subsidies, $4.9 Billion in Medicaid support for poor children's health care and $16.7 from other agencies to bail out the government's pension benefit plan.
Time's up for Katrina victims...again...
Tuesday is the deadline for roughly 5,000 displaced Katrina victims to vacate their hotel rooms which the government had been subsidizing. So far FEMA has paid $522 million for hotel rooms as part of their 6 billion dollar Katrina aid package.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11205909/
Should they be tossed out? Well this blogger will have to wait and see how many stories float onto the media stage, but I think if an extension is given maybe Exxon-Mobil might wanna chip in...I hear they have some extra money to spare.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11205909/
Should they be tossed out? Well this blogger will have to wait and see how many stories float onto the media stage, but I think if an extension is given maybe Exxon-Mobil might wanna chip in...I hear they have some extra money to spare.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Student Loan program gets cut, leading American students to say, "Duh?"
I had noticed Russert on Meet the Press this weekend grill the new House majority leader John Boehner (and what a grilling, check out the transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8987534/) During the interview Russert brought up the topic of cuts to the Federal Student loan program, and of course Boehner denied that it would bring about a significant change. Well this came out from the Chicago Sun-Times today: http://www.suntimes.com/output/savage/cst-fin-terry065.html.
Turns out the so called Deficit Reduction bill, intended to reduce the deficit $40 Billion over five years, will cut the Student Loan program by 30%, or 12.7 billion. The loan program by the way represents one half of 1% of the entire federal budget.
Not only that, but also sunk into the bill is a piece that will make it illegal for anyone currently in school to consolidate their loan, thus locking their interest rate.
So Bush comes out in his STOU, talking about enticing students to excel in new industries so that we may remain competitive in the world, and then they cut student loans. Good thing I didn't need a college degree to spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
I'll be following up on this story, since no one's going to mention it, and if they do, the bloody bill will do an Alito as it gets lost in the wiretapping hearings and then passed at midnight. The 9/11 commission was correct; America does have a serious intelligence problem.
Turns out the so called Deficit Reduction bill, intended to reduce the deficit $40 Billion over five years, will cut the Student Loan program by 30%, or 12.7 billion. The loan program by the way represents one half of 1% of the entire federal budget.
Not only that, but also sunk into the bill is a piece that will make it illegal for anyone currently in school to consolidate their loan, thus locking their interest rate.
So Bush comes out in his STOU, talking about enticing students to excel in new industries so that we may remain competitive in the world, and then they cut student loans. Good thing I didn't need a college degree to spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
I'll be following up on this story, since no one's going to mention it, and if they do, the bloody bill will do an Alito as it gets lost in the wiretapping hearings and then passed at midnight. The 9/11 commission was correct; America does have a serious intelligence problem.
More conspiracy out of the Arab world, Oliver Stone to purchase movie rights...
Here's another theory about the Islamictoon contraversy. This time the Saudis are the Smoking Men. They do bring up a good point about the timing of this scandal, but this seems to be just the right type of issue which will never be resolved:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748
Jesus swoons...
The Vatican chimed in with its thoughts about the Islamictoon scandal:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18049532^663,00.html
Their quote: "The Vatican deplored the violence, but said: "The right to freedom of thought and expression . . . cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers."
So freedom of speech can be used as long as it doesn't offend "the religious sentiment of believers?" What makes religious sentiment so important? If that is the case then why can't it be "political sentiment?" or "personal sentiment?" Of course one imagines that the rapidly falling membership of the Catholic church (no longer as Universal as it was 200 years ago), is bound by necessity to defend the uniqueness of the religious position, but, as always, the logic of their statement is unsound. Freedom of speech cannot be hampered by the concept of "offense," for doing that leads one down the slippery slope of eliminating the whole ideal. The whole idea of Freedom of speech is to confront someone with ideas that go against the grain, and to encourage thought and change. I'm sure there was much anti-slavery rhetoric that popped the bubble of the concept of the noble slaveowner, but it was through that rhetoric that the most inhuman institution was destroyed. I'm not saying this to push some atheist point of view, but when one runs across this type of statement, one must also look at the statement's source.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18049532^663,00.html
Their quote: "The Vatican deplored the violence, but said: "The right to freedom of thought and expression . . . cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers."
So freedom of speech can be used as long as it doesn't offend "the religious sentiment of believers?" What makes religious sentiment so important? If that is the case then why can't it be "political sentiment?" or "personal sentiment?" Of course one imagines that the rapidly falling membership of the Catholic church (no longer as Universal as it was 200 years ago), is bound by necessity to defend the uniqueness of the religious position, but, as always, the logic of their statement is unsound. Freedom of speech cannot be hampered by the concept of "offense," for doing that leads one down the slippery slope of eliminating the whole ideal. The whole idea of Freedom of speech is to confront someone with ideas that go against the grain, and to encourage thought and change. I'm sure there was much anti-slavery rhetoric that popped the bubble of the concept of the noble slaveowner, but it was through that rhetoric that the most inhuman institution was destroyed. I'm not saying this to push some atheist point of view, but when one runs across this type of statement, one must also look at the statement's source.
I dropped the ball on this one...
There was a Feb 2 posting (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/islamic-society-of-denmark-used-fake.html) that I really should have blogged sooner. According to Gateway Pundit many of the supposed Islamictoons were made up by certain Danish anti-western Islamic groups, which were circulated during a tour they made in the Middle East. If you study these "cartoons" you'll certainly see that they don't look like actual satire (no, not even Ted Rall have ever gone that far), including one that depicts a man dressed like Mohammad getting raped by a dog.
As the site says, no western news outlet has reviewed the charges, and I certainly can't say I've heard about any of these on any of my regular stations (including the Daily Show). If these charges are true then, at least to me, it sounds like a true case of libel. Freedom of speech does have it own limitations and should this be true then the groups responsible have used these doctored pics to incite violence, and should be indicted by an international tribunal immediately.
As the site says, no western news outlet has reviewed the charges, and I certainly can't say I've heard about any of these on any of my regular stations (including the Daily Show). If these charges are true then, at least to me, it sounds like a true case of libel. Freedom of speech does have it own limitations and should this be true then the groups responsible have used these doctored pics to incite violence, and should be indicted by an international tribunal immediately.
Gun shots ruin Busta video...
This picture (actually taken while Busta was running for his life) was taken yesterday as gunfire rang out during a music video shoot in Brooklyn, NY, killing Busta's bodyguard and sending a 500 person crowd scurrying for their lives.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11199978/
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I just don't get violence and hip-hop. These guys aren't gangsters, they're musicians and poets. Poets. Did you ever hear about beef between Blake and Keats? Langston Hughes and Walt Whitman lickin shots at each other? Or what about the Beatles and The Beach Boys getting into a coast to coast feud? No you didn't, because they, like any real poets or musicians, were too busy having sex with groupies and getting high. Every time I hear about this kinda stuff I wanna shout "my people, my people!" We take one step forward and two steps back. Sigh...
Then again maybe I'm rushing to judgment. After all Busta, among hip-hop artists, is a pretty pacisfist sort. Maybe it didn't have any thing to do with hip-hop at all. With 500 people in a crowd, any psycho with a gun could have gone off their nut and decided to shoot away. My guess though...find out Tipper Gore's alibi. She's had it in for hip-hop for years.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
A lil speech relevant to our times...
I was at home and happened to tune into "The American President" starring Mr. Catherine Zeta-Jones. Anyway, it was at the end and he gives this little speech, which in light of the current Islamictoon issue, much be relevant to our time. Enjoy:
"For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being President of this country was, to a certain extent, about character. And although I've not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character.
For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago.
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free. (Italics mine).
I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it!
We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore.
Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, represent the interests of public school teachers, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, 'cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.
I've loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer. And I lost the other 'cause I was so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job. Well that ends right now.
Tomorrow morning the White House is sending a Bill to Congress for it's consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a twenty percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and hand guns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns.
We've got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up.
My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I AM the President."
Now where are those kinda Democrats?
"For the last couple of months, Senator Rumson has suggested that being President of this country was, to a certain extent, about character. And although I've not been willing to engage in his attacks on me, I've been here three years and three days, and I can tell you without hesitation: Being President of this country is entirely about character.
For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter than I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago.
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free. (Italics mine).
I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it!
We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore.
Sydney Ellen Wade has done nothing to you, Bob. She has done nothing but put herself through school, represent the interests of public school teachers, and lobby for the safety of our natural resources. You want a character debate, Bob? You better stick with me, 'cause Sydney Ellen Wade is way out of your league.
I've loved two women in my life. I lost one to cancer. And I lost the other 'cause I was so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job. Well that ends right now.
Tomorrow morning the White House is sending a Bill to Congress for it's consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a twenty percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out and writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and hand guns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns.
We've got serious problems, and we need serious people. And if you want to talk about character, Bob, you'd better come at me with more than a burning flag and a membership card. If you want to talk about character and American values, fine. Just tell me where and when, and I'll show up. This a time for serious people, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up.
My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I AM the President."
Now where are those kinda Democrats?
And you thought only the liberals did it...
In a speech at the National Press club Thursday, my favorite Rummy had this to say about the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez:
"He's a person who was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally and then consolidated power, and now is of course working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."
Got that folks? Just a slightly Pistol Pete, behind the back bounce pass indicating a link between Hitler and Chavez. Pretty smooth Rummy, pretty smooth.
Tossing the name Hitler out there has become the quickest and simplest method to demonize anyone you want. Nowadays anyone who is anyone has thrown the Hitler comparison at Bush. Hell I routinely call my girlfriend "lil Hitler," when she forces me to eat fruit, (I'm not very health conscious). So I'm not about to tell anyone to stop doing it, even though every time our leaders use that name it demeans and softens the atrocities Hitler committed, but hey! If its good enough to be used for a guy who sells soup on a sitcom written by a Jewish guy, then I guess its good enough for any one right?
But I was thinking that when we use Hitler for anyone, all across the world, we are doing a cultural and historical disservice to other groups of people. After all, this world has had its share of bad people, and perhaps its time we extended our definition of Hitler to reflect our changing global culture. So for example, in Venezuela, a South American country,
Their Hitler could be,
Fidel Castro...although he's some what cliche right now, so how about...
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, the US backed dictator to the Dominican Republic who tried to wipe out his neighbors the Haitians? We don't talk about him that much.
So you see there's many "Hitlers" out there to choose from that are much more culturally relevant. I mean if you really wanna demonize some one you should hit them where it counts. Here are some more examples.
If you're Native American:
Then your Hitler is:
Any random white man.
If you're black:
Then your Hitler is:
That's right, any random white guy.
If you're Japanese:
Then your Hitler is:
Godzilla.
If you're from Antarctica:
Then your Hitler is:
Orca, the Killer Whale.
If you're Martian:
Then your Hitler is:
Despero.
If you're Kryptonian:
Then your Hitler is:
Brainiac.
If you're German:
Then you're Hitler is:
FDR.
If you're Hitler:
Then you're Hitler is:
Stalin.
And, God help you...if you're Stalin, then you're Hitler is....
GALACTUS! THE WORLD EATER!!!!!!!!
Now go forth, and properly shout out your Hitlers...
"He's a person who was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally and then consolidated power, and now is of course working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."
Got that folks? Just a slightly Pistol Pete, behind the back bounce pass indicating a link between Hitler and Chavez. Pretty smooth Rummy, pretty smooth.
Tossing the name Hitler out there has become the quickest and simplest method to demonize anyone you want. Nowadays anyone who is anyone has thrown the Hitler comparison at Bush. Hell I routinely call my girlfriend "lil Hitler," when she forces me to eat fruit, (I'm not very health conscious). So I'm not about to tell anyone to stop doing it, even though every time our leaders use that name it demeans and softens the atrocities Hitler committed, but hey! If its good enough to be used for a guy who sells soup on a sitcom written by a Jewish guy, then I guess its good enough for any one right?
But I was thinking that when we use Hitler for anyone, all across the world, we are doing a cultural and historical disservice to other groups of people. After all, this world has had its share of bad people, and perhaps its time we extended our definition of Hitler to reflect our changing global culture. So for example, in Venezuela, a South American country,
Their Hitler could be,
Fidel Castro...although he's some what cliche right now, so how about...
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, the US backed dictator to the Dominican Republic who tried to wipe out his neighbors the Haitians? We don't talk about him that much.
So you see there's many "Hitlers" out there to choose from that are much more culturally relevant. I mean if you really wanna demonize some one you should hit them where it counts. Here are some more examples.
If you're Native American:
Then your Hitler is:
Any random white man.
If you're black:
Then your Hitler is:
That's right, any random white guy.
If you're Japanese:
Then your Hitler is:
Godzilla.
If you're from Antarctica:
Then your Hitler is:
Orca, the Killer Whale.
If you're Martian:
Then your Hitler is:
Despero.
If you're Kryptonian:
Then your Hitler is:
Brainiac.
If you're German:
Then you're Hitler is:
FDR.
If you're Hitler:
Then you're Hitler is:
Stalin.
And, God help you...if you're Stalin, then you're Hitler is....
GALACTUS! THE WORLD EATER!!!!!!!!
Now go forth, and properly shout out your Hitlers...
More about Islamtoon...
Here's a nice article talking about the Islamic views on the Danish cartoon scandal. As I thought, those participating in violence (and it seems, most demonstrations) are in the minority, though many see it as part of “... a premeditated campaign against the Muslims on the part of the West.” It just shows that after a while you start to think everything is about you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11164199/from/RS.5/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11164199/from/RS.5/
Iran finally gets snitched out! Young Jezzy to support Tehran...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11105378/
Right now this is Wimbalton; just a huge back and forth between the powers that be. Now the situation has been knocked into the Security Council. Think they'll strap on their guns and fight? Well if the crap that's been coming out of Rumsfeld's mouth is any indication, US troops might be moving on north. That's of course if they're not too busy in South America.
Right now this is Wimbalton; just a huge back and forth between the powers that be. Now the situation has been knocked into the Security Council. Think they'll strap on their guns and fight? Well if the crap that's been coming out of Rumsfeld's mouth is any indication, US troops might be moving on north. That's of course if they're not too busy in South America.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
My Bestest buddy...
Our Middle East policies have sure made some strange bedfellows, and now I find myself reading Pat Buchanan's columm. May God have mercy on my soul--he makes alot of sense.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48605
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48605
Enough is enough is enough...
Following up on the Islamictoon controversy: Today the Paris newspaper France Soir fired its managing editor Jacques Lefranc, following his reprinting of the Danish cartoon satire that has inflamed hatred of the West in the Muslim world.
Since the cartoon was released Danes in Arab countries have been attacked, and in the past week armed gunmen have attacked the EU offices in Gaza city.
This firing, strangely enough, comes after the newspaper vehemently defended its right to free speech, triggering solidarity with the European press. The cartoon has been republished in German, Spanish, and Italian countries.
When The Satanic Versus was published, forcing its author, Salman Rushdie, to go into hiding, I opposed the Islamic response. Unfortunately, what seemed at the time as an isolated case (frankly I think Islam was completely off the West's radar, at least culturally), will now be an ongoing struggle as Islam will continue to be an item placed up for satirization. The easy thing, as a Westerner, and a believer in free speech, is to dismiss their outcry, but in this complex world of globalization, I don't believe that is a viable option, and complex problems will require complex solutions.
One thing I believe we must combat is our perceptions of Muslims in general. Look, I'm not trying to get PC here, but one thing we've been unwilling to do, is to break apart the individual Muslim from their factions and rhetoric. There are plenty of good, honest Catholics for instance that are moderate in their beliefs. Likewise, I think that when we see the supposed "reaction" of the Muslim world we are only watching a small but loud segement of the Islamic faith. When we shape our plans to counteract fringe groups then we have already lost the war, because either we force moderates towards these radicals (think of Iraq) or we lose our values in succumbing to these groups' barbarity (Abu Ghraib, torture). Some how our leadership has to proactively find these moderates in the Islamic world, and encourage them to step forward. How will that be done? While specifics would be too long to go into now (and hell, I'm just a friggin blogger over here) I would suggest that we look back at our own history for inspiration. Nowadays we toss around words like 'liberty' and 'freedom,' and we talk about our country as being the greatest in the world, but I think somewhere in our rhetoric we forgot what those words mean, and why America is great. It's not because we have bombs, and a Starbucks on every corner, but because of these very liberties that we have the luxury of taking for granted. These ideals are magnetic for all people, if you let them approach it and not cram it down their throats (something that sorta goes against the idea of freedom in the first place). Out there right now is some Muslim man or woman, who thinks that freedom of speech means only the right to condemn and humiliate them, and the vast spectrum of what that encompasses this liberty escapes their grasp. We need to find away to let them understand that liberty will make you happy, and it will make you sad, but regardless it is the launching point for everything that is truly worthy in mankind, whether they be black or white, man or woman, Christian or Muslim.
Until that time however, I am forced to stand with my brothers in the press. It may make some people upset, but our freedom is the only path to truth.
Read up about it here:
Human-Animal Hybrids strike again!
Stare deeply into the eyes of evil! I say throw the book at them! When are we going to get tough on these drug-peddling pooches!
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/387831p-329049c.html
A quick idea...
A couple of days ago I was browsing over the book: 100 People that are screwing up America, and Al Franken is #37, and one of the chapters was about Lee Bollinger, current President of Columbia University, and former President of University of Michigan. The conservative author of 100 People..., Bernard Goldberg, not only dislikes Bollinger because he's the head of a LIBERAL IVORY TOWER College, but because as President of U-M he DEFENDED their Affirmative Action policy. The issue, if you recall, went as far as the Supreme Court, and their ruling defended the Affirmative Action policy, but banned quotas, which led to the current point system. Now I disagree with about 95% of everything Goldberg writes in the book, but he does bring up the point, that perhaps its time to reform the Affirmative Action program from a racial standard to a socio-economic standard or some mix of the two. He doesn't talk in length about it, but the idea struck a chord within me.
Historically, I am a huge advocate of Affirmative Action. Like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, I have personally benefited from Affirmative Action programs both in the private sector and academic institutions, and I know that I would not be where I am if not for Affirmative Action. So on one hand I have a personal debt to the program. I also believe that Affirmative Action is just as necessary now for the country as it was when it was first instituted. I loath the arguments that the "playing field" is now "level." Why? Because Puffy has a bejillion dollars, and Kanye is able to get on television and say "George Bush doesn't like black people?" The exception is not the rule, and though blacks are one of the fastest growing middle classes in the nation, they still rate far behind or VERY far behind whites in most major categories such as infant mortality, life expectency, health care coverage, and income. But economic reasons aside there's another strong cultural reason behind Affirmative Action. Pretty much every one I've heard speak about racism talks about the negative effect of seperating the races. Affirmative Action, more than any other program in the United States, bonds the races together in common causes. Whether it be a group project for a class or putting together a presentation for a job, Affirmative Action puts blacks, and Latinos, and Asians, and whites together, strengthening their ties and developing mutual understanding. And if a interracial couple comes out of it, well I'm sure as hell ain't complaining.
And yet...
Ideologically, Affirmative Action in its present form does create some problems. It goes against the grain of the American spirit of equality, because, in essence, it does benefit a particular race over another.
So we have pragmatism versus ideology. For me, I believe pragmatism must come out in front, but there has to be respect shown to the ever changing world around us. Until we hit Utopia (which will occur in 2180, or when ever the rapture hits your block) there will always be our haves and have-nots. For a nation, it is important for have-nots to have equal access to opportunity as everyone else. Right now blacks, as a group, have a nice hold on that have-not status, but as Globalization sweeps over Earth, and our markets shift, and poverty goes on the rise we are now threatened by a new class of have-nots, and this new class won't be so easy to identify. They are springing up like weeds all over the towns and cities of America and they come from all races and religions. On a personal and spiritual level we should want them to succeed for themselves, but as citizens of this country, we should want them to have the opportunities to make our nation stronger, and more competitive. I don't believe in a sink or swim mentality, which only leads to the road of tyranny, but I do believe now may be the time to seriously begin looking at reforming Affirmative Action, not to shut it down, but to open it up to embrace a more diverse population than ever before.
Historically, I am a huge advocate of Affirmative Action. Like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, I have personally benefited from Affirmative Action programs both in the private sector and academic institutions, and I know that I would not be where I am if not for Affirmative Action. So on one hand I have a personal debt to the program. I also believe that Affirmative Action is just as necessary now for the country as it was when it was first instituted. I loath the arguments that the "playing field" is now "level." Why? Because Puffy has a bejillion dollars, and Kanye is able to get on television and say "George Bush doesn't like black people?" The exception is not the rule, and though blacks are one of the fastest growing middle classes in the nation, they still rate far behind or VERY far behind whites in most major categories such as infant mortality, life expectency, health care coverage, and income. But economic reasons aside there's another strong cultural reason behind Affirmative Action. Pretty much every one I've heard speak about racism talks about the negative effect of seperating the races. Affirmative Action, more than any other program in the United States, bonds the races together in common causes. Whether it be a group project for a class or putting together a presentation for a job, Affirmative Action puts blacks, and Latinos, and Asians, and whites together, strengthening their ties and developing mutual understanding. And if a interracial couple comes out of it, well I'm sure as hell ain't complaining.
And yet...
Ideologically, Affirmative Action in its present form does create some problems. It goes against the grain of the American spirit of equality, because, in essence, it does benefit a particular race over another.
So we have pragmatism versus ideology. For me, I believe pragmatism must come out in front, but there has to be respect shown to the ever changing world around us. Until we hit Utopia (which will occur in 2180, or when ever the rapture hits your block) there will always be our haves and have-nots. For a nation, it is important for have-nots to have equal access to opportunity as everyone else. Right now blacks, as a group, have a nice hold on that have-not status, but as Globalization sweeps over Earth, and our markets shift, and poverty goes on the rise we are now threatened by a new class of have-nots, and this new class won't be so easy to identify. They are springing up like weeds all over the towns and cities of America and they come from all races and religions. On a personal and spiritual level we should want them to succeed for themselves, but as citizens of this country, we should want them to have the opportunities to make our nation stronger, and more competitive. I don't believe in a sink or swim mentality, which only leads to the road of tyranny, but I do believe now may be the time to seriously begin looking at reforming Affirmative Action, not to shut it down, but to open it up to embrace a more diverse population than ever before.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Cindy Sheehan arrested during the State of the Union for "protesting."
Right before the President's speech last night there were minor fireworks as two women, Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activist and mother of a fallen American soldier, and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Young of Florida, were tossed out of the House Chamber and arrested for "protesting."
You can read Cindy's account of the situation here:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
Both women were bounced for wearing t-shirts. Cindy claims she was about to cover hers up, and was seized just as she was taking over her jacket, but Young didn't even think of covering up her t-shirt since it was a Pro-soldier shirt, which read "Support our Troops--Defending our Freedom." Also Rep Young, her husband, happens to be a big GOP congressman.
Man, are we in for some tough times in the future. Man, oh man.
And now the Democrat's response...hey wait! Where are you going?
Many bloggers out there decided to do a live blogging of the President's State of the Union last night. I vouched against it, not because it's not a novel idea, which it is, but because I find it to be a tad egotistical. After all that night, whether we liked it or not, was about the President, not about us and our opinions, and we had plenty of time afterwards to chop the whole speech to pieces, which is exactly what I did in my last post. Now I turn my sights on the Democrats.
Frankly I was disappointed. The first disappointment was that Governor Timothy M. Kaine was tapped to give the response in the first place. I understand the reason behind the DNC choosing the young Governor, after all he won in a Republican stronghold (Virginia), and he's known as this man of 'values' and strong religious faith. However this wasn't a tent revival sermon, and the man was as stiff as iron. If Lex Luthor was attaching Metropolis you wouldn't send Aquaman after him would you? No! You'd send Superman (Obama) or Wonderwoman (Hillary)! Instead they send us the guy who, if you listened hard enough, caused the entire nation to collectively grunt "Who the hell is this?"
So we're given this guy who is obviously reading off a teleprompter, and what he's reading is equally as stiff, wooden and non-threatening. This whole production seems to have been written before the 2004 election and if this is what the Democrats are planning for 2006 then we're in for another sensational failure. They offered no new solutions for problems, and only criticized the President in the most unintimidating fashion possible. Just take a look that this insightful tidbit:
"Our federal government should serve the American people. But that mission is frustrated by this administration's poor choices and bad management."
Ok, sure I can get behind that, but who couldn't? This is the foundation for a wedding cake that was left unmade. Then he kept getting into how bipartisan cooperation worked in Virginia. Great, but with all due respect to my brothers in Virginia--why should anyone else care? We're talking about the Federal government not the state government. And who the hell told him to use the old Kerry "We can do better line?" It didn't work for him, so why would it work for you? It's like Jesse Ventura in Predator--he couldn't beat Rocky, so what the hell makes you believe he's going to do anything less than die against a seven foot tall alien?!?!
I hate to be overly critical of my own party, but if Bush paraded out the neo-con hits during his speech, then the Democrats marched out its own all-star squad, featuring Captain Vague, Sergeant No-solution, and Private Meek. Funny how when the President's poll numbers drop they move from Politics-done-badly, to Politics-as-usual, but when the Democrats do anything they move to Politics-as-usual and hit cruise control. We Democrats are seriously praying that they take their rhetoric in for an overhaul, before the whole party completely stalls.
STOU? STFU!
Well there is good news. No, I didn't save a ton of money on my car insurance (I don't even own a car), but as far as Bush State of the Unions go this might have been his best.
It wasn't his best because it was a well organized, and delivered speech, even though it was, but it was his best speech because he didn't ask for sweeping changes, nor did he declare war on any other country. It was his best because he said nothing new. Last year he told us he wanted to privatized Social Security, and who could forget the 2002 Axis of Evil speech that led directly into our current war. This year, thankfully, Bush did without the grand doctrines and sweeping reforms marking a decisive change in attitude from Emperor to statesman. Perhaps it was an epiphany that caused the change? Or it could it be that his poll numbers have slid to their lowest point ever? Yeah, I think was the latter.
Still, it was refreshing to listen to a SOTU without gagging every three seconds, and at moments the President was even eloquent and gracious. Beginning with his praise of Coretta Scott King, into his calls for bipartisan cooperation, and even his little joke about his father and Bill Clinton (which got more laughs when they showed Hilary's face--her look could have melted steel) he showed that when his back is to the wall, he still won't apologize, but at least he'll be graceful.
Yet, while the tone of the speech had changed from previous STOUs, the rhetoric was nearly the same. The words de jour was freedom and hope, and he was pulling those out like they had an upcoming expiration date. And if he didn't make an additions to policy he certainly pulled out the old favorites, the veritable best-of-the-neocons menu. We got the tax breaks, maintaining the Patriot Act, privatizing Social Security again! (By the way, one of the few Democrat moments I can say I was proud of last night; when Bush starts whining that "someone" stood in the way of his Social Security reforms the Democrats stood up and applauded. Now that's moxie baby! Wonder how many consultants it took to put that spontaneous event together). But it was his little bit on oil dependency that had created the most buzz last night, with his declaration:
"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world..."
Fill in your own joke here. My favorite is one my friend posted on myspace.com hours before the President gave the STOU, "Bush telling me that America is addicted to oil, is like Judy Garland telling me I have a drinking problem."
But even with all the buzz circulating around that, there still was no proposal that Bush hasn't made in his STOUs since he's been in office. As several prominent Democrats mentioned, Bush doesn't back those reforms, nor does he really care about them. Sadly, it might one of the most important measures on America's agenda, because as we continue down the perilous road of being the policeman in the Middle East, we may find that busting our dealers can really cut our supply.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Brokeback Jokes...
Alright...I swear no more Brokeback Mountain jokes. I know, I know! They're tacky, tasteless, and sophomoric. They don't belong anywhere on a serious political blog, and now I'm letting them go...
...God, I just wish I knew how to quit you!
...God, I just wish I knew how to quit you!
Enough is enough....
Tacky? Yeah, but this little cartoon on the left is inciting fierce violence against...yep, you got it the Danes.
All over the Arab world Danish visitors are getting beaten after this and other Arab critical satirical cartoons were run in several Danish newspapers. The Jordanians feel that such cartoons are heresy, while the left...well the left seems pretty dammed absent from the whole debate. The Danish papers have been apologizing for the whole thing, and Bill Clinton (now staring in Brokeback Mountain 2 with George Bush Sr.) chimed in with this:
"None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions ... There was this appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark ... these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam."
Look, I love me some Bill Clinton. No seriously, if I could vote the man back in as President I would, but some one has got to step up to the plate to defend free speech. The ACLU? Anyone?
This is one of the things I hate about modern politics. It always seems as if you have to be on one side of the fence at all times. If you're liberal then you have to be as PC and apologetic as possible, and if you're on the right you're a complete dick who doesn't have the word sorry in their vocabulary (Bush! Cough, cough). We're worlds away from a time when someone said "tread softly and carry a big stick." Listen, I love my free speech even more than Bill Clinton. If other countries don't want it then I can respect that, and I'm not going to bomb them to enforce my love of free speech. But at the same time, I'm not going to change, within my own borders, my rights either. There is a certain respect that the law must be given and a certain respect that life must be given, and never the twain shall meet. I still believe that it is Western politics that have shaped anti-westernism in the Middle East, but if it so happens that a few of them get upset over a comic strip, then pull the Danish out and cut trade. It's one thing to invade one of their countries, but screw 'em if they can't take a joke.
Iran says: Stop snitching!
There's more drama coming out of Iran than Brokeback Mountain, and sadly they can't win an Oscar. Earlier today Iran threatened to halt surprise UN inspections if any report was made to the Security Council. This comes on the heels of the US asking the rest of the SC to review Iran's status and to talk about possible embargos on the region. Read more about it here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11105378/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11105378/
Alito's In...
Today, in one of the closest partisan votes for a Supreme court nominee, Judge Samuel Alito became the 110th Supreme court justice taking over the vacancy left by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The vote was 52-48--all but one Republican voted for Alito while four Democrats broke from the party and gave their stamp of approval.
The Alito nomination was hotly contested by the Democrats mostly because the social conservative for the former Regan administration was seen as a tipping vote on many issues that are guaranteed to come before the court such as abortion, executive power and affirmative action. However, during the nomination process the Democrats had a hard time pinning down Alito's convictions. Many of his answers were vague, and he refused to give any concrete response on whether he would overturn Roe V. Wade, vouching that he would have to rule on a case by case basis.
Yet was there really any doubt that Alito wasn't going to be confirmed? Alito has a nearly spotless record, with the exception for his short stint as a member of the Conservative Alumni of Princeton, an organization known for anti-feminist and anti-gay views. He also comes on the heels of the Harriet Miers nomination that frightened both parties with its obvious croneyism, and I think that every one was happy to have at least a competent nominee. Ultimately though Alito is a man who was in the right place at the right time. In this election year the Democrats know they need to chose their battles wisely, and though they tried their best even the most liberal among them know attacking Alito was a fool's errand. He was about as flammable as water, and quickly the whole circus was taken out of the limelight by the wiretapping scandal. It's sort of sad to me that this whole thing was pushed aside by the press since the Alito confirmation could quite possibly be the pivotal vote on so many important issues, the most important being Executive powers (Alito believes in a strong executive by the way), but no matter how you look at it this has been yet another whopping defeat for the Democrats who still have not been able to mount a front anywhere.
Monday, January 30, 2006
US Government gags NASA scientist. He chokes on his own ozone layer...
On Sunday the NY Times reported that the Bush administration attempted to stop a top climate scientist at NASA from speaking out about Global Warming. This comes in a torrent of charges claiming that the US government has been silencing many other scientists in regards to the same issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/international/middleeast/30diplo.html?_r=1
You know, believe it or not, after reading Michael Crichton's last book "State of Fear," I actually have a few doubts of my own regarding Global Warming. That is not to say I don't believe that the climate is changing because of human actions, but what these changes are and what possible danger this can pose to us and nature I think is open to debate, and more open and free research must be done. The issue has become almost more stigmatized than racism, and any outward dissention or cynicism towards it is responded to with the harshest of reactions. Then we get movies like "The Day After Tomorrow," that stokes this fear, unfounded on any scientific research or theory, and the population remains just as ignorant as before, but twice as terrified. And either way nothing substantial or concrete gets accomplished. This is the danger that comes with silencing opinions. If you think that we haven't changed our environment with industrialization then you're only fooling yourself. Whether or not this change is dangerous or fatal must be investigated, but our President, who has admitted that he doesn't like to read, has pandered so much to elements of the US that are so anti-intellectual that he chooses intelligent design over actual intelligence.
The real danger in my eyes, at this present point, isn't what will happen to our global climate. The Earth is a hardy and rugged thing that endures. The immediate threat is to our civil liberties, especially free speech. If our experts cannot discuss and debate issues relevent and vital to our lives then we are all the worse off. It's become pretty obvious (just look at my last post) that when it comes to intelligence this administration his more leaks than Karl Rove on the Titanic, and silencing the issue does not make it go away. In the age of globalization, it becomes exponentially more important to keep our debate as open as possible to find solutions and intercept possible problems before they occur. The only question is; is the Bush adminstration willing to combat the problems facing the world that don't require bunker busting missles or making record profits for Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/international/middleeast/30diplo.html?_r=1
You know, believe it or not, after reading Michael Crichton's last book "State of Fear," I actually have a few doubts of my own regarding Global Warming. That is not to say I don't believe that the climate is changing because of human actions, but what these changes are and what possible danger this can pose to us and nature I think is open to debate, and more open and free research must be done. The issue has become almost more stigmatized than racism, and any outward dissention or cynicism towards it is responded to with the harshest of reactions. Then we get movies like "The Day After Tomorrow," that stokes this fear, unfounded on any scientific research or theory, and the population remains just as ignorant as before, but twice as terrified. And either way nothing substantial or concrete gets accomplished. This is the danger that comes with silencing opinions. If you think that we haven't changed our environment with industrialization then you're only fooling yourself. Whether or not this change is dangerous or fatal must be investigated, but our President, who has admitted that he doesn't like to read, has pandered so much to elements of the US that are so anti-intellectual that he chooses intelligent design over actual intelligence.
The real danger in my eyes, at this present point, isn't what will happen to our global climate. The Earth is a hardy and rugged thing that endures. The immediate threat is to our civil liberties, especially free speech. If our experts cannot discuss and debate issues relevent and vital to our lives then we are all the worse off. It's become pretty obvious (just look at my last post) that when it comes to intelligence this administration his more leaks than Karl Rove on the Titanic, and silencing the issue does not make it go away. In the age of globalization, it becomes exponentially more important to keep our debate as open as possible to find solutions and intercept possible problems before they occur. The only question is; is the Bush adminstration willing to combat the problems facing the world that don't require bunker busting missles or making record profits for Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil?
You mean the Palestinians don't like the Jews? Get outta town!
When I read reports like this one in the NY Times, I am astounded by the ignorance of our state department. Then again these are the people who said that Iraq was going to greet us with honey and roses when we invaded. I wish I could live in their world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/international/middleeast/30diplo.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/international/middleeast/30diplo.html?_r=1
Price gouging? What price gouging?
Yesterday, the Exxon-Mobil Corp reported record profits in its fourth quarter--a whopping 10.71 billion dollars. This brings E/M's yearly profit to 36.13 billion, which is the highest annual reported net income in American history. This record overtakes the previous record of 25.3 billion set by Exxon in 2004.
The highest growth period for the company was, predictably, during the 2004 quarter during the Katrina and Rita disasters, when production decreased by 1 percent, forcing prices up to yet more record numbers. In some places in New York City a gallon of gas rose to above 3.50$
Though there hasn't been an official White House response to this, there has been a huge murmur of disapproval regarding how the government handled the gas crisis during Katrina, leading many to believe that Exxon practiced wanton price gouging. In an unofficial poll conducted on MSNBC.com, of 43,840 responses, 92% believed that the oil industry was taking advantage of consumers.
At moments like this I think of Chris Rock's last HBO special "Never Scared" when he asked the question "Where are the low gas prices?" His point? Look everyone knows we went into Iraq for the oil, but now that we're there, why aren't the prices lowering? Good question, and one that deserves a response from the Bush administration. Are there any good defense that oil companies can use to counter the accusation that they are abysmally greedy? During the whole Katrina disaster the calls of price gouging were ringing loudly, not only from consumers but from Exxon clerks as well, who were given memos telling them to raise prices even though their storage tanks were full. This led Bush, speaking on Good Morning America on Sept 1, 2005, to say that "I think that there ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking the law during an emergency...Whether it be looting or price gouging at the gasoline pump..."
Yet nothing was done, and consumers were bled to marrow over the next two or so weeks.
Can you trust anything this man says?
Friday, January 27, 2006
Giuliani who? Bloomberg's the man...
Yesterday's State of the City by Mayor Mike Bloomberg should be a beacon, not only to all GOP leaders across the nation, but to all leaders of all parties.
As you know I'm a registered Democrat, though on occasion, I, like any good rational American citizen should be able to cross partisan lines to elect and praise those from other parties who's views I respect and are reasonable. In the past I've voted for Ross Perot (during his first campaign before he fully lost his mind) and in the past year I voted for Mike over his lame duck opponent Ferrer. Since he's taken the reins of New York City I've been extremely impressed on his record, his statesmanship, and his compassion. For such a rich guy he's been able to make me believe that he's more of a man of the people than such self-endorsing populists like the weasely Gifford Miller. He's a guy who knows that big business can be a boon to the average man, as long as the average man is respected, and further more can see both of those things as a series of long term goals. To me he's a return to what true conservatism should be--not some draconian set of morals, but fiscal and personal responsibility. Something that Bush and his cronies need to investigate. Former mayor Giuliani is given way too much credit for his supposed "helping the city to overcome 9/11/" status, for much of the reason that Bush is given that same status. But unlike Bush, Bloomberg took the ideas of the 9/11 commission to heart and installed many of their suggestions and more into the NYPD, making our new police force not only the best ever in the city's history, but one of the best intelligence forces on the planet, that is looked to by nations for counsel and support. When the Federal government didn't provide for our safety Bloomberg took it on his team to seal the holes, and he's done it well. And at the same time he's made our city safer from international threats he's also cut down domestic crime to some of the lowest levels on record, lower than the Giuliani administration, without the humiliating "Street Sweeps," or Gestapo tactics that our former mayor brazenly used. If people want to know why Mike took in so much of the Latino and black vote in NYC last year all you have to look at is his track record when it comes to dealing with people. When a black or Latino has been unjustly shot by police he finds time to deal with both sides, and shows respect, and respect will get you votes.
In yesterday's State of the City he's continued on this far reaching, compassionate path. In light of several cop killings he's declared a war on illegal firearms in the city, calling for a Megan type law for those who have gun related crimes, stiffer sentences, and more technology to seek out gun crimes when they occur. I would have also like to have seen added to this more legislation and penalties for gun dealers, but it's a start for a problem that his haunted this town long before 9/11. Speaking of which he's asked for the time table to be stepped up for Ground Zero development, something that should have been dragging its feet for years, and has vowed to build seven new academically selective high schools in the city, creating more space for students to succeed at higher levels than before. While I've had issues with the way that Bloomberg has reformed NY schools, I still say that I commend him for at least trying something new with a department that was tremendously stagnant. I'm not sure that standardized tests are the way to go, but with the way that the Board of Ed was being managed, any change is a step in the right direction, and creating schools, instead of prisons is always aces in my book.
The only thing I can say I have an issue with Mike on is his proposition that Union workers should pay more into their Health care funds. Now this is a direct response to the TWU/ MTA war that's brewing right now, and while I think that more care should be taken to provide workers with appropriate health care I understand that as Mayor, Bloomberg's first priority is to keep the city running, and that this is an issue that primarily is out of the Mayor's hands. Affordable, universal health care is a Federal problem, and until they get on the ball in providing some type of system that addresses this issue everyone will be behind the 8-ball.
Damm did I just praise a Republican that much? Well I guess I can't let Bush and Cheney and DeLay, and Frist, and Santorum, and Rice, and Chambiss, and...well you get my point, spoil the entire barrel.
Obama--McCain for President!
You can read the entire State of the City speech here:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/searchlight/20050111/203/1243
As you know I'm a registered Democrat, though on occasion, I, like any good rational American citizen should be able to cross partisan lines to elect and praise those from other parties who's views I respect and are reasonable. In the past I've voted for Ross Perot (during his first campaign before he fully lost his mind) and in the past year I voted for Mike over his lame duck opponent Ferrer. Since he's taken the reins of New York City I've been extremely impressed on his record, his statesmanship, and his compassion. For such a rich guy he's been able to make me believe that he's more of a man of the people than such self-endorsing populists like the weasely Gifford Miller. He's a guy who knows that big business can be a boon to the average man, as long as the average man is respected, and further more can see both of those things as a series of long term goals. To me he's a return to what true conservatism should be--not some draconian set of morals, but fiscal and personal responsibility. Something that Bush and his cronies need to investigate. Former mayor Giuliani is given way too much credit for his supposed "helping the city to overcome 9/11/" status, for much of the reason that Bush is given that same status. But unlike Bush, Bloomberg took the ideas of the 9/11 commission to heart and installed many of their suggestions and more into the NYPD, making our new police force not only the best ever in the city's history, but one of the best intelligence forces on the planet, that is looked to by nations for counsel and support. When the Federal government didn't provide for our safety Bloomberg took it on his team to seal the holes, and he's done it well. And at the same time he's made our city safer from international threats he's also cut down domestic crime to some of the lowest levels on record, lower than the Giuliani administration, without the humiliating "Street Sweeps," or Gestapo tactics that our former mayor brazenly used. If people want to know why Mike took in so much of the Latino and black vote in NYC last year all you have to look at is his track record when it comes to dealing with people. When a black or Latino has been unjustly shot by police he finds time to deal with both sides, and shows respect, and respect will get you votes.
In yesterday's State of the City he's continued on this far reaching, compassionate path. In light of several cop killings he's declared a war on illegal firearms in the city, calling for a Megan type law for those who have gun related crimes, stiffer sentences, and more technology to seek out gun crimes when they occur. I would have also like to have seen added to this more legislation and penalties for gun dealers, but it's a start for a problem that his haunted this town long before 9/11. Speaking of which he's asked for the time table to be stepped up for Ground Zero development, something that should have been dragging its feet for years, and has vowed to build seven new academically selective high schools in the city, creating more space for students to succeed at higher levels than before. While I've had issues with the way that Bloomberg has reformed NY schools, I still say that I commend him for at least trying something new with a department that was tremendously stagnant. I'm not sure that standardized tests are the way to go, but with the way that the Board of Ed was being managed, any change is a step in the right direction, and creating schools, instead of prisons is always aces in my book.
The only thing I can say I have an issue with Mike on is his proposition that Union workers should pay more into their Health care funds. Now this is a direct response to the TWU/ MTA war that's brewing right now, and while I think that more care should be taken to provide workers with appropriate health care I understand that as Mayor, Bloomberg's first priority is to keep the city running, and that this is an issue that primarily is out of the Mayor's hands. Affordable, universal health care is a Federal problem, and until they get on the ball in providing some type of system that addresses this issue everyone will be behind the 8-ball.
Damm did I just praise a Republican that much? Well I guess I can't let Bush and Cheney and DeLay, and Frist, and Santorum, and Rice, and Chambiss, and...well you get my point, spoil the entire barrel.
Obama--McCain for President!
You can read the entire State of the City speech here:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/searchlight/20050111/203/1243
Just when you think it can't get any more ironic...
Check out Article 38 of the Iraqi constitution, which of course was passed with the authority of the United States government:
"The freedom of communication, and mail, telegraphic, electronic, and telephonic correspondence, and other correspondence shall be guaranteed and may not be monitored, wiretapped or disclosed except for legal and security necessity and by a judicial decision."
If they get Universal Health Care before we do, my head is literally going to blow up like a land mine.
"The freedom of communication, and mail, telegraphic, electronic, and telephonic correspondence, and other correspondence shall be guaranteed and may not be monitored, wiretapped or disclosed except for legal and security necessity and by a judicial decision."
If they get Universal Health Care before we do, my head is literally going to blow up like a land mine.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Hamas wins...was anyone surprised?
Yesterday the Hamas party scored a dominating win in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. Of course the White House is shocked. What? Did you think the Let's-all-get-along-with-the- Jews-and-see-Brokeback-Mountain-party was going to win? What's really shocking is how both GOP and DEM politicians can't understand Palestinians' endorsement of violence. This coming from the guys who said they would "hunt down and kill" any terrorists wherever they exist. The wheels go round and round.
The MTA offers the Treaty of Versailles to its Union...
Yesterday, the MTA offered their Union a harsh deal, proposing a contract that would give MTA workers much less that previously arranged.
Now if you're not from New York, you may not be aware that last month the MTA union went on strike, shutting down public transportation in the city for about three days at a cost to NYC of around 1 billion dollars. The strike was ended with the hopes that the MTA and the Union would be able to get back to the table and hammer out a mutually acceptable deal. (As a friend of mine said, "we thought this was over.") However now that seems to be as unlikely as Israel and Palestine peace treaty. Some of the new measures are as follows:
1) New hires giving 6% of earnings towards pensions. (As opposed to the MTA's previous offer of 1%)
2) New hires giving 1.5% towards health insurance.
3) Assigning token booth clerks and other workers more tasks such as cleaning subway stations.
4) No pension refunds and no Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a paid holiday.
My own opinion: This is ridiculous. The deal is one of vengeance, politics, and greed. The MTA figures that it has public opinion on their side and this gives them the right to inflict harsh penalties on the transit union. This is a complete Treaty of Versailles.
Look, just like every one in NYC I was put out by the strike, and I understand that some people lost quite a bit of money. However, to me, the union's situation boils down one basic question: Are they entitled to their benefits? With the MTA's lack of good faith when it comes to disclosing its finances, plus the gross fare hikes made, without significant advances in the transit system, and the fact that services have been cut (the largest being the phasing out of the token booth clerk), I cannot say that their deal is fair in the least. Yet, that is the deal, and the Union cannot hope to strong arm both the city and MTA. They simply don't have the manpower or the finances to do so. If they do try then the biggest losers in this conflict will be the entire city.
Now if you're not from New York, you may not be aware that last month the MTA union went on strike, shutting down public transportation in the city for about three days at a cost to NYC of around 1 billion dollars. The strike was ended with the hopes that the MTA and the Union would be able to get back to the table and hammer out a mutually acceptable deal. (As a friend of mine said, "we thought this was over.") However now that seems to be as unlikely as Israel and Palestine peace treaty. Some of the new measures are as follows:
1) New hires giving 6% of earnings towards pensions. (As opposed to the MTA's previous offer of 1%)
2) New hires giving 1.5% towards health insurance.
3) Assigning token booth clerks and other workers more tasks such as cleaning subway stations.
4) No pension refunds and no Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a paid holiday.
My own opinion: This is ridiculous. The deal is one of vengeance, politics, and greed. The MTA figures that it has public opinion on their side and this gives them the right to inflict harsh penalties on the transit union. This is a complete Treaty of Versailles.
Look, just like every one in NYC I was put out by the strike, and I understand that some people lost quite a bit of money. However, to me, the union's situation boils down one basic question: Are they entitled to their benefits? With the MTA's lack of good faith when it comes to disclosing its finances, plus the gross fare hikes made, without significant advances in the transit system, and the fact that services have been cut (the largest being the phasing out of the token booth clerk), I cannot say that their deal is fair in the least. Yet, that is the deal, and the Union cannot hope to strong arm both the city and MTA. They simply don't have the manpower or the finances to do so. If they do try then the biggest losers in this conflict will be the entire city.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Looks like I'm not alone...
...in thinking that the US and Western powers need to change their attitudes and policies towards Iran. Check out this article in Newsweek from Fareed Zakaria, and pay attention to the closing paragraph. Hopefully, if real reformers take a new position about Iranian nukes there might be a complete turnaround in regards to the Middle East's feelings towards us. Give diplomacy a chance? It might work.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10966808/site/Newsweek/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10966808/site/Newsweek/
All in? Should have called it Dead Money
I gotta tell you, every time I see Dennis Miller I feel as if I'm transported back to a better age. I think of his halcyon days on SNL, the quirky laugh, the head bob, the jokes that make you feel like a member of MENSA if you could identify what the hell he was talking about, and I'm happy.
Then he opens his mouth.
Like many comedians who've been around the industry for decades, survived their drug addictions, and the multiple sexual escapades of life on the road to go on to have kids, a wife and a nice house with the white picket fence, Miller, as shown in his last HBO special "All In," seems to have thrown away all shred of his creative former non-conformist persona and traded it for the security of stereotypes and jingoistic material. He's become the Kid Rock of the comedy circuit. The Toby Keith of chuckles. He's a Republican, and a conservative and he wants everyone to know it.
Now I don't mean to go on a rant here, but I'm personally getting sick of guys who spend the first thirty years of their life sniffing, smoking, and sexing everything that comes across their path, only to have a kid, marry the only woman who can tolerate their antics, and then thinks that the world revolves around them like they were some throwback to the Cartesian universe, and the seven spheres encircles them with righteousness. Come on booby! Pooky? You hear me out there ruffles! You know who you were back in the days playing Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with Robin Williams. Did you ever think back then that you be playing Billy flag bearer for the preppie princess President we've got today? Ah huh, don't think so. Most likely you'd be ogling Jenna's legs and wondering where the SNL after party was.
Look, no one is saying that you can't love and care about the welfare of your family. But God knows your libertarian ideals would be appalled by the concept of anyone infringing on your freedoms, so why endorse the concept by preaching the word of Bush? The man who, as you said, "Put honor and respectability back in the White House." Sure I guess he did if being dishonorable and unrespectable is being honorable and respectable. He's flipped more on the reasons of the war than a IHOP pancake, and has more listening posts than Liz Smith on crack. If life was the beginning and end of America then there never would have been a revolution, and we'd all be British subjects, safe and secure living under the Union Jack. But our founders had something greater, something wonderful, in mind when the Declaration was signed. They had a dream that life would not be worth living if it was done under the tyranny of the rich, and subject to their whims and desires. Your whole routine is a retrograde back to a surf mentality, where as long as we do what the boss wants we'll all make out fine, just getting along to get by. If I need to hear that crap I'll just turn on Fox News.
I suppose I get upset about Miller only because I expect more reason and intelligence out of my childhood idol. But perhaps getting disappointed is really what getting older means, and you truly reach maturity when you discover that your heroes have been taken over by pod people from planet nine. But not to worry, there's always George Carlin.
Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong, and I am outta here.
Say it ain't so chief!
Last night, New York Knicks President Isiah Thomas was hit with a charge of sexual harassment by a former senior female employee. The charge goes on to say that Thomas also worked with hotel concierges to get visiting players passes to strip clubs and bars.
As if things couldn't go any worse for the struggling franchise. Guess the wait for next season begins early this year.
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/385707p-327296c.html
As if things couldn't go any worse for the struggling franchise. Guess the wait for next season begins early this year.
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/385707p-327296c.html
Is there anything that this Government won't sell?
First there was the automobile industry. Then agribusiness, then telemarking and customer service. Now torture. For God's sake! There's plenty of good, homegrown lunatics in the US who love to break bones and humiliate people!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2007141,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2007141,00.html
Monday, January 23, 2006
It's Monday, so I Meet the Press
Well it's another Monday which means I have my weekly comments about yesterday's Meet The Press. I was pretty excited since the line up included one of my favorite statesmen, Barack Obama (D-IL), and a roundtable with James Carville, Paul Begala (miswritten on Msnbc.com hysterically as Paula Begala) and Mary Matalin, who of course is good for a few laughs and some honesty political commentary.
What this week summed up, in my opinion, is that the Democrats are still an unorganized group, which doesn't bode well for them in this election year. I'm awestuck at this, considering what a horrendous year Bush and the GOP are having. With their backs against the ropes the Democrats should be making a full frontal assault, but yet they still seem to be confused, keeping one eye on Bush and the other on the opinion polls. Obama isn't the most aggressive politician, but with all these openings he still seemed intent on jabbing rather than delivering haymakers. The interview started off well with Russert setting up this volley for Obama's to spike over the net:
"The question is, here at home what are the politics, and you said this according to the Chicago Tribune. “It is arguable that the best politics going into ’06 would be a clear, succinct message, ‘Let’s bring our troops home.’ It’s certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now.” Why do you think that’s the best political message?"
This is a softball question if I've ever seen one. Obama's quote here is precisely what the Democrats need to make, (although it doesn't necessarily have to be in regards to Iraq--as I'll discuss later) however once making that point in the Tribune Obama continues the mistakes of Kerry and Hilary by back pedaling against the issue:
"Well, you know, one of the things that I think in politics you’re always looking for is contrast, and obviously that gives a sharp, clearly-defined contrast to administration’s policy. Keep in mind, though, that that quote was presented in me explaining that that’s actually not the approach that I’m pursuing. My position has been that it would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously draw troops down regardless of the politics, because I think that all of us have a stake in seeing Iraq succeed. We need to get the policy right, and it’s inappropriate, I think, to have politics intrude at this point in such a critical stage and in the development of the Middle East."
He's exactly right that "you're always looking for...contrast," but then says "...that's actually not the approach that I'm pursuing." Once again we're back to square one regarding troop withdrawals. Look either you're in or you're out. This waffling about troop withdrawal is KILLING the Democrats. If you're for leaving troops in then say so and find that "contrast" on another facet of the GOP agenda. If you want stark contrast then say you're for pulling out, and if you do want a gradual withdrawal then state that and give an exit strategy, and how this exit will be militarily backed up. The problem with this whole issue is that no one seems to have a concrete plan and that's exactly what both sides need. There's a saying in poker that "first one to bet wins the pot." Well both sides are checking around the table to see who cracks first and that's not good for America. We see what's going on and it encourages more apathy by the population.
Later in the show Begala picks up on this point:
"...about that campaign (2004 Presidental). But the—the Democrats blew it, let’s face it. They blew it, and it’s not that people think that we’re too liberal. It’s that they think we’re too weak, because we don’t stand up and say clearly and plainly what we stand for. And that’s really the thesis of the book. It’s that our problem is not ideological, it is anatomical. We need a spine. And a party that allows someone who has won five major medals, who three times has shed blood for our country, and won the bronze star and the silver star to be positioned as weak and woffling and weird is—it’s a sin. It’s awful. And Democrats have got to learn from that if we’re ever going to take it back."
Thanks Paula.
What astounds me is that you don't have to be either Karl Rove or George Stephanopoulos to figure this stuff out. After the 2004 election people were constantly thinking that Bush's win had to do with this puzzling thing known as "values" when any one who thought about it for more than 5 minutes could have told you that they only value people cared about then was determination and vision. In order for the Democrats to win anything both this year and in 2008 they have to present some vision and plan that, as Obama says, has "contrast." As we have discussed, Iraq is one of those issues out there but there are many more, such as:
1) Competency
2) Corruption
3) Taxes--(Repeal the Bush tax cuts immediately)
4) Freedom at home vs. Freedom abroad (Basically Bush's policies have denied freedom for Americans, and the Democrats can insure these freedoms)
And most importantly,
5) Universal Health Care.
Yes folks remember that one? Remember when the Democrats were the party of social reform? What can be any more important (especially now that Congress has screwed up Medicare) than providing the most basic of human needs for our population. The Democrats need to publish a Universal health care plan as an united front and have every Dem, both in office and running, endorse it. Make it known that a vote of the Democrats is a vote for health insurance, and watch the support gel around you.
Look I'm not saying that any of these points alone will ensure a Dem. victory in 2006. But together, in the right proportion, they should begin to give the Democrats a spine and more importantly piece together the only platform that can defeat the Republican's fear machine, which is hope. Hope is the only thing that can defeat fear, and unless the Democrats have some plan for hope this year, the GOP's steam engine of terror will roll over them, and us, once again.
What this week summed up, in my opinion, is that the Democrats are still an unorganized group, which doesn't bode well for them in this election year. I'm awestuck at this, considering what a horrendous year Bush and the GOP are having. With their backs against the ropes the Democrats should be making a full frontal assault, but yet they still seem to be confused, keeping one eye on Bush and the other on the opinion polls. Obama isn't the most aggressive politician, but with all these openings he still seemed intent on jabbing rather than delivering haymakers. The interview started off well with Russert setting up this volley for Obama's to spike over the net:
"The question is, here at home what are the politics, and you said this according to the Chicago Tribune. “It is arguable that the best politics going into ’06 would be a clear, succinct message, ‘Let’s bring our troops home.’ It’s certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now.” Why do you think that’s the best political message?"
This is a softball question if I've ever seen one. Obama's quote here is precisely what the Democrats need to make, (although it doesn't necessarily have to be in regards to Iraq--as I'll discuss later) however once making that point in the Tribune Obama continues the mistakes of Kerry and Hilary by back pedaling against the issue:
"Well, you know, one of the things that I think in politics you’re always looking for is contrast, and obviously that gives a sharp, clearly-defined contrast to administration’s policy. Keep in mind, though, that that quote was presented in me explaining that that’s actually not the approach that I’m pursuing. My position has been that it would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously draw troops down regardless of the politics, because I think that all of us have a stake in seeing Iraq succeed. We need to get the policy right, and it’s inappropriate, I think, to have politics intrude at this point in such a critical stage and in the development of the Middle East."
He's exactly right that "you're always looking for...contrast," but then says "...that's actually not the approach that I'm pursuing." Once again we're back to square one regarding troop withdrawals. Look either you're in or you're out. This waffling about troop withdrawal is KILLING the Democrats. If you're for leaving troops in then say so and find that "contrast" on another facet of the GOP agenda. If you want stark contrast then say you're for pulling out, and if you do want a gradual withdrawal then state that and give an exit strategy, and how this exit will be militarily backed up. The problem with this whole issue is that no one seems to have a concrete plan and that's exactly what both sides need. There's a saying in poker that "first one to bet wins the pot." Well both sides are checking around the table to see who cracks first and that's not good for America. We see what's going on and it encourages more apathy by the population.
Later in the show Begala picks up on this point:
"...about that campaign (2004 Presidental). But the—the Democrats blew it, let’s face it. They blew it, and it’s not that people think that we’re too liberal. It’s that they think we’re too weak, because we don’t stand up and say clearly and plainly what we stand for. And that’s really the thesis of the book. It’s that our problem is not ideological, it is anatomical. We need a spine. And a party that allows someone who has won five major medals, who three times has shed blood for our country, and won the bronze star and the silver star to be positioned as weak and woffling and weird is—it’s a sin. It’s awful. And Democrats have got to learn from that if we’re ever going to take it back."
Thanks Paula.
What astounds me is that you don't have to be either Karl Rove or George Stephanopoulos to figure this stuff out. After the 2004 election people were constantly thinking that Bush's win had to do with this puzzling thing known as "values" when any one who thought about it for more than 5 minutes could have told you that they only value people cared about then was determination and vision. In order for the Democrats to win anything both this year and in 2008 they have to present some vision and plan that, as Obama says, has "contrast." As we have discussed, Iraq is one of those issues out there but there are many more, such as:
1) Competency
2) Corruption
3) Taxes--(Repeal the Bush tax cuts immediately)
4) Freedom at home vs. Freedom abroad (Basically Bush's policies have denied freedom for Americans, and the Democrats can insure these freedoms)
And most importantly,
5) Universal Health Care.
Yes folks remember that one? Remember when the Democrats were the party of social reform? What can be any more important (especially now that Congress has screwed up Medicare) than providing the most basic of human needs for our population. The Democrats need to publish a Universal health care plan as an united front and have every Dem, both in office and running, endorse it. Make it known that a vote of the Democrats is a vote for health insurance, and watch the support gel around you.
Look I'm not saying that any of these points alone will ensure a Dem. victory in 2006. But together, in the right proportion, they should begin to give the Democrats a spine and more importantly piece together the only platform that can defeat the Republican's fear machine, which is hope. Hope is the only thing that can defeat fear, and unless the Democrats have some plan for hope this year, the GOP's steam engine of terror will roll over them, and us, once again.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Just a brief link...
I just got my hands on the Gore speech that he made on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday. It's a great speech, and it makes me think that if he'd had this fire in his belly the first time around maybe we wouldn't be going through this mess at all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779_pf.html
Democrats pledge Honest Leadership and Transparency in Government...
Yesterday a group of Democratic members of Congress, calling themselves Honest Leadership, Open Government (as opposed to Live Aid or We are the World) signed a pledge promising to create reforms to combat the current scourge of Republican corruption that has broken open with the DeLay, Frist, and Abramoff scandals.According to Democratic Leader Harry Reid:
"There's a price to pay for this corruption in Washington, and we can see it in the state of our union...From seniors who cannot afford their prescription drugs to soldiers sent to war without body armor and middle-class families living on a financial cliff, the cost of corruption is very real. Today, I challenge President Bush the head of the Republican Party to match our commitment to honest leadership. When leaders are accountable to people, not lobbyists, there is no limit to how far America can go."
It sounds like a good start but the question is whether this is too little, too late. Later that night I caught Senator Reid on Bill Moyer's show, and a question was asked, which I believe cuts to the heart of the problem. Why now? Didn't the Democrats know that this was going on before, and if so, why was it not addressed then? Reid provided good answers, albeit very political ones. Lobbyist corruption is pretty much a Republican problem, as the current scandals have proven. This is not to say that Democrats don't have their hands in the cookie jar, but the hallmark of a good politician (or hustler, ask Damon Dash) is not to kill a sheep but to shear it, and the Republicans, since Bush has come into office, has been having, on all different levels, lambchops and applesauce every night. This slaughter of the American political system is what is pushing these reforms, as well as the opaqueness of the administration. Now whether this will make a difference in legislation is up for debate, but in an election year, with a very unpopular President one can only say that the Democrats' move is very shrewd and sets off the year on a rebellious note that the heart of the party has been waiting for.
As a side note, there were a couple of other things I noted in the Moyer interview with Sen. Reid that I think are worth mentioning. The first was in response to the volley first fired at the Bush Adm. by Al Gore four days ago regarding the constitutionality of secret wiretaps. In case you haven't heard (and you wouldn't be the only one, since the major news organizations have barely touched on it) former Vice-President Gore accused Bush of, "breaking the law repeatedly and persistently." When asked about this Reid, in a lateral move, sidelined Gore and instead quoted Bob Graham, former Senator and head of the Senate Intelligence Committee (yes I know, an oxymoron, har har) who also has said that Bush's actions are unconstitutional. It seemed like the long way to back up Gore, but whatever works I suppose. Also the idea of having Bush impeached was brought up. Reid claimed that it was, "...way, way to early for that." But seeing as how the Democrats are only now getting onto the field to battle lobbyist corruption, perhaps the correct answer is that we are way, way too late.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Accountability...
Hey everyone. Hope everyone had a great MLK day. You did? And what did you do? If you were like most of us you did what you do on any other holiday, which is nothing. Sat around in your boxers (or panties for you women out there), scratched your ass and watched TV. Maybe you even rented Roots, or, as Chris Rock suggests, read a Jet. I happened to be one of those people in my boxers actually, though I took a nice walk with my girlfriend down in the Village of New York City. However as I walked around the frozen city, there was one word that was bouncing back and forth in my mind, and that word was accountability.
And as I was thinking of this word, by sheer coincidence we happened to pass the funeral home where the body of Nixzmary Brown was being laid to rest. For those you don't know the story, Nixzmary was a 7-year old New Yorker who was horribly abused by her mother and step-father and finally died from her injuries last week. The story is one of those unfortunate tales too often told in poor 'hoods around America, the abused child who "fell through the cracks," ignored by child welfare, and the institutions meant to prevent these tragedies from occurring. In the last week the NY press has been in an uproar over this mess, crying out for convictions of the parents and for someone, anyone, to be held accountable for what happened. And there's that word again: accountability.
When I think of Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy, his fight, his victories and defeats, I think of the word accountability over and over again. Of course this word gets easily overlooked when we think of Dr. King's struggle, especially since our schools, and media focus on the beginning and middle of his mission. It's like once the Civil Rights amendment was passed MLK passed into that great unknown with a satisfied smile on his face. But this was not the case, and Dr. King's mission was only half complete.
Once the CR amendment was passed Dr. King was working on economic equality for blacks and the poor--one that was based on that very word; accountability. It seems like nowadays it's in vogue to dismiss the idea of accountability--to say that accountability is something that is beyond human expectation. We talk about issues that face cultures in the world from the Middle East to the Native and Black Americans and we say "Well...What's past is past." We shrug and say "That was then and this is now, and we have to focus on solutions!" But this line of thinking is dangerous and illogical because one can neither learn or correct the mistakes of the past without knowing where those mistakes were borne from. Accountability, when tempered with mercy, is a trait that benefits society. It provides closure.
The thing that strikes me to the core is the sheer hypocrisy between what we learn as children and what we practice as adults. You learn that its a good trait to be able to apologize for what we do wrong, and even better to be able to forgive such mistakes and to pass out just sentences. In the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" one of the skills you are supposed to practice is to immediately and empathetically apologize for wrong doing. Yet the opposite of this--arrogance and egotism--is practiced every day by our leaders, and none as great as our President who seems incapable of self-criticism.
I say this to say that MLK's dream, of a world of equality and justice will never be realized until we all start standing up and taking accountability for our actions and our inactions. There can never be an ending without a beginning. We'll be mired in Iraq and more unless someone can say that it was a mistake being there in the first place. Well have more Nixzmary's on our hands unless someone can stand up and say that they ignored her silent pleas for help. And we'll have more poverty, more crime, more suffering unless we can all rise up and take some blame for the way things are today. And yes, to some extent we are guilty. When we pass a homeless man and we have an extra dollar in our pocket. When we disagree with our politicians and we don't vote. When we stay silent when we view a crime. When we don't care about our fellow man, we share a part, albeit a small part, in the suffering of the world. Admit it, stop it, and then we can go on with life.
And as I was thinking of this word, by sheer coincidence we happened to pass the funeral home where the body of Nixzmary Brown was being laid to rest. For those you don't know the story, Nixzmary was a 7-year old New Yorker who was horribly abused by her mother and step-father and finally died from her injuries last week. The story is one of those unfortunate tales too often told in poor 'hoods around America, the abused child who "fell through the cracks," ignored by child welfare, and the institutions meant to prevent these tragedies from occurring. In the last week the NY press has been in an uproar over this mess, crying out for convictions of the parents and for someone, anyone, to be held accountable for what happened. And there's that word again: accountability.
When I think of Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy, his fight, his victories and defeats, I think of the word accountability over and over again. Of course this word gets easily overlooked when we think of Dr. King's struggle, especially since our schools, and media focus on the beginning and middle of his mission. It's like once the Civil Rights amendment was passed MLK passed into that great unknown with a satisfied smile on his face. But this was not the case, and Dr. King's mission was only half complete.
Once the CR amendment was passed Dr. King was working on economic equality for blacks and the poor--one that was based on that very word; accountability. It seems like nowadays it's in vogue to dismiss the idea of accountability--to say that accountability is something that is beyond human expectation. We talk about issues that face cultures in the world from the Middle East to the Native and Black Americans and we say "Well...What's past is past." We shrug and say "That was then and this is now, and we have to focus on solutions!" But this line of thinking is dangerous and illogical because one can neither learn or correct the mistakes of the past without knowing where those mistakes were borne from. Accountability, when tempered with mercy, is a trait that benefits society. It provides closure.
The thing that strikes me to the core is the sheer hypocrisy between what we learn as children and what we practice as adults. You learn that its a good trait to be able to apologize for what we do wrong, and even better to be able to forgive such mistakes and to pass out just sentences. In the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" one of the skills you are supposed to practice is to immediately and empathetically apologize for wrong doing. Yet the opposite of this--arrogance and egotism--is practiced every day by our leaders, and none as great as our President who seems incapable of self-criticism.
I say this to say that MLK's dream, of a world of equality and justice will never be realized until we all start standing up and taking accountability for our actions and our inactions. There can never be an ending without a beginning. We'll be mired in Iraq and more unless someone can say that it was a mistake being there in the first place. Well have more Nixzmary's on our hands unless someone can stand up and say that they ignored her silent pleas for help. And we'll have more poverty, more crime, more suffering unless we can all rise up and take some blame for the way things are today. And yes, to some extent we are guilty. When we pass a homeless man and we have an extra dollar in our pocket. When we disagree with our politicians and we don't vote. When we stay silent when we view a crime. When we don't care about our fellow man, we share a part, albeit a small part, in the suffering of the world. Admit it, stop it, and then we can go on with life.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Evidence of US's torture cover up...
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan's blog for this one. Documents procured by the ACLU prove the cover up of torture and human's rights violations in Iraq. Check them out here:
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/011206/
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/011206/
Love in Iran...
Recently I was discussing the movie Munich (which I highly recommend by the way) with my friend. We both agreed that the movie excellently described the FUBAR situation in the Middle East but then my friend said something that stuck me deeply. He said, "No saying I'm taking their side, but damm! the Arabs get no love." I thought about it and then woefully nodded my head. "No love. Word."
Today Iran threatened to end their nuclear inspection program to the chagrin of the Western world, as it has leaked out how far along their program has progressed. Last night on Hardball Chris Matthews discussed with Andrea Mitchell Iran's reasons in going through with their program, stating that its almost illogical for Iran to go nuclear. After all, if estimates are correct and Iran does develop about 9 airborne nukes in 5 years what good would it do? Any preemptive strike by Iran on any nation would guarantee their complete annihilation. In the case of the old USSR and the US there was at least the MAD policy to hold both sides in check, but in the case of Iran their meager stockpile would be (in a global sense) only an annoyance and any use of them would be suicide. So why continue? Well David Kay, head of the UN Nuclear Inspection team, theorizes that becoming a nuclear power would help Iranian Ayatollahs consolidate the power within their own borders. Right now the theocratic regime is very unpopular with a population that cries out for modernization and secularism (or at least that's the US's view), and Kay believes that having nuclear weapons will deter Western powers from interfering with their domestic agenda. Kay might have a point, if Western powers are truly interested in the domestic policies of the Middle East. Yet we have a horrible track record of doing business with countries with human rights violations (United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, China...), and so I don't see how Kay's logic works in this situation, since it seems to me that we'll continuing buying Iranian oil no matter what the Ayatollahs do to their own population.
Frankly I believe Iran continues on their program for the very point my friend made. Right now Arab nations aren't shown love by the rest of the industrialized world (read that as Western Society). They feel ostracized and threatened, especially with what his happening in Iraq and our uneven support of Israel. When this happens people have the tendency to feel humiliated and weak and will look to almost suicidal means to "toughen up." I don't believe that people in Iran (or anywhere in the Middle East for that matter) are stupid or insane. They know exactly what the implications of using their weapons would mean for Iran. But at the same time having nukes allows them to maintain their international dignity, while becoming a potential pinyata of trouble for the Western world, meaning that if attacked, or punctured, nuclear technology will come popping out, landing in every terrorist's pocket in the region. It is quite a mire that is developing over there, and it has to be handled with a delicate and caring hand. Although knowing our President he's most likely to take a sledgehammer to the whole country and call it a tenderizing.
It might be time to show a little love.
Read more about Iran and the whole situation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
Today Iran threatened to end their nuclear inspection program to the chagrin of the Western world, as it has leaked out how far along their program has progressed. Last night on Hardball Chris Matthews discussed with Andrea Mitchell Iran's reasons in going through with their program, stating that its almost illogical for Iran to go nuclear. After all, if estimates are correct and Iran does develop about 9 airborne nukes in 5 years what good would it do? Any preemptive strike by Iran on any nation would guarantee their complete annihilation. In the case of the old USSR and the US there was at least the MAD policy to hold both sides in check, but in the case of Iran their meager stockpile would be (in a global sense) only an annoyance and any use of them would be suicide. So why continue? Well David Kay, head of the UN Nuclear Inspection team, theorizes that becoming a nuclear power would help Iranian Ayatollahs consolidate the power within their own borders. Right now the theocratic regime is very unpopular with a population that cries out for modernization and secularism (or at least that's the US's view), and Kay believes that having nuclear weapons will deter Western powers from interfering with their domestic agenda. Kay might have a point, if Western powers are truly interested in the domestic policies of the Middle East. Yet we have a horrible track record of doing business with countries with human rights violations (United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, China...), and so I don't see how Kay's logic works in this situation, since it seems to me that we'll continuing buying Iranian oil no matter what the Ayatollahs do to their own population.
Frankly I believe Iran continues on their program for the very point my friend made. Right now Arab nations aren't shown love by the rest of the industrialized world (read that as Western Society). They feel ostracized and threatened, especially with what his happening in Iraq and our uneven support of Israel. When this happens people have the tendency to feel humiliated and weak and will look to almost suicidal means to "toughen up." I don't believe that people in Iran (or anywhere in the Middle East for that matter) are stupid or insane. They know exactly what the implications of using their weapons would mean for Iran. But at the same time having nukes allows them to maintain their international dignity, while becoming a potential pinyata of trouble for the Western world, meaning that if attacked, or punctured, nuclear technology will come popping out, landing in every terrorist's pocket in the region. It is quite a mire that is developing over there, and it has to be handled with a delicate and caring hand. Although knowing our President he's most likely to take a sledgehammer to the whole country and call it a tenderizing.
It might be time to show a little love.
Read more about Iran and the whole situation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
A few quickies...
Hey loyal readers,
Just a few stories I gleamed off of msnbc.com today that I thought were a bit interesting. Today the Gubanator Arnold was in a motorcycle accident with his son who was riding in the sidecar. What makes the story interesting is that Schwarzenegger, who had to have 15 stitches in his upper lip, didn't have the proper endorsement on his Cali license to operate a motorcycle. Didn't anyone in the State DMV ever see the Terminator?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10794604/
The second is that the state of Israel has pulled the plug on Pat Roberson's Holy land project there after the beyond ultra-right wing minister made a claim that suggested that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was caused by the hand of God. (The Christian God I'm assuming). My real question is, why is Israel making deals with this moron anyway since one of his beliefs, or goals, is to get every person of Jewish descent into the Holy Land so that the rapture might begin? Religion and Politics sure do make strange bedfellows.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10802750/
Just a few stories I gleamed off of msnbc.com today that I thought were a bit interesting. Today the Gubanator Arnold was in a motorcycle accident with his son who was riding in the sidecar. What makes the story interesting is that Schwarzenegger, who had to have 15 stitches in his upper lip, didn't have the proper endorsement on his Cali license to operate a motorcycle. Didn't anyone in the State DMV ever see the Terminator?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10794604/
The second is that the state of Israel has pulled the plug on Pat Roberson's Holy land project there after the beyond ultra-right wing minister made a claim that suggested that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was caused by the hand of God. (The Christian God I'm assuming). My real question is, why is Israel making deals with this moron anyway since one of his beliefs, or goals, is to get every person of Jewish descent into the Holy Land so that the rapture might begin? Religion and Politics sure do make strange bedfellows.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10802750/
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Just a thought...
This morning, when I crawled out of bed, I had an interesting thought.
What if, in the 2004 1st Presidential debate, John Kerry had led off his closing remarks with this homey anecdote:
My fellow Americans, I had some closing statements prepared, but during the debate, while I listened to Governor Bush, a story from my childhood came to mind that I would like to share with you. When I was young, back in Denver, there was a boy who lived three blocks down named Harold. Harold, you see, was a "special" boy, who today we would call mentally challenged. I remember till this very day his simple, innocent, toothy grin, and the shine of the sun on his silver helmet that he wore on his head to protect him from further injury. Ah, that Harold was always falling over something! He was quite a klutz. Anyway, Harold's parents, like many of you here tonight and watching on television, were poor hardworking people and both his mother and father and older brother worked full time jobs, though usually they had at least one member of the clan stay at home to watch special Harold. But one day each member of Harold's family had to go to work, forced by their bosses to show up or be fired.
This presented quite the dilemma for the family. They had never left Harold alone, and they were worried that their "special" little boy might hurt himself. They even tried to get someone to sit with him but their neighbors had jobs of their own. So giving their boy strict orders, they all went to work, silently praying that their child would have the good judgment to take care of himself and their home.
You can see where I'm going with this.
Harold, getting hungry, thought to himself that he would make a bowl of soup for himself. He'd seen his mother cook, and saw how you turn the gas on, and place a lit match onto the stove top. Beyond that though Harold thought he was a grown man and that he was capable of cooking for himself. So he turned the gas on. But Harold didn't know where the matches were. He looked all over the kitchen for at least ten minutes, with the gas on, searching for matches. He finally found them (they were next to the stove) and after a few tries lit it.
Boom! The house explodes in flames, shooting "special" little Harold out through the kitchen window onto the lawn, where his head was protected with his helmet, and when the fire department arrived they found Harold, eating grass and smiling happily saying, "Pretty fire, pretty fire."
Yes, Harold reminds me a great deal of George W. Bush.
I'm not saying by any means that Governor Bush is mentally challenged, though he might not be the brightest star in the sky, as his high record of scholastic, and business failures, his inability to defend the country during 9/11 and likewise develop an exit strategy in Iraq shows us. But what I am saying is that some people are just incapable of doing some jobs. Like Harold's family we trusted him not to set our house on fire and just like Harold's family we now find our president sitting in front of the wreckage, grinning, and telling us that it is a pretty fire. This is not a pretty fire, nor a game, but a conflagration that threatens to consume us all, and unlike George we don't have a helmet for protection. Now is the time to take the Harold's of our nation out of office and replace them with competent and bold leadership. I am that leader.
Goodnight, and may God bless you all.
Now that would have been something.
What if, in the 2004 1st Presidential debate, John Kerry had led off his closing remarks with this homey anecdote:
My fellow Americans, I had some closing statements prepared, but during the debate, while I listened to Governor Bush, a story from my childhood came to mind that I would like to share with you. When I was young, back in Denver, there was a boy who lived three blocks down named Harold. Harold, you see, was a "special" boy, who today we would call mentally challenged. I remember till this very day his simple, innocent, toothy grin, and the shine of the sun on his silver helmet that he wore on his head to protect him from further injury. Ah, that Harold was always falling over something! He was quite a klutz. Anyway, Harold's parents, like many of you here tonight and watching on television, were poor hardworking people and both his mother and father and older brother worked full time jobs, though usually they had at least one member of the clan stay at home to watch special Harold. But one day each member of Harold's family had to go to work, forced by their bosses to show up or be fired.
This presented quite the dilemma for the family. They had never left Harold alone, and they were worried that their "special" little boy might hurt himself. They even tried to get someone to sit with him but their neighbors had jobs of their own. So giving their boy strict orders, they all went to work, silently praying that their child would have the good judgment to take care of himself and their home.
You can see where I'm going with this.
Harold, getting hungry, thought to himself that he would make a bowl of soup for himself. He'd seen his mother cook, and saw how you turn the gas on, and place a lit match onto the stove top. Beyond that though Harold thought he was a grown man and that he was capable of cooking for himself. So he turned the gas on. But Harold didn't know where the matches were. He looked all over the kitchen for at least ten minutes, with the gas on, searching for matches. He finally found them (they were next to the stove) and after a few tries lit it.
Boom! The house explodes in flames, shooting "special" little Harold out through the kitchen window onto the lawn, where his head was protected with his helmet, and when the fire department arrived they found Harold, eating grass and smiling happily saying, "Pretty fire, pretty fire."
Yes, Harold reminds me a great deal of George W. Bush.
I'm not saying by any means that Governor Bush is mentally challenged, though he might not be the brightest star in the sky, as his high record of scholastic, and business failures, his inability to defend the country during 9/11 and likewise develop an exit strategy in Iraq shows us. But what I am saying is that some people are just incapable of doing some jobs. Like Harold's family we trusted him not to set our house on fire and just like Harold's family we now find our president sitting in front of the wreckage, grinning, and telling us that it is a pretty fire. This is not a pretty fire, nor a game, but a conflagration that threatens to consume us all, and unlike George we don't have a helmet for protection. Now is the time to take the Harold's of our nation out of office and replace them with competent and bold leadership. I am that leader.
Goodnight, and may God bless you all.
Now that would have been something.
Friday, January 06, 2006
The McCarthy Age--Redux
Yesterday I picked up a really interesting book called The Age of Anxiety, by Haynes Johnson. This book deals with the McCarthy era and parallels that time with our age of Terrorism. Now its become nearly a cliche to compare the two (and if you're really on the edge, you could add Nazism to the mix), but I don't believe any of us really know the depth of Joseph McCarthy's deceit, nor do we want to believe that what we are seeing today is that same situation emerging over again.
First off, the neo-conservatives have embraced McCarthy and his cronies (Richard Nixon, Hoover) as heroes and right-wing hacks like Ann Coulter have gone as far as to call McCarthy a a "patriot." Much of this rhetoric exists not because of his legacy of success, but his legacy of tactics, which our current administration emulates. Let's not get things twisted--were there Soviet spies in America? Absolutely, much like there are members of Hamas, Al-Qaida, and other terrorist organizations somewhere within our borders today, yet McCarthy brought no new revelations regarding communist agents to the light, and if any one was discovered it was only because he was like a fisherman using depth charges to catch a couple of trout. Instead, McCarthy used the Red Scare to intimidate, frighten, and bash his way into power, becoming the most influential first term senator ever, while simultaneously tainting and weakening American values. His words were complete fabrications and lies, right from the moment he ran for Senate (he claimed he was a war hero who supplied the Air Force with documents he forged with his commanding officer's signature) to the moment he made his way to the Senate floor with his supposed list of Soviet agents in the State Department (It was a 10 year old list and the overwhelming majority of the people in it had either left the SD or had never been hired in the first place.) The boldness of these actions seem nearly comic in their audacity. It feels like something in a SNL skit, but it was as real as gravity and as deadly as cancer.
Undoubtedly though the most shocking realization (for me at least) was Johnson's statement that US intelligence knew that the USSR had been in decline since at least the mid-70s and sinking even before then. His source on this is a little known book by the late Senator Daniel P. Moynihan (considered one of the Senate's greatest statesman, and definitely one of the most popular NY Senators) named Secrecy (Yale: 1998), which states that the "Culture of Secrecy" kept even presidents uninformed of the facts. This is very reminiscent of the battles and the miscommunication that went on between the FBI, NSA, and CIA prior to 9/11 (And continues on till today though they now added the HSA to the mix). The whole thing leads me to wonder was any of this worth it? Is it worth it today? And our officials wonder why we don't seem to trust them.
Anyway The Age of Anxiety is a wonderful read and should enlighten anyone about McCarthyism while sparking thought about our current age. Though I have come to the conclusion that Joseph McCarthy was just about as monstrous and deceitful as I could imagine, and maybe even insane (he nearly beat a reporter to death), his story illuminates what happens when politicians are cowardly and a population is terrified. It's a tale that begs us to study it meticulously for fear that we will slide down that dangerous slope again.
First off, the neo-conservatives have embraced McCarthy and his cronies (Richard Nixon, Hoover) as heroes and right-wing hacks like Ann Coulter have gone as far as to call McCarthy a a "patriot." Much of this rhetoric exists not because of his legacy of success, but his legacy of tactics, which our current administration emulates. Let's not get things twisted--were there Soviet spies in America? Absolutely, much like there are members of Hamas, Al-Qaida, and other terrorist organizations somewhere within our borders today, yet McCarthy brought no new revelations regarding communist agents to the light, and if any one was discovered it was only because he was like a fisherman using depth charges to catch a couple of trout. Instead, McCarthy used the Red Scare to intimidate, frighten, and bash his way into power, becoming the most influential first term senator ever, while simultaneously tainting and weakening American values. His words were complete fabrications and lies, right from the moment he ran for Senate (he claimed he was a war hero who supplied the Air Force with documents he forged with his commanding officer's signature) to the moment he made his way to the Senate floor with his supposed list of Soviet agents in the State Department (It was a 10 year old list and the overwhelming majority of the people in it had either left the SD or had never been hired in the first place.) The boldness of these actions seem nearly comic in their audacity. It feels like something in a SNL skit, but it was as real as gravity and as deadly as cancer.
Undoubtedly though the most shocking realization (for me at least) was Johnson's statement that US intelligence knew that the USSR had been in decline since at least the mid-70s and sinking even before then. His source on this is a little known book by the late Senator Daniel P. Moynihan (considered one of the Senate's greatest statesman, and definitely one of the most popular NY Senators) named Secrecy (Yale: 1998), which states that the "Culture of Secrecy" kept even presidents uninformed of the facts. This is very reminiscent of the battles and the miscommunication that went on between the FBI, NSA, and CIA prior to 9/11 (And continues on till today though they now added the HSA to the mix). The whole thing leads me to wonder was any of this worth it? Is it worth it today? And our officials wonder why we don't seem to trust them.
Anyway The Age of Anxiety is a wonderful read and should enlighten anyone about McCarthyism while sparking thought about our current age. Though I have come to the conclusion that Joseph McCarthy was just about as monstrous and deceitful as I could imagine, and maybe even insane (he nearly beat a reporter to death), his story illuminates what happens when politicians are cowardly and a population is terrified. It's a tale that begs us to study it meticulously for fear that we will slide down that dangerous slope again.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
I'm back...Yet again
Ok, I swear this will be the last time I will ever use that title again. :)
What's up everyone? Sorry to be away for so long, but since I made my last posting I went on to write another novel, apply to grad schools, get my novels rejected about a zillion times, and then I started a new book. I do try to keep myself busy, and as such I've gotten away from my civic duty of monitoring what's going on over with the Bush boys in Washington DC.
Seems though, our President has been much more zealous in his vigilance.
I suppose in a year that has been so catastrophic for this country--over 2,000 Americans killed in Iraq and countless billions spent on a war whose beginnings are a mystery that not even the Law & Order teams could solve, the washing away of a major American city, the inditements of Delay and Frist, and of course the whole Valerie Plane scandal--a reversal to an earlier time might have appeared to be a comfort. That is if that particular era wasn't the Nixon administration. Now faced with yet another criminal action, Bush, the most historical revisionist since Reagan ("We did not sell arms to the Contras"..."Oh wait we did, but I didn't know."), has even more domestic problems to answer for, and all the while these issues not only feel to this writer that they could have been avoided, but threaten to lead us astray from the real crisis facing America. Then again, perhaps this is the crisis.
When Bush took his oath of office (Twice, just in case he forgot it the first time), he swore to do one thing; uphold the Constitution of the United States. Often you hear him and his toadies talk about the President's job as the defender of American life, but according to his oath, he has one job and that is it.
Though it tends to be a bit ideological, one must concede the point that America, the nation, and Americans, the people, are one and the same and each is wrapped and mired in the Constitution. The defense of the Constitution is the defense of American life, because without the Constitution we are no longer Americans. Without the Constitution we no longer enjoy the things that make this country great and respected throughout the world, such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press. But Bush and Co. feel that it is within their power to shred the Constitution at their whim and hide behind it when it suits them. When Katrina occurred and this administration failed miserably to "defend American life" by claiming that the state never asked for Federal aid, they rolled out the separation clause in the Constitution like it was Harry Potter's invisible cloak, but wiretapping domestically without a warrant that's a-ok. Running in rhetorical circles like this demoralizes the country and takes us farther away from the challenge of our forefathers, which is to create a more perfect union. We have not progressed, but regressed and now our swiftly tilting planet threatens to spin into oblivion unless a semblance of fairness, and justice is reinstalled.
If America is to be preserved then we will have to return to the foundation of our principles of our nation to light our darkest hour. After all, that's the purpose of the Constitution.
Wow, my first rant of the new year, and Bush is in office and possibly drinking again. This is going to be a great year! See you in the fallout shelters!
What's up everyone? Sorry to be away for so long, but since I made my last posting I went on to write another novel, apply to grad schools, get my novels rejected about a zillion times, and then I started a new book. I do try to keep myself busy, and as such I've gotten away from my civic duty of monitoring what's going on over with the Bush boys in Washington DC.
Seems though, our President has been much more zealous in his vigilance.
I suppose in a year that has been so catastrophic for this country--over 2,000 Americans killed in Iraq and countless billions spent on a war whose beginnings are a mystery that not even the Law & Order teams could solve, the washing away of a major American city, the inditements of Delay and Frist, and of course the whole Valerie Plane scandal--a reversal to an earlier time might have appeared to be a comfort. That is if that particular era wasn't the Nixon administration. Now faced with yet another criminal action, Bush, the most historical revisionist since Reagan ("We did not sell arms to the Contras"..."Oh wait we did, but I didn't know."), has even more domestic problems to answer for, and all the while these issues not only feel to this writer that they could have been avoided, but threaten to lead us astray from the real crisis facing America. Then again, perhaps this is the crisis.
When Bush took his oath of office (Twice, just in case he forgot it the first time), he swore to do one thing; uphold the Constitution of the United States. Often you hear him and his toadies talk about the President's job as the defender of American life, but according to his oath, he has one job and that is it.
Though it tends to be a bit ideological, one must concede the point that America, the nation, and Americans, the people, are one and the same and each is wrapped and mired in the Constitution. The defense of the Constitution is the defense of American life, because without the Constitution we are no longer Americans. Without the Constitution we no longer enjoy the things that make this country great and respected throughout the world, such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press. But Bush and Co. feel that it is within their power to shred the Constitution at their whim and hide behind it when it suits them. When Katrina occurred and this administration failed miserably to "defend American life" by claiming that the state never asked for Federal aid, they rolled out the separation clause in the Constitution like it was Harry Potter's invisible cloak, but wiretapping domestically without a warrant that's a-ok. Running in rhetorical circles like this demoralizes the country and takes us farther away from the challenge of our forefathers, which is to create a more perfect union. We have not progressed, but regressed and now our swiftly tilting planet threatens to spin into oblivion unless a semblance of fairness, and justice is reinstalled.
If America is to be preserved then we will have to return to the foundation of our principles of our nation to light our darkest hour. After all, that's the purpose of the Constitution.
Wow, my first rant of the new year, and Bush is in office and possibly drinking again. This is going to be a great year! See you in the fallout shelters!
Monday, April 25, 2005
I'm back
Hey folks,
Sorry I've been gone for so long. I began my first novel in November, and just finished last Friday (at least with the first draft--the editing is still coming). It arrives in at a very obese 1119 pages, and I hope to widdle that down to 800, if the Force is with me.
Sadly it seems that my arrival back to the WOTP may have come at a bad time because there seems to be one of those lulls in the political strife that this column feeds on. Good for America, but bad for business. Mostly dominating the news front has been the new Pope though, for the most part, I have no thoughts on the matter. Personally I consider myself agnostic, and really don't have opinions upon the leadership of any religious organization whether it be the Catholic Church or the Mormons. I hear that the new pope is conservative, so I guess he wants to bring back the inquisition. Of course I might have confused him with GWB.
Anyway, I'm sure the Delay scandal, and Bolton nominations will bring some entertainment and fire back to WOTP. I just wanted to let all my fans (all two of you) know that I'm back on my beat.
Sorry I've been gone for so long. I began my first novel in November, and just finished last Friday (at least with the first draft--the editing is still coming). It arrives in at a very obese 1119 pages, and I hope to widdle that down to 800, if the Force is with me.
Sadly it seems that my arrival back to the WOTP may have come at a bad time because there seems to be one of those lulls in the political strife that this column feeds on. Good for America, but bad for business. Mostly dominating the news front has been the new Pope though, for the most part, I have no thoughts on the matter. Personally I consider myself agnostic, and really don't have opinions upon the leadership of any religious organization whether it be the Catholic Church or the Mormons. I hear that the new pope is conservative, so I guess he wants to bring back the inquisition. Of course I might have confused him with GWB.
Anyway, I'm sure the Delay scandal, and Bolton nominations will bring some entertainment and fire back to WOTP. I just wanted to let all my fans (all two of you) know that I'm back on my beat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
