The Progressive Wolf

I've Moved

2006-11-09T10:52:00.000-05:00

I've moved where I blog. This site is no longer in use (at least for now). I've created and write at a new site called Dislogical. Go there if you were expecting me here.

Wicked

2006-05-26T14:34:00.000-04:00

I haven't blogged much lately and it usually is because I'm busy off-line. Reading books can be a major reason for my lack of blog entries. I've been reading plenty lately, I'm on my third book in the last two weeks. I outlined one book in my last blog post, here was another one, this time fiction.
I have a major interest in non-fiction in the last decade or so, but ocassionally I return to the world of fiction just for fun.

Wicked, The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory MaGuire has caught my eye at the bookstore a few times in the last few years, this time I picked it up. Boy, was I surprised.

The premise is simple enough, what brought about the Wicked Witch of the West? Who is she? Where did she come from? What made her "wicked?" Essentially, questions that the movie never answered much less posed.

I was intrigued by the politics of Oz that I never bothered to imagine. The movie has the Wizard of Oz in charge, but how did he achieve this superiority? Would not have at least some in Oz opposed such dictatorship? Were all Ozites just unquestioningly happy or did they not have problems never alluded to in the movie (and book by Frank Baum)?

All these years we assume that the Wicked Witch of the West was an evil tyrannt, yet with little substantial proof that this was true. This book gives us reason to wonder if that's true. I love the occassions in the book where the discussion of evil takes place. What is evil? Is evil real?

I won't spoil the book, but this book takes us through the complete life of the Wicked Witch of the West, Alphalba as she's named, from birth to death. You may think you know the end, but endings are known because of the point of view of who wins in real life. The "losers" ending is vanquished as untruth, not fact. This book will make you think a new ending.

When The Rivers Run Dry

2006-05-25T18:53:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading yet another book, When the Rivers Run Dry by Fred Pearce. This book was interesting as to the world's use and need for fresh water.

The author explores the Earth's rivers from the largest such as the Nile, Mississippi, Congo, Yangtze, Amazon to so many others that would seem unimportant yet in many ways are even more important than the giants of flows. He examines the uses and abuses that rivers are subjected to by humanity.

Rivers provide so many things for us, from drinking water to agricultural needs, from hydroelectrical power to transportation, from fishing to sewage. The manipulation of rivers by humans for our needs has as well produced major problems. We've engineered them to the point we can't control them at times of high rains, causing more flooding than they would have had before we built the dams and levees. Our dams destroy inhabited lands when built and destroy the river itself from being natural.

Mr. Pearce goes to places where these clashes between modern industrial ideas for rivers and traditional uses such as farming and drinking water meet with mixed results. Many places are returning to traditional ideas for fresh water in response. Beyond just rivers, the book covers other sources of fresh water, such as rain water, ground water and desalinzation plants.

As the world's population continues to grow the need for water becomes ever more critical. The battle for who rules the water increases. Questions are emerging that will beg for answers. Whose water needs are more important? How much will water cost? Do we want water intense crops more than water friendly agriculture? Is watering lawns more important than clean drinking water? Do industrial water needs have more importance than flushing toilets? The questions go on and Fred Pearce asks so many and tries to provide answers.

Weatherman Robertson

2006-05-19T11:00:00.000-04:00

It seems Pat Robertson is at it again. Apparently he is now the weatherman for God as he is now predicting storms on the coast and even a tsunami for the West Coast.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- The Rev. Pat Robertson says God has told him that storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year.The founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network has told viewers of "The 700 Club" that the revelations came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January."If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8.He added specifics in Wednesday's show."There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest," he said.

I don't really see how some connection to God is neccessary to make these predictions. Increased hurricane activity has been predicted by real meterologists in the last few years attributed to either a repeating upward trend or global warming. A West Coast tsunami is inevitable some year in the future, the only question is when. So, I'll give Robertson some little balls for predicting it to happen this year.

The problem is that if no tsunami hits, Robertson isn't blamed for being wrong. He can just say God works in mysterious ways. And God can't be blamed for making a wrong prediction because Robertson could be lieing, he never heard God. But if you ask me for a prediction, I think Robertson will one day be committed to a mental institute or treated for mental problems.

By the way, I've written about the many earth science potential disasters that could happen and that FEMA is probably not prepared for. Pat Robertson should consult my list for further predictions he could make.

That Slippery Slope In Action

2006-05-19T08:17:00.000-04:00

If you've ever heard that expression "slippery slope" here it is in action. For those who haven't understood the expression, here is what it means. Allowing something to override the Constitution because it supposedly protects us in someway, but critics consider it a step on a slippery slope that cause the Constitution to slide farther away from its' intent. And that slippery slope can continue to erode beyond that first step. Consider the following article.

Wed May 17, 11:34 AM ET

BLACK JACK, Mo. - The city council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

The town's planning and zoning commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected Tuesday by the city council in a 5-3 vote.

"I'm just shocked," Shelltrack said. "I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives."

The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children.

Mayor Norman McCourt declined to be interviewed but said in a statement that those who do not meet the town's definition of family could soon face eviction.

Black Jack's special counsel, Sheldon Stock, declined to say whether the city will seek to remove Loving and Shelltrack from their home.

So this is the second step on that slippery slope. This first step was banning gay marriage and/or civil unions. The third step, who knows? Maybe people will have to prove they didn't have sex until after they married in order to be able to own a home?

Now I don't know the history behind Black Jack's ordinance, how it came about, but it now is being enforced. So where does that slippery slope stop in Black Jack for instance and how many other communities are looking at Black Jack and thinking that they could have the same law and go even further down the slippery slope. What other laws will be made and enforced to discriminate against people's choices of living arrangements?

Kremlin Rising

2006-05-15T13:39:00.000-04:00

Another book read, more information consumed. I just can't go long without intaking words from book form. The latest was on the subject of recent Russian history entitled Kremlin Rising, Vladimir Putin's Russia and the End of Revolution by Washington Post Moscow bureau chiefs Susna Glasser and Peter Baker.

I was somewhat startled by the information about Russia that we never seem to hear about in our media. Of course since Putin took over Russia has once again become a state-controlled media, thus independent Russian information is gone. Only reporters from the West can really report honestly these days, and I'm betting that that situation is going to fade as well. For one reason, Western media corporations have invested little in Russia, and probably have cut back on Russian reporting.

The book is quite extensive in reporting how democracy is fading fast under Putin. How he has quashed opposition parties and even orchestrated election results using the state-controlled media as an aid.

Several newsmaking events are covered in depth including the Beslan school siege, the Chechnya War, the Moscow theatre siege and the sinking of the Kursk submarine. Particularily interesting in all of these incidents is the handling by Putin using lies and disinformation.

The numbers held hostage in Beslan was vastly underreported by Putin's government. The submarine sinking was littered with lies that made it impossible for international help to be successful. And the Moscow theatre siege was "solved" by using untested sleeping gas that the Putin governmnet has still refused to acknowledge the dangers in the use and the cause of death and injury to the hostages. The Chechnya War is explained by Putinites as almost a copy of how American government explained Viet Nam.

Further interesting coverage in the book is Russia's growing AIDs problem and the lack of addressing it. As well as an alarming death to birth ratio. The country is dying faster than can be born.

But most interesting to me was how the remnants of the KGB is now becoming a powerful political force under Putin in the guise of a new agency called the Federal Security Service or in Russian initials FSB. If Putin continues Russia's conversion back to a totalitarian state we will be hearing of a new ominous three letter agency, the FSB.

And finally the George Bush/Putin love affair is covered. From the early stages of Bush looking into Putin's eyes and immediately trusting him to the handshake about Chechnya being a "war on terrorism" to an untrusting relationship now.

I certainly learned much about Putin and how Russia is moving along in the new millenium from this book. And now I'm perking up whenever I see or hear about Russia today.

Even Right Wing Hollywood Understands Bush

2006-05-15T11:12:00.000-04:00

So it seems that even Mel Gibson has seen the light about the Bush Administration and the politics of fear. His latest movie is based on his observations of the Bush tactics. Read on...

Film star and director Mel Gibson has launched a scathing attack on US President George W Bush, comparing his leadership to the barbaric rulers of the Mayan civilisation in his new film Apocalypto.

The epic, due for release later this year, captures the decline of the Maya kingdom and the slaughter of thousands of inhabitants as human sacrifices in a bid to save the nation from collapsing.

Gibson reveals he used present day American politics as an inspiration, claiming the government callously plays on the nation's insecurities to maintain power.

He tells British film magazine Hotdog, "The fear-mongering we depict in the film reminds me of President Bush and his guys".

What seems interesting about this, is that Gibson was loved by the religious right (Bush's last supporters) for his film about Jesus, The Passion of Christ. I'm guessing that they won't be so happy with Gibson with this movie.

Why Does Bush Want Your Phone Records?

2006-05-12T03:53:00.000-04:00

The recently revealed secret compilation of millions upon millions of Americans phone records by the NSA is simply beyond the pale for so many reasons.

First, all those phone companies just laid down and gave up the records, excepting Quest of all the major companies. They did this without letting customers know that they did and did it even though they didn't have to, ask Quest. In an interesting backlash, customers are deluging phone companies with questions, complaints and service switching. People are reading that fine print of their phone contract and finding that their providers are skipping a fine line. There may possible be lawsuits against providers that couldn't act as Quest did, and I'm betting Quest gets a big jump in business.

Second, how long before the Bush government renames the NSA, the KGB. That proverbial slippery slope is getting slicker almost every time we turn around. We have known about anti-war groups being spied upon. We found out about the domestic spying program that was initially denied by George Bush on his 2004 campaign trail, "we get warrants." And now we find data mining of our phone records. How many other spying programs are aimed at everyday innnocent Americans that are still being kept secret? I have to think plenty. And would you believe the Bush government if they said no more programs exist? I won't, Bush has lied about one of these intrusions, why wouldn't he lie about others?

Third, at what point is anyone held accountable for playing fast with our Constitution? When will we have investigations into the domestic spying program and now this phone record collecting? My immediate previous post pointed out that the NSA refused to give security clearance to the Justice Department to investigate the NSA. I suppose the NSA would do the same thing for this newest revelation. It's up to Congress to do the investigating, they do have security clearances, yet the Republican led body won't do their job. Is it any wonder that polls have the Republican Congress in the low 20% approval ratings? You have to wonder whether there is something being covered up by Republicans that an investigation(s) would reveal. They wouldn't languish with such low approval ratings if they could help improve those ratings by investigating these issues that many Americans, liberal and conservative, are alarmed by.

Fourth, almost the same time as Bush announces his new nominee for head of the CIA this phone record story comes out. Air Force General Michael Hayden who once headed the NSA was not truthful about the domestic wiretapping and doesn't think it should be illegal and even should be expanded, is Bush's choice. Immediately politicians from both parties were not happy with Bush's selection of a military man to head up a civilian agency. It's a line not often crossed in Washington simply because of shades of military rule. In America, civilians control the military, not the other way around. So Bush opts for a candidate that is sure to create controversy. You can assume this is a confirmation hearing that either might not even happen or that will be tough to pass for Hayden.

Fifth, our government has proven time and again that they can be inaccurate, mistaken, flawed, and even down right illegal in various matters concerning things we aren't aware of. We know that the terrorist watch lists have been nailing non-terrorist simply because their names were close to suspected terrorists, to include nuns and a 22 month old baby. It has been found clearing your name from these watch lists can be difficult. Would I think our government would be perfect in their analysis of phone record data? No, they've never proven they are perfect in anything except not being perfect.

Sixth, this so-called war on terrorism is more and more seeming like a ruse to keep tabs on all of us. Collecting so many millions of phone records seems an awful wide net. How many terrorists do we have in America anyway? And now it seems we are all suspects. Are you a terrorist? It seems the NSA thinks you might be. Americans are loosing freedoms faster than we can count them. Apparently our new first freedom is to always be suspected of being a terrorist.

I'm sure there are seventh, eighth and ninth points I could elaborate on, but six seems a good place to stop for now. Is collecting our phone records an outrage? Sure, particularily when combined with the other outrages of the Bush Administration. A touch more than half the country now believe that Bush should be impeached for one reason or another. Bill Clinton only induced about a third of polling desiring impeachment. What gives? To me this might be the biggest outrage of all, that Bush easily outpolled Clinton for impeachment, yet Bush just keeps going and going and going....

Can't Investigate?

2006-05-11T16:46:00.000-04:00

Well it turns out that the Justice Department won't be allowed to investigate the warrantless wiretaps program because the NSA (National Security Agency) won't give security clearance to the Justice Department.

All I can think is "WHaaat???"

I shouldn't be all that surprised I guess that the NSA won't allow the Justice Department to investigate the NSA. I wish I had that power in my job. I could do anything I want and if the company wanted to check up on me I could say "no, I won't grant you the authority."

With all the spy agency news these days, I'm beginning to wonder whether spying should even be a function anymore. We have CIA director Porter Goss resigning and two of his aides resigning, apparently due to involvement in what is being referred to as the Watergate, hooker, poker, cigar scandal or something like that.
We have the news that millions upon millions of phone records are being data based.

But, I'm just perplexed that Bush could outright lie about the domestic eavesdropping program claiming they get warrants and apparently this is OK. We have a Republican Congress that refuses to investigate the NSA program and now the NSA refuses to allow Justice to investigate it either. All this lack of investigation desire leads me to highly suspect that there must be all sorts of dirt going on at the NSA. I think there is a good chance that dirty laundry is to stay dirty because Americans won't be happy if the laundry stink gets aired out.

Rumsfeld Questioned, Badly Answered

2006-05-05T18:16:00.000-04:00

The other day after a speech in Atlanta, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was questioned by an audience member about Rumsfeld's claims about knowing where the WMDs were in Iraq. The video.

First, I can't hardly believe that over three years later this is the first time someone had the nuts to ask Rumsfeld this. Partly it was about opportunity, but mostly it's because reporters weren't asking this question.

Second, the CNN reporter (on audio) characterizes the man asking the question as a protestor. A protestor? For asking a government official a question in a calm manner during a question and answer segment? Complete horseshit! This is the attitude that anyone that doesn't agree with the Bush administration gets. Asking the wagers of the Iraq War questions about the war or what they said about the war is considered protesting rather than expecting answers to legitimate questions. If a reporter asked the same question, would the reporter be declared a protestor?!? As well there were people in the audience obviously vocally trying to shout down the questioner, but were they labeled protestors? Rhetorical "no" to both questions.

By the way, the "protestor" was former CIA analyst Ray McGovern. It's not clear whether the CNN reporter or Rumsfeld knew this.

Rumsfeld did attempt to answer, first denying he said he knew where they were, then glossing his prior statement. The questioner was nearly tossed out of the room. I'll have to give Rumsfeld credit for letting the man stay, although Rumsfeld may have been savvy enough to understand that the later story would have included that the man was forced to leave.

Rumsfeld then tells the man "You're getting plenty of play, sir," as if expecting an honest answer of our leaders is somehow a special treatment. That line is so telling. These press conferences are so controlled that even getting a follow-up question is amazing. But in this case just getting Rumsfeld to answer honestly still wasn't going to happen.

Further spin I noticed. Rumsfeld offers the question, "Why do you think the men and women in uniform everyday came out of Kuwait and into Iraq put on chemical weapon protective suits, because they liked the style? They honestly believed there were chemical weapons, Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously, he used them on his neighbor the Iranians, and they (the troops) believed he had those weapons. We believed he had those weapons."

The man then said "That's what we call a non sequitur. It doesn't matter what the troops believed, it matters what you believed."

Good response!!! Why? Because the troops didn't decide to go to war, the president did and Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense instituted the orders. The troops didn't decide to put on chemical weapons suits, they were ordered to. I watched the war on TV like many people did. I clearly noticed those chemical weapons suits were essentially discarded after a few days. I watched the vehicles roll into Baghdad with troops sans those suits.

Which brings us back to the original Rumsfeld quote. On March 30th, 11 days INTO the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC interview when asked about WMDs, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." So why did I observe all these troops in the Baghdad area not wearing protective suits if Rumsfeld believed that?

Further, it was Rumsfeld that was photographed shaking hands with Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s. The US courted Saddam, helped build him up. Our country even sold materials that helped produce those chemical weapons that were used on the Kurds.

And finally, the US had no problem with the Iran/Iraq War. In fact we helped Saddam in that war, supplying him with satellite photos of Iran as well as military equipment. It's so like Rumsfeld and company to keep spinning that Saddam used WMDs against his own people and Iran like they didn't know it at the time and in fact tacitly approved of it.

These are the questions I wish Rumsfeld would answer. Why did you go to Iraq and shake hands with Saddam Hussein? Why did the administration you worked for deliver satellite photos of Iran to Saddam when you knew he was capable of using chemical weapons? And then why so long after that era have you now made this an issue you decide to care about when you didn't care then? But I wish I could have followed up Ray McGovern's questions and asked, how come the troops almost entirely DIDN'T wear chemical weapons suits even in the area you claimed you knew where the WMDs were?

Drug Test Politicians

2006-05-05T17:10:00.000-04:00

Congressman Patrick Kennedy was involved in a car crash at 245am which apparently was involving the prescription insomnia drug Ambien. Kennedy said he didn't remember getting up, driving, or the arrest. Here's a version of the story.

May 5 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy said he will check into Minnesota's Mayo Clinic for treatment of addiction to prescription drugs after crashing his car into a security barrier near the Capitol yesterday.

Kennedy said at a news conference in the Capitol that he was in treatment for prescription pain medication during the congressional Christmas recess and will return for treatment because he doesn't remember the events surrounding the 2:45 a.m. accident.

``That's not how I want to live my life,'' said Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat and the son of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. ``This afternoon, I am traveling to Minnesota to seek treatment at the Mayo Clinic to ensure that I can continue on my road to recovery.''

Kennedy, 38, said yesterday in a written statement that he took Ambien, a sleeping pill, along with a nausea drug, causing him to become ``disoriented'' shortly before the accident. He indicated today that he intends to remain in office, and didn't take questions from reporters.

In a police report about the incident, officers said that Kennedy first swerved into a wrong lane before crashing his 1997 green Ford Mustang into the security barrier. His car didn't have its headlights on, the report said, and he told officers that he needed to get to the Capitol for a vote, even though the House hadn't been in session for hours.

`Eyes Were Red'

Officers noted in the report that Kennedy's ``eyes were red and watery, speech was slightly slurred, and upon exiting his vehicle, his balance was unsure.''

Kennedy said in the statement yesterday that he didn't consume any alcohol before the accident. He said he has fought against depression and drug addiction since he was a young man.

Sanofi-Aventis SA's Ambien, the top-selling insomnia drug in the U.S., has been the subject of media reports suggesting the pill may cause users to drive or binge eat while sleepwalking.

``Ambien is safe and effective when used as prescribed,'' Melissa Feltmann, a spokeswoman for Paris-based Sanofi said today in a telephone interview. ``The prescribing information says patients should not drive a motor vehicle after taking Ambien, should not take Ambien with alcohol and should only take Ambien when the patient is able to get a full night's sleep.''

Kennedy yesterday denied that he sought special consideration from police. He said he offered to cooperate with their investigation.

The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported that an official of the Fraternal Order of Police, the city's police union, said normal investigative practice would have been to offer the accident victim a breath test to determine his sobriety.

Instead, the union official said, a watch commander requested that officers give Kennedy a ride home, the newspaper said.

An idea of mine that has been swirling in my brain for a year or so is to have Congress and the White House undergo periodic drug testing. I began thinking this when Congress started having hearings into baseball steroid use and their drug policies. I wondered about all these high and mighty politicians scolding baseball (and other sports in later hearings) about drug testing when politicans themselves don't have to be drug tested. Considering that our Washington politicans are responsible for very important issues to all of us, wars for instance, I started to believe that if anyone in our society should be required to have mandatory drug testing it's them.

Most of us private citizens are subject to drug testing to get a job, politicians are never required pre-employment drug testing. If some of us mess up at work (have an accident, begin showing up late, etc.) we may have to be drug tested, yet politicians don't have this threat. Some private occupations require random drug testing, Congress and the White House don't. Military personnel have random drug testing, politicians don't. It seems plenty hypocritical for our politicians to allow so many of us to submit to drug testing yet they don't have this same implication on rights to privacy.

Kennedy has said that he is addicted to Ambien and is seeking drug treatment, yet was still making public decisions that affect us. Ambien has been accused of resulting in users driving a car in their sleep. I mean, WHAT? This is not good. Once Kennedy began his drug treatment, he should have been suspended from Congress until he beat his addiction, they'd do that for athletes and many of us. In fact plenty workers in the US might have been immediately fired for the Kennedy car accident under a drugs influence.

My Libertarian side is not in favor of mandatory and random drug testing, but my hypocrisy alert side is in favor of those that make and allow these drug testing policies be under those same policies. I'm not for drug testing even in athletics because of privacy rights, but some important occupations (airline pilots for one, politicians another!) should be monitored for drug use (including alcohol).

I would be willing to bet that if mandatory and random drug testing were to be applied to our Washington politicians and then the violators made public we would have plenty of cases to discuss. Never mind illegal drugs for a minute, alcohol and prescription drug overuse has often whispered about over the years.

I've often found that drug testing is filled with authoritarian hypocrisy. In corporations how many CEOs, board members, high level executives are subjected to drug testing? Probably a big fat zero. The business lunch drinking still goes on, but if a lowly employee gets drug tested and has been found to be smoking marijuana off the job, then termination is highly possible. Our law makers institute drug testing laws, then don't have to submit to them.

So until the drug testing hypocrisy has been changed, I fully believe those DC politicians should be treated the same as the rest of us and that includes our president, vice president, and White House appointees.

Many of us have to be drug tested to get a job, why are politicians not required one when running for election? Why are political appointees able to avoid drug testing to get their appointment?

Night Draws Near

2006-05-03T08:18:00.000-04:00

I just finished a good book called Night Draws Near by Anthony Shadid. The book is an account of the Iraq War by a reporter working for the Washington Post but from the everyday Iraqi point of view.

Shadid travels throughout Iraq from before the "shock and awe" beginnings to mid-2004 and then returns for the first Iraqi election. He spends much time in Baghdad witnessing many pieces of the events as they occured. Shadid was the first to interview unknown (to Americans) cleric Muqtada Sadr, eventual leader of the Mahdi Army, post invasion.

The reporting has such a sense of how it would feel to be caught between Saddam Hussein and America's promises of freedom. To be in hiding for the first month of the war just trying to stay out of the way. To experience the electric power failures, the lack of water, food, medicine, and sewage.

Shadid takes you to various Iraqi's and asks how they feel at different points along the course of the war. Normal Iraqi's outraged at the total lack of control of their country by the American forces as the looting swept throughout the country following the fall of Baghdad. The fear of Iraqi's as the promises of a better life hardly materialized but instead a steady stream of bombings, kidnappings, murders, looting, theft, and unemployment accumulated.

Shadid was only embedded with American troops on a couple of occassions. He was almost entirely "embedded" in Iraqi society. He had the luxury of being fluent in Arabic and he's an American, so his insight was completely different from a troop embedded reporter who could only speak English. Shadid could read the writing on the wall, literally, as graffiti on buildings could give a sense of how some Iraqi people were thinking that a non-Arabic speaking person could never understand.

I was impressed with his accounts of several events. Visiting the wild scene of the crater after the U.S. tried to bomb Saddam out of existence but instead killed many civilians. Or the bombing of the front gate of the home of his ever ready Iraqi aide, friend and helper. The many visits to a family with a teen girl whose diary contained an emotional eyewitness account as she grew up through those couple of years in a war torn Baghdad.

And a simple visit of a graveyard in Baghdad that held the remains of British soldiers from their war against the Ottoman Empire in the 19-teens. Included was the grave of Major General Sir Stanley Maude. After entering Baghdad, Maude proclaimed, "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerers or enemies, but as liberators." The British became occupiers and gave up in the 1930's.

President Bush nearly used those exact words on the eve of war and at times later. Is it a wonder that Iraqis with much better memories of the past than Americans have would wonder if Bush was telling the truth? And Shadid finds many Iraqis wondering what is to come of their lives and their country as the months go on. He finds Shiites and Sunnis weighing the future and some of them simple flee the country, including his associate with the bombed front gate.

I highly recommend this book. An account of the Iraq War that is rare in American media.

Mission Accomplished, 3 Years Ago Today

2006-05-01T19:32:00.000-04:00

Bush's thumb, in the wrong direction.

Three years ago today President Bush declared "mission accomplished" during his aircraft carrier over-the-top photo op. I remember that day and remember how disgusted I was because I absolutely KNEW that the war was not over. Now, three years later I knew what Bush didn't, that mission was not accomplished, in fact still isn't.

We now know that even three years after mission accomplished hasn't materialized that not a few months ago Bush suggested that the next president would be dealing with Iraq. He has already passed on mission acomplished to the next president. Some day, maybe, we will have a mission accomplished, maybe, but it's hard to see from here.

Most everyone except the White House seems to understand that Iraq is now a sectarian and tribal civil war. I guess the White House only thinks civil wars are like our own American Civil War, with clear lines drawn. Iraq's civil war is like several others. It's the assassinations in the street, the militas of Shiites and Sunnis battling each other in an almost private way. The Iraq civil war is more like an American big city drug war between large gangs, crips vs bloods, only larger and more deeply rooted in long ago transgressions. The situation in Iraq is something the Bushies never envisioned, they never had that "vision thing" as to Iraq. They never understood the culture, the religion, the politics, and the tribal aspects.

Mission accomplished's three year anniversary has come and gone today, but the war in Iraq has come and not gone.

Colbert Skewers Bush, Bush Just Nods

2006-05-01T18:39:00.000-04:00

Stephen Colbert's word was "information" just the opposite of what President Bush gives us.

Over the weekend the White House Correspondent's Dinner was held. This is a get-together where the news media stars mingle with politicians, the White House personnel (including Bush and wife Laura) and various other personalities. For instance outgoing and incoming Press Secretaries Scott McLellan and Tony Snow were there as were actor George Clooney, Senator John McCain, newsworthy Joe Wilson and his wife, and quaterback Ben Roethlisberger. The dinner is sort of a lovefest for the news media stars. They get to rub elbows with those they cover.

The highlight of the evening is when the host (this year being Colbert Report host Stephen Colbert) does their speech/routine. In the recent past Jay Leno skewered the press and the president. This year Colbert blasted the press and Bush with his pretend character he assumes on his show, the fake conservative. Apparently Bush was not so pleased after Colbert's act, simply nodding, shaking his hand and leaving the dinner. Some highlights of Colbert's humor follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at Colbert's characterization of the Bush supporters as "backwash." For many months I've tried to come up with a good description for those remaining Bush faithful, those 32% that still approve of him. I usually call them "the final faithful" or the "Kool Aid drunks." I've long felt that even if Bush severed the head of a voter live on TV those backwashers would find some way to justify Bush's bloody action, rather than see reality. Which brings me to another Colbert comment at the dinner. "And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

You can read the transcript of Colbert's routine here and see the video here.

Hastert, Gas Hypocrite

2006-04-29T14:10:00.000-04:00

The top picture is House Speaker Dennis Hastert riding in a hydogen fueled vehicle. The second photo is Hastert getting into his personal SUV after the first picture was taken. His ride in the first car was to promote alternative fueled vehicles this past week when some Republican Congress members had a press conference at a gas station in Washington, D.C. The ride in the SUV was a trip of a few blocks back to the Capital Building.

It makes one wonder a few things. Why didn't Hastert just have the hydrogen fueled vehicle continue on to the Capital Building to save a few more bucks? Why is Hastert's regular vehicle an SUV if he really cares so much about alternative fueled vehicles? Why does Hastert drive an SUV with so many better mileaged vehicles that are just gasoline powered and that are not SUVs if he cares about gas consumption?

I Can't help but label Hastert a hypocrite. This guy thinks all of us Americans should be saving fuel via the choice of vehicles we drive, but not him. Mr. SUV Congressman is the type of leader that should be fired. A great leader leads by example. A poor leader, tells how to do it, but doesn't do it themselves. The two pictures above show a poor leader, I wouldn't follow him even though I think alternative fueled vehicles are a good idea. Why? Because I can't trust a poor leader.

Hey, I've got a good idea. How about all politicians start leading by example? Maybe the Hastert's of Washington should be giving up their SUVs and driving gas conserving vehicles, you know, to lead by example.

Bush Press Conference

2006-04-29T08:36:00.000-04:00

I watched the Bush press conference yesterday and can't help but wonder why I do. Probably because I can always find something to write about in the blog. Here are several excerpts that are good for a quick opinion.

"I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English," Bush said. "I'm not a supporter of boycotts," he replied to a question concerning the upcoming immigration protest.

First, English is not our national language, we don't have a national language. People will end up learning English because it's the dominant language, but there is no law or Constitutional requirement to be fluent in English. Second, it's no surprise Bush doesn't support boycotts, he doesn't have a progressive bone in his body. Yet, I bet he's boycotted things all his life. Simply choosing not to purchase a product based on how a person views the item or the company that makes it, is a boycott. I'm betting Bush has opted not to buy a product for some personal reason a few times in his life.

Bush said on the subject of oil prices and taxing oil companies, "Look, the temptation in Washington is to tax everything, and they spend the money. They being the people in Washington...." He went on to explain that one of the reasons that gas prices are so high is that there hasn't been any oil refineries built since the 1970's and that Congress needs to relax regulatory controls.

Here we go again with Bush acting like he's an outsider of Washington. He even defines those in Washington as "they" thereby not including himself. Bush spends money, he submits a budget on the spending priorites, he's a they.

Now the second part that bugs me is the spin he puts on oil refineries. The fact is that the oil companies have been CLOSING refineries. They haven't wanted to build any. In fact, that has been a stategic plan, to close refineries in order to cause periodic shortages which in turn cause retail prices to rise and the subsequent profits to increase. This was revealed by an insider memo from one of the oil companies. It has nothing to do with regulations. And Bush knows this, he's from the oil industry, Dick Cheney's from the oil industry.

I should stop watching George Bush talk, but I won't. For me it's sort of like watching a car wreck, it's horrible but you can't turn your head.

Bush Still Has Gas

2006-04-27T06:52:00.000-04:00

President Bush has made some proposals to attempt to alliviate gas pump prices. With pump prices over $3 per gallon in some parts of the country, Bush said on Tuesday he would boost gasoline supplies by letting regulators relax clean fuels rules temporarily if state governors ask. He said he would free up more crude oil by delaying deliveries into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Bush also called for the repeal of $2 billion in tax breaks for profit-heavy oil companies. He also urged lawmakers to expand tax breaks for the purchase of fuel-efficient hybrid automobiles.

These moves will do little if nothing to bring down the price of gasoline. I can't argue with repealing the tax breaks to the oil companies, why they gave them in the first place was completely asinine. But that won't lower gas prices, it will only minimally cut into their massive profits. Bush relaxing clean air regulations will do nothing except add to pollution. Expanding tax breaks for hybrids is fine with me, but that is a long term solution, not immediate.

If you read experts reactions to Bush's proposals, one thing comes across as uniformly agreed, that crude oil prices are to blame for high gasoline pump prices. No suprise there. Experts blame futures market that are taking into account hot spot supplies such as Iraq, Nigeria and Iran.

With the past weeks bluster about Iran the price of crude oil has risen. In effect the Bush Administrations war talk toward Iran has caused higher crude oil prices. Their threats have only made Iran richer, good move Bushies. It's also made most Americans poorer due to paying higher prices at the pump.

The Bush hardass, public diplomacy toward Iran is failing, costing us more money and enriching Iran. The Bush diplomacy as to Iran is all stick, no carrot. It's long been time the Bushies talk directly to the Iranians and do the tough work of actual negotiations. And that's the basic problem with the Bushies, they avoid the tough road. They just want to publicly bash Iran, playing to American voters rather than dealing directly with a regime they hate. Yet, they finally figured out that they had to deal with North Korea, the hardass tactics didn't work. Now you never hear about North Korea.

It's been no secret that crude oil prices are going to rise in the coming decade. If you've read anything about peak oil production, the reality is that supply is going to increasingly lag behind demand. But these quick jumps in prices are directly tied to Bush foreign policy in the Middle East. We could have crude oil prices rise over the next decade in a slower more uniform way, but not as long as Bush runs things.

Bush Has Gas

2006-04-23T12:16:00.000-04:00

President Bush mentioned gas prices the other day, but did nothing about them. This of course isn't very surprising considering his long term ties to the oil industry. Here are Bush's comments.
~~~~
I know the folks here are suffering at the gas pump," the president said while promoting his competitiveness initiative at the Silicon Valley headquarters of Internet networking company Cisco Systems Inc. "Rising gasoline prices is like taking a — is like a tax, particularly on the working people and the small-business people."

But to address the immediate problem, Bush offered only a pledge that "if we find any price gouging it will be dealt with firmly."

~~~~

I can offer the dumbass some instances of price gouging. Let's start with the retirement package given to Exxon/Mobile executive Lee Raymond of $400 million this past week. Meanwhile all the oil companies have been reporting record profits in consecutive quarters. This of course followed the oil industry subsidies in the billions handed out in the energy bill last year. Now I don't know Bush's definition of price gouging, but these examples are my definition.

Actually I might define this stuff as pure runaway greed, essentially stolen from the consumer. Basically those subsidies were nothing more than a handout to Raymond's retirement plan. Gee I hope Raymond thanks the American taxpayer for his largess, we're helping to pay for it.

If Bush had any balls, he would be yanking these oil executives into the Oval Office and laying down the law (the law of greed), and explaining to them that he could always put forth an idea to Congress that maybe such an important and vital industry to this country could just as well be nationalized. He should be essentially threatening them with taking away their money tree (rather, forest of trees) if they can't change their greedy ways.

Of course Bush would never do anything close to this, because these guys are buddies of his or his friends or buddies of Dick Cheney. At the minimum Bush could ask for those subsidies to be returned to the taxpayer since it's quite apparent they didn't need them. If they haven't used those huge profits for the things that those subsidies were to help, then they can't run a profitable business. But I'm dead wrong, they've figured out that they can have the subsidies and eat the profits too. The American people are stupid, so stupid, for not protesting in the streets about the oil companies.

Everytime you pump that $3.00 gasoline into your cars remember how the oil companies are swimming in cash. And don't forget that the Bush Republicans also handed them billions in free money, our taxes, so you are actually paying even more than the price at the pump. Be sure to send a postcard to the White House and thank the president for helping rip us off.

Scott McLellan Resigns

2006-04-19T12:19:00.000-04:00

White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan has resigned today. I can't express my feelings more, he should have resigned back when he told his first lie. He did have a tough job I'll admit. Having to lie for his boss, President Bush, and having to cover-up for all the other liars as well, like Carl Rove.

On Scotty, Bush said today, "I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity," the president said. "It's going to be hard to replace Scott, but nevertheless he made the decision and I accepted it. One of these days, he and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas and talking about the good old days."

Yeah, reminiscing about all the bullcrap they slung at the American people. I can just imagine it. "Hey, Scottie, do you remember when I had you tell the press that we can't comment about on-going investigations?"

"Yup Dubya, that was a good one, and they bought it too! Can you give me a beer?"

Once a Liar, Always a Beguiler?

2006-04-18T08:08:00.000-04:00

Now that it has been firmly established that President Bush and many in his administration are liars, how does one take any future statements from this gang?
At this point they have me perplexed. Should I believe anything they say? Should I assume some statements are truth? Do I pick and choose what is truth and what is falsehood?

For instance, now that all the talk is about a possible war with Iran, should I believe the Bush posse when they discuss the topic. Here are two statements about attacking Iran that makes me wonder what should I believe.

President Bush on reports about bombing Iran, "I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend, it was just wild speculation."

Donald Rumsfeld on the same subject, "There is obviously concern about Iran. Iran is a country that supports terrorism. It is a country that has indicated" a desire to obtain nuclear technology. "But it is just simply not useful to get into fantasy land."

And then there's Late Night host David Letterman on Bush, "President Bush is denying that he's planning an airstrike on Iran, so you know what that means: They're planning an airstrike on Iran."

Letterman's joke although funny, sends chills through many of us that also recognize what a liar we have as a president. I hear sound bites like "wild speculation" and "fantasy land," and begin thinking just the opposite, like a Letterman joke. To me when I hear "wild speculation," I think "good guess." When I hear "fantasy land," I wonder "future world?"

It could be Bush and Rumsfeld are trying out new names for the Iran attack, maybe Operation Wild Speculation or Operation Fantasy Land, that of course would be their inside jokes about the bombing plans. The Iran War name for the public would be more like Iranian Freedom or Operation Nuclear Free.

In a strange way, the Bushies have us beguiled. Now that they know that most Americans consider them liars, they can play with us. They can hint one direction and feign to the other way. They can say one thing and be truthful and we would be surprised but unsure if it's the truth. Once a liar, always a liar is an old saw, but it doesnt tell the whole story. Once one is a known liar, truth and fiction can be hard to figure out.

Most of us know liars and we generally just dismiss most of what they say, we are skeptical of everything the person says. But with Bush, he's a president and his words have big effects to all Americans. We can't just dismiss Bush when he says something, we have to try to figure out if it's the truth or a lie. And the Bushies know this paradox and thus can more than just lie to us, they can beguile us.

In Afghanistan, Military Secrets Are For Sale

2006-04-14T01:48:00.000-04:00

Gee Wiz, what the hell? Read the following story about how military secrets are being sold in the bizaars in Bagram, Afghanistan, right outside our military base. Prove to me that our military isn't at least a bit incompetent. And by the way, they are. I should know, I served in the Army.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

'L.A. Times' Afghan Horror Story Confirmed by NBC

By Editor&Publisher Staff

Published: April 13, 2006 11:15 PM ET
NEW YORK A story reported by the Los Angeles Times' Paul Watson on Monday was so mind-boggling it took a few days for other media outlets and Web sites to react. Just about the time that story started circulating widely, NBC News on Thursday night confirmed it, and took it a step beyond.

This is how the NBC investigative team reported it:

"Just outside the main gate of the huge U.S. military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, shopkeepers at a bazaar peddle a range of goods, including computer drives with sensitive — even secret information — stolen from the base.

"This week, an NBC News producer, using a hidden camera, visited the bazaar and bought a half dozen of the memory drives the size of a thumb known as flash drives. On them, NBC News found highly sensitive military information, some which NBC will not reveal." Earlier, the Los Angeles Times had published what indeed appeared to be sensitive material.

“This isn't just a loss of sensitive information,” Lt. Col. Rick Francona (ret.), an NBC News military analyst, said. “This is putting U.S. troops at risk. This is a violation of operational security.”

Some of the data would be valuable to the enemy, NBC related, including names and personal information for dozens of interrogatorsm and interrogation methods; and
IDs and photos of U.S. troops. With information like this, “You could cripple our U.S. intelligence collection capability in Afghanistan,” said Francona.

NBC added: "Among the photos of Americans are pictures of individuals who appear to have been tortured and killed, most too graphic to show. NBC News does not know who caused their injuries. The Pentagon would not comment on the photos.

"The tiny computer memories are believed to have been smuggled off base by Afghan employees and sold to shopkeepers. Whoever buys one can simply plug it into another computer, and in a couple of minutes, see thousands of files.

"Other reporters have bought drives at the bazaar containing classified information, including names and photos of Afghans spying for the U.S. and maps revealing locations of radar used to foil mortar attacks....

"Thursday, the base commander said he's ordered an investigation into activities at the bazaar and into procedures supposed to keep sensitive secrets secure."

On Monday, the Times had revealed, among much else, "A reporter recently obtained several drives at the bazaar that contained documents marked 'Secret.' The contents included documents that were potentially embarrassing to Pakistan, a U.S. ally, presentations that named suspected militants targeted for 'kill or capture' and discussions of U.S. efforts to 'remove' or 'marginalize' Afghan government officials whom the military considered problem makers.'

"The drives also included deployment rosters and other documents that identified nearly 700 U.S. service members and their Social Security numbers, information that identity thieves could use to open credit card accounts in soldiers' names."

Cheney and Rice lie About Mobile Labs

2006-04-13T09:11:00.000-04:00

Dick Cheney makes a few comments about the 'mobile weapon labs' after the Guardian revealed that they were for filling weather balloons. Again by June 8th, 2003 the British press, public and Tony Blair all knew the truth and the Bush Administration had to have been pretending ignorance of the scandal that the story was causing in Britain. Note that Cheney was still repeating the lie more than 7 months later.

We had intelligence reporting before the war that there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and acquired. We’ve, since the war, found two of them. They’re in our possession today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack.
Source, Meet The Press, 9/14/03

". . .we know for example that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring mobile biological weapons labs, and we're quite confident he did, in fact, have such a program. We've found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we believe were, in fact, part of that program. . .I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did, in fact, have programs for weapons of mass destruction."
Source, National Public Radio, 1/22/04

And now we procede to Condolezza Rice (at the time National Security Advisor) and her claims post Gaurdian reporting.

"Already, we've discovered, uh, uh, trailers, uh, that look remarkably similar to what Colin Powell described in his February 5th speech, biological weapons production facilities."
Source: This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC (6/8/2003).

"QUESTION: You are confident you will find weapons of mass destruction. MS. RICE: We are confident that we -- I believe that we will find them. I think that we have already found important clues like the biological weapons laboratories that look surprisingly like what Colin Powell described in his speech."
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (6/8/2003).

I find it interesting that on the same day that the Guardian story was published that Rice was doing the morning political shows, saying just the opposite. And from my previous post, Colin Powell appeared on CNN and Fox with the same propaganda on that same day. Just a wild guess, but I would have to wonder if they were "getting out in front" of the British story.

As far as the Washington Post story this week that outlines that the White House had evidence that those 'weapons labs' were in fact not weapons labs and that President Bush claimed with knowledge that they were, the Post quoted Bush on May 29th, two days after the White House knew. Anyway here are several quotes from Bush that were lies about the trailers for filling hydrogen weather balloons.

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

"Here's what -- we've discovered a weapons system, biological labs, that Iraq denied she had, and labs that were prohibited under the U.N. resolutions."
Source: President Bush, Russian President Putin Sign Treaty of Moscow, White House (6/1/2003).

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents."
Source: President Talks to Troops in Qatar, White House (6/5/2003).

To sort of finalize. The Washington Post puts the date of knowledge of these units as not mobile weapons labs as May 27th, that Bush then ignored that information and publicly stated the opposite. I've also seen quotes by others in the Administration state the wrong information after May 27th, but prior to the Guardian reporting on June 8th. All the quotes for other Administration officials I've used in my various postings are either on the date of the Guardian story or after it.

I did this to make my point, that regardless of what the White House knew on May 27th, they must have certainly been aware of what was happening in Britain due to this story. That Tony Blair was being called a liar by the British press and that the Brits were reading about it.

Colin Powell's Lies About 'Mobile Labs'

2006-04-13T08:38:00.000-04:00

The following quotes are all from former Secretary of State Colin Powell made after the British newspaper The Guardian filed their story (6/8/03) that those weapons labs were trailers for filling hydrogen weather balloons sold to Saddam by the British themselves back in 1987. Tony Blair knew the truth prior to the Guardian story. Note the first two sourced quotes were on the same day of the British reporting, which would have hit their newsstands many hours before Powell made his comments.

"I can assure you that if those biological vans were not biological vans when I said they were on the 5th of February, on the 6th of February Iraq would have hauled those vans out, put them in front of a press conference, gave them to the UNMOVIC inspectors to try to drive a stake in the heart of my presentation. They did not. The reason they did not is they knew what they were."

"One element that I presented at that time, these biological vans, all I could show was a cartoon drawing of these vans, and everybody said, "Are the vans really there?" And, voila, the vans showed up a few months later. We found them."
Source: Interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, CNN (6/8/2003).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"And I think the mobile labs are what I think is a good indication of the kind of thing they are doing."

"We have uncovered the mobile vans and we are continuing to search."
Source: Remarks at Stakeout Following Fox News Interview, Fox News (6/8/2003).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory."

"I think that we will be able to demonstrate convincingly through the mobile labs, through documentation, through interviews, through what we find, that we knew what we were speaking about."
Source: Interview by the Associated Press, State Dept (6/12/2003).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The mobile biological laboratories that were found and presented to the world, I think, is a further evidence of this, and so, at the same time that we continue our efforts to uncover those weapons programs."
Source: Interview with Al Arabiyya Television, Al Arabiyya (6/23/2003).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The imminent threat is that suddenly, this biological warfare lab, for example, could have been put to use."
Source: Interview on NPR's All Things Considered, NPR (6/27/2003).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

"We have found the mobile biological weapons labs that I could only show cartoons of that day." Source: Interview on NBC's Today Show with Katie Couric, NBC (6/30/2003).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Take the mobile vans that we've been talking about, the biological vans. I can assure you, Sean, that when I presented those vans to the world on the 5th of February and described them, all I could put up were pictures or cartoons that we made of them. And later, we actually found them and showed them to the world."
Source: Interview on the Sean Hannity Show, ABC Radio Network (7/2/2003).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"One item I showed was cartoons of the mobile biological van. They were cartoons, artist's renderings, because we had never seen one of these things, but we had good sourcing on it, excellent sourcing on it. And we knew what it would look like when we found it, so we made those pictures. And I can assure you I didn't just throw those pictures up without having quite a bit of confidence in the information that I had been provided and that Director Tenet had been provided and was now supporting me in the presentation on, sitting right behind me. And we waited. And it took a couple of months, and it took until after the war, until we found a van and another van that pretty much matched what we said it would look like. And I think that's a pretty good indication that we were not cooking the books."
Source: Press Briefing, State Dept (7/10/2003).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thank Bush On Iraq for these quotes.

More on "Mobile Weapons Labs"

2006-04-13T06:54:00.000-04:00

Apparently White House spokesman Scott McLellan went sort of ballistic on the media for reporting about the fact that Bush lied about those mobile weapons labs back in May of 2003. Scotty basically demanded an apology for reporting facts, I guess.

I blogged about the mobile weapons labs yesterday. Reword that, trailers for inflating hydrogen weather balloons. It should never be called mobile weapons labs again, they absolutely were not. I pointed out that the British Guardian newspaper had called out Tony Blair for the exact same thing, lieing about those trailers, in early June 2003.

I wonder if Scotty might blow a gasket if he were to be asked by our media about the Gaurdian reporting back in 2003. A good question might be, "Hey, Scotty, did the president know what Tony Blair knew?" Or maybe, "McLellan, should the Guardian apologize to you for their coverage way back in 2003?" Or, "Why didn't Colin Powell or Dick Cheney or other Administration officials know that Tony Blair got caught lieing about the trailers?" "Why did those people go on telling Americans a lie that the British public already knew was a lie?"

I'm sure Scotty would somehow play "Blame The Media," you know, that game the Bushies play when confronted with truth they can't deny. Yet, I would like to play "Blame the Media" as well. Where was our American media back in May/June 2003 on this trailer story? How come they didn't pick up on The Guardian story? Tony Blair was forced to squirm, why wasn't the Bush crowd put in the spotlight?

Easy answer to my questions of the media--because they weren't playing "Get Bush" back then. In fact they seemed to be covering for Bush at nearly every turn in those days. It is so obvious about how the media treats a president. If a president's poll numbers are good, good coverage. Poll numbers down? They put him down. Yet it is also the media that helps shape those poll numbers by the coverage. Sort of media catch-22.

But back to the "trailers for filling hydrogen weather balloons" (such a convoluted phrase). It seems incredulous to me that our bombing war allies in Iraq, our good friends across the Atlantic, and Tony Blair good buddy of Bush didn't get the Bush Gang's attention about this back in 2003. I find it to be beyond belief that the Bushies didn't know about Blair's trouble with the press in Britain. That the Bushites went right on lieing throughout the year about the trailers and that Blair didn't ring up the White House and wonder "How come your American press is silent about your lies?"

I've been visiting the blogs covering this story and I seem to be the only one that knows the British 2003 version of the story. We should be calling this "Weapons Lab Lie Redux: American Remake." I posted comments at several of the blogs including the Guardian web address that had the article. I'm hoping that I've gotten someones attention enough to blow the British aspect into the whole story. To me it only furthers the evidence that the Bushies knew they were lieing to the American public and knew they risked that the British information might be exposed in the American media, yet still propagated their lies.

Iran Nuke? Do I Care?

2006-04-12T18:33:00.000-04:00

Every time I hear talk of Iran and a possible nuclear bomb I simply think, "so what." I've long decided that it just doesn't matter whether they get nukes or not.

What's the big deal anyway? Lots of countries have nukes now including regimes that aren't considered America's friend. Sure, it would be nice if the world was nuclear free, but that's just not a realist stance. The fact is that unless every country disarms their nuclear arsenal then we have to face the fact that the world has nukes.

As to Iran, the "media shock" due to Bush bluster, is that they are some sort of special case. But as usual we seem to have the normal American ignorance of history, and recent history to boot. It wasn't just last year that all the bluster about a country going nuclear was about North Korea and how evil it would be. Now, we hear nothing about North Korea. It seems that life goes on and North Korea hasn't bombed anybody.

The same old, and I mean very old, reason for desire for nuclear capability is just plain MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction. Any country that feels threatened by any other countries wants to have nukes to insure the simple aspect that an attack is much less likely, even nonexistent because the threat of attack is retaliation via nukes.

What makes Iran special? Nothing really if you ask me. The Bushies will say that Iran is led by a madman, but so is North Korea. The Bushies will say that it is because Iran is in the Middle East, but so is Pakistan also owners of nukes. The Bushies will say that Iran is a threat to Israel, but so would Pakistan be an Israeli threat should Pervez Musharraf (a military dictator) lose power to an Islamic regime.

And finally the Bushies would claim that Iran would turn over nukes to terrorists, probably the idea that should most be considered. Yet, it seems that even the worst countries that have nukes today, aren't interested in handing a nuke to a non-nation. It isn't so easy to just hand a usuable nuke to a terrorist. Nukes are large (the suitcase nuke we used to hear about was a myth) and to be most effective need a delivery system, missiles.

I've heard the statement that democracies don't war directly against each other. The same could be said for nuke holding countries. In fact these days it seems that nuke powers do plenty of world trade between each other. It wasn't but a month ago that Bush visited India, a nuke power, and offered a trade deal involving nuclear energy technology in exchange for mangos essentially. And our trade with nuclear power China only grows ever larger by the day. Just today China signed a deal to buy 80 airline 737s from Boeing.

The current list of nuke powers consists of The United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea at the least, I may be missing one or two. Certainly other countries could easily have nukes if they so desired, Germany for instance. But these other countries won't want them as long as they aren't threatened by another nuclear power.

I'm not all that scared about Iran getting nukes. I'm not even convinced they are after nukes, but are more interested in nuclear power plants for energy. The current estimates by experts is that Iran is at best 5 years from getting one nuclear bomb if that is what they are planning. I think by then Iran may have a different political leadership. But experts also think it could be 10 years from now. Alot can change in 10 years.

Would I prefer a nuke free world? Of course. This is really what I would like to see, the promotion diplomatically of nuclear disarmament. Whatever happened to that? Even Reagan was for that. But I'm just not going to be alarmed and scared by the Bushies about Iran.

The Bush Mobile Weapons Lab Lie

2006-04-12T10:01:00.000-04:00

Back in May of 2003 when the White House was all aflitter about those mobile weapons labs that were found in Iraq, Bush was quick to declare them evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Of course we all know by now that those mobile weapons labs were nothing but trailers to produce hydrogen for weather balloons.

The new revelation is that experts were sent to Iraq and dismissed the trailers as WMD related but their report apparently became "lost" after being sent back to the White House. Meanwhile Bush went on a propaganda roll about those "weapons labs." This new revelation is in the Washington Post today.

But I was a bit curious because I couldn't recall when I realized that those labs were for weather balloons. The idea changed somewhere along the way and the media reported the correction at some point. I did a search and found a report from The Guardian dated June 8th, 2003. The information from the Guardian is certainly what I recalled, but I don't believe the American media accepted the weather balloon idea until after the David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group report which had an interim report to Congress in October of 2003 and didn't confirm those labs as biological.

On May 29th, 2003 Bush proudly declared that "We have found the weapons of mass destruction," referring to those weather balloon trailers. This was two days after the field report about the trailers was sent back to Washington. Throughout the summer of 2003 the weapons lab idea kept being repeated by Bush Administration officials including Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and George Tenet.

They must have known of the British analysis from early June, Tony Blair knew and the British public knew from the Gaurdian's article. It seems the Bushies were playing "hear no evil, repeat what we want the public to think."

The big laugh to all of this? That the British themselves sold Saddam the trailers for hydrogen production for weather balloons back in 1987.

Actually two big laughs. If you remember Colin Powell's litany of false WMD evidence to the United Nations prior to the war, the mobile weapons labs were one of the key pieces of evidence. He didn't have pictures though, just cartoons drawn from descriptions by the ex-Saddamist nicknamed "Curveball." Of course Curveball was passing along all sorts of crap that didn't turn out to be true and wasn't verified by anyone else at the time.

But actually, none of it is a laugh because thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died due to this bullshitting of Americans.

How Many Lies Can Bush Tell?

2006-04-11T08:25:00.000-04:00

On Monday, President Bush finally commented on the Libby leak case. Bush is the nearly perfect con man. He can spin, lie, talk out of the side of his mouth, parse, propagandize, disinform, you name it, he can do it. But in this era of blogs, a persons words can be analyized and fact checked better than the media does it. The media is so quick to air the news in a limited air time allowance, that they don't spend enough time getting into the deep details.

Bush said on Monday, "I wanted people to see the truth. You're not supposed to talk about classified information and so I declassified the document. I thought it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches."

So here we go. First, Bush actually didn't want people to see the truth, he's a liar! If he really had wanted this truth crap, he would have declassified the entire National Intelligence Estimate that had deeply buried in it the small portion of questionable intelligence about this idea that Saddam tried to purchase uranium yellowcake from Niger. Prior to this Bush transfer of classified material to Lewis Libby through Dick Cheney, Colin Powell had already informed one newspaper that the yellowcake story was not sound. The intelligence report itself questioned the yellowcake validity. So Bush is now saying that he wanted people (that's us) to see the truth, but the only truth he wanted us to see at that time was information that was not truthful. Pure propaganda!

Bush now is claiming he declassified the National Intelligence Estimate simply by allowing Cheney using Libby to spread the yellowcake propaganda. From all the information I've seen, there is a procedure for declassifying a classified document, Bush followed no procedure. The NIE wasn't declassified until 10 days later. Prior to this, reporters were beginning to demand that the report be made available and Condelezza Rice refused.

So why would Bush now claim "I thought it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches," if the yellowcake story was already proven false, claimed so by Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet prior to the leak? Because Bush was getting slammed by Joe Wilson about those 16 words in The State of the Union speech where Bush claimed Saddam was seeking the yellowcake, which was known by the Bush Administration as being at best dubious at the time of that speech. That "better sense" he wanted Americans to have is clear, to get Americans to believe information that by the time of the leak was discredited by many including Colin Powell. Bush wanted Americans to be propagandized with false information, that's the "better sense" he wanted Americans to have.

Those three sentences from Monday that Bush spoke in explaining the leak were just more lies and bullshit. Bush didn't want people to see the truth. Bush didn't declassify (declassified by his definition, not procedurely) anything but a line or two from a huge document. And Bush certainly didn't want people to have a better sense.
~~~~~~
But here are some more lies from Monday's speech, this time about the Iran war plan.

Speaking about the report in The New Yorker written by Seymour Hersh that there is a war plan developing for Iran, Bush said this, "I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend, it was just wild speculation."

This is such obvious bullcrap it almost isn't worth commenting on, but I will. It would be absolutely inconceivable to believe that there has never been a plan, that there currently is not a plan and that there are no future considerations to a war with Iran. There are war plans for virtually every country on the planet, they are called contingency plans. And to claim that such a contingency plan is "wild speculation" is blatently a lie. To insinuate that the Pentagon hasn't been looking at those contingency plans due to the White House bluster towards Iran in recent months whether the White House advised the Pentagon or not, is completely disingenous.

The fact is, our government led by Bush would have to be completely comatose to not have Iran war plans being developed and considered after the war threats made by Bush and others coming from the White House. We know from this administration that when they make threats they certainly might follow through (Iraq). Unless they are like some ineffectual teacher in elementary school repeatedly telling an unruly pupil that a time-out is going to happen and never actually instituting the penalty. The Bush Administration doesn't ever want to be an ineffectual teacher even it requires beatin the pupil into a pulp rather than consider using a time-out. The Bush diplomacy tenet in a nut shell, threaten to bomb and then bomb even if there is no valid justification.

As to a possible Iran War people should actually listen to President Bush when he once butchered a famous phrase, "Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again." In other words, don't be fooled by Bush again. Of course I wasn't fooled the first time about Iraq, although I did wonder if he might back off before the shock and awe started.

Certainly the rhetoric against Iran has a certain pre-Iraq War common theme. Begin the bluster, threaten the country, float the idea to the public, inflate the threat, begin unknown to the public manuveurs against the country, etc., etc. I will believe intensely that a war with Iran is the plan. Better to assume the track record is repeatable than to be fooled later on.

March For Citizenship

2006-04-10T11:45:00.000-04:00

Today more protest marches are scheduled in 90 US cities in opposition to Congress passing an immigration bill. These marches are following the mass demostrations and marches last week. But I'm a bit incorrect in my characterization of today's marches.

Congress is mired in conflict on which immigration bill should be put forth for vote and what the bills should contain. As of today, there is no immigration bill ready for the light of day. The protests have evolved into a human rights and citizenship cause.

You've got to hand it to the illegal aliens (what a lousy term, like they are gun runners from outer space) for having the pride and bravery to shout to our government. It's too bad we can't get this type of emotion and power into marches for impeachment.

I can't help but admire people who don't have any rights because they aren't citizens, demanding rights, such as citizenship. The fact is that overwhelmingly many illegal immigrants have been contributing to our society and after many years of this are right to expect something simple in return, citizenship. They don't have the right to vote, but they are certainly exercising what is a basic American human right, free speech.

I don't know about anyone else, but they've got my attention and I'm willing to listen. More power to them.

Iran War Plan

2006-04-09T11:28:00.000-04:00

So here we go, deja vu all over again. The New Yorker has an article by Seymour Hersh that describes the war plan being developed by the Bush Administration for Iran.

Mr. Hersh is a fine reporter who has good connections in the military and he verifies with numerous sources. It was Hersh that broke the Abu Graib torture story and going back to Viet Nam, the My Lai case involving the massacre of civilians by American forces. When Hersh reports, I listen.

Some excerpts that intrigue me.

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

That's a good question! Those guys were probably the same ones who thought the Iraqis would great us with flowers and that the Iraq War would be easy. Second, Iran fought a long hard war with Iraq and never backed down. They had many of their major cities bombed during that war. And personally I'm wondering when the American people decide to rise up and overthrow our own government for taking us into endless wars.

A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. “This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war,” he said. The danger, he said, was that “it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability.” A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: “Hezbollah comes into play,” the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. “And here comes Al Qaeda.”

The Bush doctrine of preemption applied to Iran, no doubt. But let me get this preemption thing straight. We preempted Saddam who had no WMDs and in the process losing over 2,300 and counting soldiers. Now, Bush is going to preempt Iran who most experts believe is at best 10 years from getting a nuclear weapon if that is what they are even trying to do.

If we were to bomb Shiite Iran, you can bet the Iraq War will be a huge civil war and thus we'd have to pull out. You can bet that Hezbollah will be aiming at us all over the world, no hotel, vacation spot, embassy, you name it that Americans go overseas will be safe. If we go to war with Iran, you might as well plan to stay in America to "feel" safe. I'm beginning to facetiously think that this is how Bush plans to ween us off Middle East oil, to make the whole Middle East dangerous for all Americans to visit including the oil dealers.

A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, said that no one in the meetings with select members of Congress “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

Where have I heard this before? The Bush Administration discusses pre-war ideas with only those who are true believers in Congress. They get their story straight before talking to the American people. This is the pre-war propaganda check and a round-up of support. It shouldn't be long before we hear about how Iran will have a nuke in about a year, whether true or not.

Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

This is right out of the Bush/Blair meeting and pre-Iraq War, try to get Iran to react militarily for a casus belli. This might be called pre-preemption. This is what bullies do, remember from elementary school? First the relentless teasing until the poor kid can't take it anymore and finally swings, then the bully has the casus belli and beats the kid into a pulp. In diplomacy, Bush has never grown up from his childhood.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

So history would sort of repeat itself. The United States has been the only country to use a nuclear weapon ever. And Bush wants to be the only president to authorize nukes in a world of numerous countries that have nukes. Unlike in WWII when America was the sole nuclear bomb holder, today the climate is different. I can't imagine much of the world wouldn't be outraged. Bush is ready to nuke to stop a supposed building of a nuke someday in the future? So, why didn't he nuke North Korea a few years ago?

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.”

He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran.

“The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

I'm thinking that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are more stable thinking than Bush, that's for sure. Maybe resigning is not what they should do. Maybe a military coup wouldn't be such a bad thing these days. Storm the White House, remove Bush and Cheney, and then place a top military general in charge. I'm betting they'd announce they were geting out of Iraq within a year. I guess that's how bad I see Bush, I'd welcome a military coup although I'd much rather have an impeachment.

The New Yorker article is long and I recommend reading it.

Bush, the Lieing Leaker

2006-04-07T03:51:00.000-04:00

The big news about President Bush is stunning yet no surprise to me. President Bush authorized the leak of classified information. This is stunning because it's so hard to believe a president would do this. It's no surprise to me, Bush has not been honest most of his life. This news if true can only mean one thing, impeachment or resignation for President Bush.

The full story goes a bit like this. Bush told former assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby that it was fine to leak classified information (the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq) to a reporter. Dick Cheney told Libby to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller the name of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Bush also told several White House aides to leak classified information (the estimate) to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

The National Inelligence Estimate on Iraq was the case for weapons of mass destruction which was filled with misinformation. Much of the report was known by the Bush Administration as either being unlikely and false.

Judith Miller and Bob Woodward were given false information to disseminate to the public. Miller was writing pro-war news articles using the false information for the American public to read. Miller was providing the false argument that the Bush administration wanted Americans to hear, and of course this was at the same time the Bush pro-war spokespeople (Donald Rumsfeld, Condeleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, etc.) were publicly making the case for war.

Further, Judith Miller was a writer for the New York Times which has a reputation for having a "liberal" slant. This would give the Republican pro-war machine some credibility to others besides conservatives. Preaching to the choir on Fox News was certainly not going to be enough to sell the war.

Going back to the time when Valerie Plame's real name was printed in a column by Bob Novak and quickly added to in other writers columns, Bush when asked about the leak, commented that he wanted to find out who did the leaking. It oddly seems that Bush wanted an investigation to find out that it was Bush himself who authorized the leak.

So Bush was lieing to the American public by not revealing that he authorized the leaks at that time. He plain lied to us. He lied to us on other things as well back then of course (the recently revealed memo of Bush meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair), but this is even bigger. It should evolve into impeachment proceedings. The totality of the lies and leaks is certainly enough to force Bush to resign rather than be impeached.

I would think enough Republicans would now have to join the Democrats in speaking about impeachment. It won't be tomorrow or the next day. An investigation will have to be started, and efforts to delay it will certainly happen. We are soon going to see the words investigation, Bush, and impeachment in headlines. This must be the beginning of the end for Bush.

If the ball doesn't get rolling prior to the midterm elections, then Republicans are likely to lose power in Congress and then the Democrats can initiate an investigation and/or impeachment. But I'm guessing that enough Republicans seeing the polls drop even more for Bush will want to highly distance themselves from Bush before November's election day, so those Republicans will join Democrats on the idea of at least an investigation.

If nothing happens, then I will be simply stunned. If Americans can't protest for impeachment at this point without causing action to be taken by Congress, then we have no power. That would be embarrassing in comparison to the recent huge protests by American immigrants or the French workers. The people must get Congress' attention on this because Bush is a lieing leaker.

What Immigration Problem?

2006-04-06T10:31:00.000-04:00

I've been reluctant to weigh in on the immigration issue because of how complicated it is (and always has been) yet how simplistic the issue is presented by politicians and the media. But, reluctance be damned, here I go rambling as it may be.

Let's begin with the most talked about issue within the issue, border and border security. The wall. This has to be the stupidest idea, to attempt to construct an impenatrable barrier along the entire border with Mexico. There has actually been suggestions that illegal immigrants be hired to do the labor. Walls don't work. People can go under, over, around and above a wall. A wall is nothing but an empty symbol of protection, unless the other side of the wall actively participates in defense of the wall, the wall stands for nothing. Even East Germans managed to escape their barriers.

Immigration has always been tied to economy, from the earliest beginnings of the United States. Our country used the importation of slaves and indentured servants to do the hard labor. When that finally ended it was wave after wave of European immigrants to do the tough jobs. The West Coast used Chinese labor to build railroads and do mining. Now, it's Mexicans and Central Americans that are "needed."

The argument has always been that immigration was needed because Americans won't do certain jobs. The truth is that the capititalist leaders have always used a divide and conquer strategy for labor rather than to pay the wage that would attract nearly anyone to the jobs. Divide and conquer involved usually recruiting immigrants to compete with Americans for the jobs producing a spiraling down of wages and benefits. In the backdrop to that was the purposeful rhetoric of xenophobia (hatred of foreigners or strangers). The power of the few at the top to dominate the masses being used in economics backed by political power is the continuing history of the United States.

It has been true that countries of origin that the immigrants that have massed to America in the past and now were countries suffering economic depressions or unrest and the poor and repressed of those countries saw America as the place for prosperity. It is also true that those countries didn't place much emphasis in stopping that emigration, and more often than not promoted it.

So the social movements of people to the United States has been repeated throughout our history. Nearly 100% of non-native Americans of today are descended from one wave of immigration or another and even combinations of several of the waves. Black slavery is of course not a wave of willing peoples, forced as it was.

So how is todays immigration "problem" that is so dominant in political discussion any different than before? It's not, except for one factor, "post 9/11 America."

There has become a fear factor that has been developed since 9/11. This fear factor has been purposely pushed on us by the political powers, yet it was easy to do as 9/11 was a huge excuse to make us afraid. Homeland Security, terrorists, borders, Arabs, etc. are now thrown into the immigration issue to further complicate it.

The possiblity of more terrorism within the US borders makes building a wall a more attractive response and is put to Americans as a double positive as it will stop immigration as well. Funny how little the issue of drug trafficing is not mentioned as another good reason to have a Mexican wall, probably because we like drugs so much.

The truth is a wall won't do any good. Terrorists, immigrants and drugs will enter by sea, by air, via tunnels, by way of our long, long Northern border. Republicans with their supposed opposition to big government programs and who happen to be most interested in a wall (for security reasons) seem to be forgetting the cost of building a wall, and the subsequent increased security that will still be needed. Other Republicans are stuck in their support of corporate interests and are not so enamored with a wall and restrictions on immigration.

Another issue is that we do have laws about immigration that aren't being enforced. Corporations and businesses are not suppose to be hiring illegal immigrants, yet do so with impunity. If anti-illegal immigrationists were really interested in slowing the influx then they would raise the mechanisms to investigate and then penalize the business world for breaking the law. But they don't and probably won't.

I don't consider the immigration issue as anything but partisan politics in an election year (and these days elections years seem like every year). Nothing will really be done, because nothing can be done that is good in that type of atmosphere.

This morning I saw a review of the current most likely proposal. Basically a guest worker program for illegal immigrants who have been working in America for 5 years or more with the pushing of becoming citizens and get this, speaking English. Those here between 2 years and 5 years will be briefly forced to leave and re-enter as guest workers and those with less than 2 years, deported.

I have to laugh. First how are they really going to find and round up every immigrant? How are they going to determine how long they've been here, people with no immigration papers or documentation? Can you say massive profiling?

And forcing English as a language, America has never done this before, we've never had an official language. People learn English because that is what makes sense in this country, there has never been a need to force the language on people. American English is loaded with words of many nationalites, we adopt new words all the time and it makes our language all the better and interesting.

I may have missed some pieces to the immigration situation. I don't really see some type of black and white answers to the puzzle. I do think that enforcing the laws about hiring illegals would be a beginning step. Try that with some gusto and see where it leads and then decide further steps.

I also think a puzzle piece I haven't discussed needs to be addressed, and that is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Mexico has and is been a different link in the trade deal. It's allowed corporations to export jobs to that country. It's allowed big changes in Mexico that drives Mexican poor to try to come to America by any means possible. NAFTA has not been free trade for Mexico or fair trade for America. So, I think a rethinking about NAFTA and a new way of negotiating trade pacts in general needs to be done.

Exportation of jobs is an irratant to many Americans. Just this morning in my Detroit newspaper on the front page was an article about GM exporting engineering jobs. Excuse me? These are jobs that college educated people desire and have been advised to persue through education. If America can't keep these type of jobs, those jobs desired by immigrants may be more important to Americans than we think.

Our middle class is being pulled apart at the seams and in the process putting more pressure on lower class jobs. There is this idea that legal immigration for high paying jobs is fine, but having legal immigration for the low paying jobs isn't so good. We are not xenophobic about a Pakistani doctor, but are for a Mexican fruit picker, something is weird about that picture.

Our education system from high school on can be a part of the problem as well. We've made it very difficult to afford college, particularily for the medical field. Graduates are entering the work life with big bills to pay back for many years and in many cases the occupations they were told would be good for them are turning out to be victims of job exportation, computer programming for instance.

It's time to stop rambling and finish up. The immigration issue will not be solved by some bill from Congress. It's far too deep to slap a few rules on to claim the issue is over.

McCain Going Wacko?

2006-04-04T09:34:00.000-04:00

Arizona Senator John McCain a presidential candidate in 2000 and assumed to be a presidential candidate once again in 2008 has been saying some odd things lately. This may be because he is trying to court the Republican base which of course is loaded with religious fundementalist fanatics.

On Sunday's Meet The Press host Tim Russert questioned McCain on Iran. McCain said that if sanctions fail then the United States must be prepared to go to war with Iran. Asked if he thought that the US might be entangled in two wars simultaneously, McCain responded, "I think we could have Armageddon."

Here we go again with the religious terminology. These statements aren't made by accident, they are directed to the religious fundementalists who want and believe in the end times type prophesies. These fundies believe the book series "Left Behind" is more than fiction, that it's a sort of blueprint for the future. The fundies want war in the Middle East to bring on the apocalypse.

Just to make sure, I checked my dictionary for the word Armageddon and here is the main definition.

Armageddon; Bible, The place where the last, decisive battle between the forces of good and evil is to be fought before Judgement Day. Rev. 16:16.

The fact that McCain used this word so specifically and bluntly shows he is more than likely speaking directly to the fundies in order to attract future voters for his 2008 presidential run. He is essentially selling out, as he hasn't been known to do this in the past. Consider that he could have used descriptions such as World War III, massive war, two-pronged war, expanded war on terror, or other ideas, but he chose Armageddon. That was no accident.

Bush Lied Us To War, Memo Reveals

2006-04-03T12:11:00.000-04:00

My post from Sunday April 2nd, referred to the meeting between President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair where Bush before the war acknowledged that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. I feel it's neccessary to link the article from the NY Times about the memo that exposed the meeting discussions. You can read it here. You can read about it here. You can also read about it here.

I post these several links to hopefully make sure that the information is available in some way. As Media Matters points out, the memo has received little attention. This is curious to me as this is more of a "smoking gun" about Bush lieing to the public about the approaching war than even the Downing Street Memos.

Let's be clear about what Bush was saying to Tony Blair just a few days before Colin Powell went to the UN with the "evidence" of Saddam's WMDs, (this evidence of course was virtually completely false). Bush and Blair acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

So Bush was open and thinking about creating a casus belli in order to justify an invasion. This of course was the behind the scene manuevering by Bush. To the public it was all talk about WMDs that Saddam had. We were lied to and Bush was quite aware that he was lieing.

This memo came out last week in the New York Times and the rest of the media yawned. By this week, it's ignored news. This is similar but not the same reaction that the Downing Street Memo received. That memo was reported in Britain and it took nearly a month before a major media outlet (The Washington Post) to even report about it.

What bothers me to the extreme is that our nation is so poorly informed. Even today about a third of the nation believes Saddam Hussein perpetrated 9/11. As well about the same percent still believe that Saddam had WMDs despite the fact that repeated investigations and inspections after the war found nothing, and despite President Bush publicly saying after the war that there were no WMDs found. To clarify, the phrase "after the war" means at least a year after the initial invasion. I have not claimed that the Iraq War is over.

Our media that chases sensational stories about white women disappearances and celebrity murders, just doesn't seem to think that a president that outright lies to the public that he serves isn't much of a story.

The American people are the president's boss, not the other way around. He is suppose to answer to us, not lie to us. He is obligated to tell the truth to Americans, not avoid telling the truth. Bush is a criminal as far as I'm concerned, he should be impeached. But I've said this many times before.

Also of note is the website After Downing Street which examines all of the Bush lies about Iraq and is a coalition from Congress willing to impeach Bush.

More Condi Rice

2006-04-03T11:02:00.000-04:00

It seems Condeleeza Rice had a tough time on her tour of Great Britain. At one stop she had protesters chanting "Hey, hey Condi hey, how many kids did you kill today?" At another stop she made the comment about "the thousands of tactical errors" that I posted yesterday.

The next day she rephrased that comment. Rice asked to name some of the "thousands" of mistakes she had said the U.S. made in Iraq, Rice replied: "First of all, I meant it figuratively, not literally. Let me be very clear about that. I wasn't sitting around counting. The point I was making to the questioner ... is that, of course, if you've ever made decisions, you've undoubtedly made mistakes. "The important thing is to get the big strategic decisions right, and that I am confident that the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people an opportunity for peace and for democracy is the right decision."

~~~~~~~
I wonder how that big strategic decision about peace and democracy is working out? In yesterdays post I was curious whether she would elaborate about what those thousands of mistakes might be, some details as it were. I speculated she wouldn't name them, that I wouldn't hold my breath. And of course I was correct, no details, just a verbal dance around the direct question.
~~~~~~~

Condi also had a big problem with a Beatles lyric. She's a professed Beatles fan and plays their music on the piano. A British reporter asked her about the line "4,000 holes in Blackburn Lancashire," here's the account, beyond that...

Her host British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw jumped in to explain that the line was from the classic 1967 Beatles song "A Day in the Life," on their album "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." The Beatles were referring to a newspaper article about the Blackburn roads surveyor‘s count of 4,000 potholes in the area.

The reporter asked Rice to sing a few bars. She meant the part about the 4,000 holes. "But Rice, in over her head in Beatles trivia and looking sorry she had gotten into the whole thing," according to the Associated Press, woodenly sang the title "Sgt. Pepper‘s Lonely Heart‘s Club Band," then left with Straw.

The British press then started referring to Rice's "Magical Mystery Tour," the name of another famed Beatles album. The Times of London ran an editorial cartoon of Rice and Straw holding up a hole-ridden sign labeled "The Case for War."

~~~~~~
You can see why government officials and politicians shouldn't pretend they are experts about things like the Beatles unless they truly are.
~~~~~~

Condi Rice, Right and Wrong

2006-04-02T11:48:00.000-04:00

The other day Condelezza Rice finally admitted the mistakes of Iraq.
~~~~~~
Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them," she said in answer to a question over whether lessons had been learned since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"I believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision, that Saddam had been a threat to the international community long enough," she added.

~~~~~~

But she hasn't admitted the biggest mistake of all, going to war with a country that never was a threat to us. I wonder what tactical errors she was referring to, what thousands they might be. It would be nice if she actually pointed out what errors were made.

I would say tactical error number one was in the propaganda selling of the war as disarming Saddam of non-existent WMDs. It was Condi herself who warned of an impending mushroom cloud from Saddam. But the thing about propaganda is that once the propagandized realize it's just propaganda then they are not willing to believe the next load of propaganda. Well, Americans have figured out the lies, the polls show that.

And with the recent revelations that President Bush was planning to attack Iraq without UN approval prior to going to the UN. In Bush's secret talks (recently revealed) with Great Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush told Blair that he didn't believe that Saddam had WMDs, yet at the same time he was going to the American people and claiming just the opposite. He was allowing his henchmen, like VP Dick Cheney and of course Condi Rice to publicly repeat the WMD mantra while Bush didn't believe it. These people are now such obvious liars.

As for me, I never believed the propaganda in the first place, but it's nice to know that I was absolutely correct in my belief. There is a great word for how I feel, vindicated. I've felt vindicated for some time now, but the Bush/Blair meeting shows deeply the terrible character of Bush.

As to Condi and her thousands of mistakes, I wonder if she thinks her mushroom cloud remarks were one of those mistakes. And if Condi ever feels compelled to spell out more of those thousands of errors, I'll listen but I won't be waiting anxiously as I doubt she plans to elaborate on the thousands.

Iraq Quackery

2006-04-01T09:57:00.000-05:00

Here is some proof of how the Bush warmongers have no idea what they are doing.

From US News and World Report
U.S. raid on Shiite shrine served as a warning
By Kevin Whitelaw

The U.S. military was trying to send a "little reality jab" to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr when American and Iraqi troops raided a Shiite community center and shrine over the weekend, says a top U.S. military official.

The joint assault killed at least 16 people, most of them believed to be tied to Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army. U.S. officials insist the center was being used as a base for insurgent activities and was not a mosque. But many Iraqis say the complex did indeed include the Shiite equivalent of a mosque, and the raid has drawn harsh condemnation from Shiite politicians and prompted Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, to launch an investigation.

The mayor of Baghdad promptly cut off cooperation with the U.S. Embassy, and Shiite politicians suspended their negotiations to form a new government. The U.S. military has long contemplated taking tougher steps against Sadr and his troublesome militia but has held off in the past because it did not want to antagonize his many fervent supporters. This raid, officials say, was intended as a reminder to Sadr of the U.S. military's reach in Iraq.

U.S. officials had been quietly praising Sadr's group in recent weeks because of its calls for calm in the wake of the bombing of a Sunni mosque in Samarra that sparked a wave of sectarian violence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First the military praises Sadr's group for their calm, then they attack them to send a message. What exactly is their message? That praise from the U.S. is fake? And the military doesn't think that this message they are sending with this attack that killed 16 people won't make Sadr's group at the least angry?

They praise them for calm after the mosque bombing. You have to wonder when the next major bombing comes whether calm will be even considered now. I'm beginning to believe that President Bush WANTS Iraq to be in a civil war. At this point what does Bush even care? He has publicly stated that the Iraq War will be passed on to the next president. These kind of mixed messages will certainly ensure that the next president will indeed have to deal with Iraq.

Soldier Funeral Protests

2006-03-29T09:20:00.000-05:00

The following article (see below) descibes the awful aspect of some from the religious right as well as their strange logic. The issue is that an anti-homosexual group from Kansas has been showing up at funerals of soldiers that had died in Iraq. The group claims that the soldiers deserved their death because they were fighting for the United States which tolerates homosexuality.

It's hard for me to understand the logic of this group. First, it's hardly evident that the United States tolerates gays as state after state have been banning gay marraige. I suppose it is true that our country hasn't banned homosexuality itself, if that is what this group is trying to bring about.

Second, the United States shouldn't be in ANY war as long as the United States tolerate gays. I imagine that this Kansas group won't be happy until all gays are rounded up and...I don't know either killed or set straight? At any rate our war in Afganistan is wrong to these Kansans as well?

Third, by their logic the United States shouldn't be in ANY war based on any number of groups that could cite things that the United States tolerates. For instance, maybe I should start a group to protest complete and open free speech that allows free speech for sicko groups like this one from Kansas. My hypothetical group could show up at any funerals of soldiers and say they died because they fought for a country that tolerates the free speech of the Kansas group. Now wouldn't that be a strange idea, telling families of dead soldiers that their son or daughter had died defending free speech because they fought for a country that defends free speech.

This Kansas group is a prime example of how hard it can be to live up to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Their stupid illogical protests are causing states to create laws to limit that Kansas groups free speech rights. We are a country that allows for Nazi groups the right to speak their mind regardless whether that free speech is hateful.

This Kansas group has even caused the ACLU to hold their breath and walk a tightrope on the First Amendment. Protesting at funerals is such a dishonorable, unsocial and unsavory act that it leaves the number one group that defends the First Amendment rights for everyone to not defend it for this Kansas group. Of course there is the right to privacy to the families during the funeral, therefore the ACLU tightrope.

You may have noticed I haven't given the name of this Kansas group, that's because they are not worthy of any additional publicity, even from little old me. I will tell you that this a byproduct of the far right fundementalist movement. These people start at some absolutism, in this case involving a few obscure quotes from the Bible about homosexuality and expand it into a "just cause." They become rabid and fanatical in their goals to the point of something like the funeral protests. Without agreeing with their original absolutism, any good points they might have had become destroyed when they cause nearly anyone to be repulsed by their protest action.

As an opponent of the Iraq War and pretending I don't know why this Kansas group is protesting the war (or the United States) I cringe at their poor selection of a target. If for instance this group was anti-war for the exact same reasons as I am, I would immediately be upset at their methods. Any sane American (pro or anti-war) can understand that this Kansas group is insane.

Further consider that if an American is prejudiced toward gays, this Kansas group puts that American in a position of hating their own country, the Iraq War and the Bush Adminstration which coddles right wing religious fundementalism. So in effect this Kansas group is dissing Americans that they actually have commonality with, how odd. I suppose I should be happy about that particularity, nothing wrong with a little discontent between members of the religious right.

To sum up, as disgusted as I am toward these Kansan's methods, I say let them have a few more protests, under some conditions such as police protection for the families, the protesters must be out of vocal distance of the actual funeral and family, and this is the most important part...the media must be at each of these protests in order for all Americans to see how dispicable the Kansas group is. Give them publicity, I trust Americans to see how stupid and repulsive they are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

House panel approves bill to restrict funeral protests

3/28/2006, 7:43 p.m. ET

By TIM MARTIN

The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The family of a Michigan soldier whose funeral was protested by a Kansas group was among those urging state lawmakers Tuesday to restrict similar incidents in the future.

The family of Army Sgt. Joshua V. Youmans asked the House Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committee to endorse legislation that would ban demonstrations within 500 feet of a funeral. The committee responded by unanimously voting to send the bills to the full House.

Members of Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kan., have shown up at military funerals around the country for several months saying soldiers are being struck down by God for defending a nation that tolerates homosexuality. The group has protested at three recent Michigan funerals — in Flint, at the Youmans ceremony in Flushing and on Monday in Grand Ledge.

The Westboro church typically sends a half-dozen or fewer people to protest at funerals of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq. They hold signs that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" or denounce homosexuality.

Recently, their presence has been countered by hundreds who show up to shield mourners with the approval of soldiers' families. But the Westboro protests are an unwelcome and unwarranted invasion of privacy at a time of mourning, supporters of the legislation said.

"Not one more solider, not one more individual — certainly not one more family — should have to be concerned about protesters" while getting ready for a funeral, Youmans' mother-in-law, Cathie Draheim, told lawmakers.

She also read a letter from her daughter, Katie Youmans, in support of the legislation.

Joshua V. Youmans, 26, died March 1. He was injured in November when an improvised explosive device went off near his vehicle in Iraq.

A violation of the funeral protest legislation would be punishable by up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

The bills have bipartisan support, introduced by Republican Judy Emmons of Sheridan and Democrat John Gleason of Flushing.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it is neutral on the bill, but added lawmakers may have to make changes for it to stand up in court and survive First Amendment tests.

An attorney for Westboro Baptist has said the church will obey laws that have been passed to limit where and when funeral demonstrations take place. The group canceled plans to protest recently in Oklahoma, Indiana, Missouri and Wisconsin, all states that have passed funeral protest laws.

The Michigan House committee also endorsed a resolution sponsored by Rep. David Law, R-West Bloomfield, urging Congress to pass similar legislation.

Supreme Court Judge Scalia, Flips the Finger

2006-03-28T09:00:00.000-05:00

Scalia, NOT using "The Sicilian" in an earlier photo.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is the story of one of our idiot Supreme Court judges, Antonin Scalia. I guess when you get a job that is for a lifetime you feel you can flip off people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scalia has hand gesture for critics

BOSTON, March 27 (UPI) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia startled reporters in Boston just minutes after attending a mass, by making a hand gesture some consider obscene.

A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state.

"You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian."

The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper.

"Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald said.

He was attending a special mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, and afterward was the keynote speaker at the Catholic Lawyers' Guild luncheon.

Letter Printed in Newspaper

2006-03-28T07:00:00.000-05:00

The Detroit News printed another letter I submitted. As usual they edit and cut to their liking, although they did leave my central point intact. The issue is about the Detroit water supply and the control of it by the City of Detroit, which supplies all the suburbs with claen water at a very good price in comparison to other metro areas.

My impetus to write the Detroit News was in response to one of their right-wing columnists who accused the Detroit Water and Sewage Department of being communists. His (Frank Beckmann) reasoning was that the department would like to reduce water rates to the poor and unemployed of Detroit. So, the following is my submission, below that is the letter as printed in the newspaper including a headline they wrote.

~~~~~~~
Dear Editors,
Frank Beckmann's flare for the inflamatory in calling Detroit's control of the water department communism is pointless and misinterpretation. I submit that his communism is actually capitalism, albeit monopolistic, simple supply and demand. Detroit has the water supply and the suburbs have the growing demand.

What IS communism is to have some centralized bureaucracy called a "regional authority" (or maybe the Metro Politburo?) step in and seize control of the Detroit treatment facility. If Mr. Beckmann wants to solve the suburb's water control discontent using capitalism, the solution is competition by building a suburban water treatment facility.

Detroiters could then sit back and watch as the suburbs argue about who would control it, whose backyard it would be sited and the details in how to share it. On completion years from now, suburbanites would ultimately be paying far higher prices for water than they do now. They could then look back and curse themselves for believing Mr. Beckmann's propagandist characterizations.

I confess I could accept his communist regional authority as long as credit be given to Detroit's water history and the sharing with its neighbors, the suburbs. Decades of supplying inexpensive quality water (Aquafina bottled water is drawn from Detroit) that few metropolitan areas in the world can equally boast should count for something. Maybe helping the poor in Detroit receive water they can afford, eh, comrade Beckmann?
~~~~~~~~

No regional Politburo

Frank Beckmann's flare for the inflammatory in calling Detroit's control of the water department communism is pointless. I submit that his communism is actually capitalism, albeit monopolistic, simple supply and demand. Detroit has the water supply and the suburbs have the growing demand.

What is communism is to have some centralized bureaucracy called a "regional authority" (or maybe the Metro Politburo?) step in and seize control of the Detroit treatment facility. If Beckmann wants to solve the suburbs' water control discontent using capitalism, the solution is competition by building a suburban water treatment facility.

~~~~~~~~

Now I want to say that I do understand the need to edit for space concerns, but to eliminate key parts of my letter in regards to projecting into the future my arguement and solutions, leaves me feeling ripped off. I've not fully understood the newpapers of America putting limits on reader letters. The letters-to-the-editor section is one of the most read parts of a newspaper. Additionally, the letters don't cost anything in writer fees/salaries.

I don't write letters to newspapers very often, probably about 7 or 8 a year, and that's only in the last 3 or 4 years. I estimate my printed letter to unprinted letters ratio at about a 50% rate. I'm guessing that that is a fairly good ratio, which does give me a smile, especially considering that my letters tend to be a bit far left wingish.

Gunless Tom Delay

2006-03-25T09:12:00.000-05:00

Tom Delay, mugshot

This is a hoot. The state of Texas has suspended Tom Delay's concealed weapons licence. This is because he is an indicted felon in the state. What's particularily humorous about this is that the Republican Texas legislature wrote this law and now one of their own has to abide by it.

Here is a copy of the actual order.

Now I bet Tom is so scared, he's lost his manhood. At least that's how the Delay's in the world really feel when they can't pack a pistol.

Uncle Bucky Bush, Iraq War Profiteer

2006-03-24T08:31:00.000-05:00

President Bush's Uncle Bucky

I'm not sure I could ever find a better example of war profiteering that benefits a family member as to the Iraq War than the example of President Bush's Uncle Bucky. William H.T. Bush, the youngest brother of former President George H.W. Bush (Dubya's father) cashed in $2.7 million from his post as chief executive due to the sale of a company with Iraq War contracts.

Interesting as well is that SEC filings show that there are two ongoing investigations of Bucky's company as to Iraq contracts.

What makes this case of close family proximity combined with business interests to a war started by one member of the family is the simple assumption I immediately leap to is insider information.

I'd be a fool not to think that news of secret plans to attack Iraq easily slipped to Uncle Bucky through the President himself or the President's father (who also had business interests that could profit from the war from his role with the Carlyle Group). We now well know that a war with Iraq was discussed in the very first cabinet meeting, that later on the day of 9/11 it was as well discussed. We know that the desires and plans for the Iraq War were developed long before it became an issue presented to the public with lame excuses of WMDs and imminent danger.

It's quite obvious to me that insiders that knew about these war plans were developing their business model long before the public heard the plans, the public of course not knowing that the plans were not really for debate. The insiders knew the Iraq War was a sure thing.

Not only were we lied into war, but there was insider information being shoveled around that quite clearly profited those insiders. And worse, that insider information had all the stink of nepotism. Can there be more evidence of something akin to governmental mafioism? And let's not forget that their pockets are lined with our tax dollars. What a bunch of thieves.

Kissinger Agrees With Me, Help!

2006-03-24T08:01:00.000-05:00

A few posts back I had called out Donald Rumsfeld's complete lack of historical accuracy. Low and behold I run across an opinion piece that had former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski also pointing out Rumsfeld's false history lessons.

The strange thing about these former cabinet members is that they are not what I would call political bedfellows of mine. But maybe that just points out the degree to which Rumsfeld is waxing historical mythology simply out of support of his Iraq War and the poor decisions he's made all along. Even Kissinger and Brzezinski disagree with Rumsfeld even though I would label them as tilters toward neoliberialism and/or neoconservatism.

Here is what the article had as quotes from the two.

Leaving Iraq now, Rumsfeld wrote, "would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis." The bizarre analogy was immediately disputed by foreign policy sages Henry Kissinger (who noted that there was "no significant resistance movement" in Germany after World War II) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (who just called the comparison "absolutely crazy'').

I can't say I'm comfortable to be in agreement with Henry Kissinger, but when the Bush crowd keeps comparing (Condi Rice has done the same thing) Iraq resistance to Nazi resistance it is both fantasy and shows how far right the Bushites are. Further I believe it shows how close to 1984 propaganda the Bushers have gone. If they keep repeating historical falsehoods enough then Americans will believe it. War is peace, Bush actually said that once, which was a direct quote from 1984.

Free Speech Speech

2006-03-22T07:40:00.000-05:00

Sunday night on my favorite talk radio show here in the Detroit area, Peter Werbe, he opened his show with a recording from the TV show Boston Legal. On the program Attorney Alan Shore gave a summation for his client who refused to pay her taxes in protest of the government. His closing arguement was a powerful and patriotic defense of the bill of rights and compilation of the sins of the Bush Administration.

After hearing it on Peter Werbe's show, I checked it out from his website (see side bar for link) and was happy to find the video of the speech. Check it out a couple of times, it was stirring for me. The video is entitled "Stick It."

Below is the script of the video, in case you'd rather read than view.

Alan Shore: When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't.

Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.

In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people seem to notice.

Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest.

Stop for a second and try to fathom that.

At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you are wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.

This, in the United States of America. This in the United States of America. Is Melissa Hughes the only one embarrassed?

*Alan sits down abruptly in the witness chair next to the judge*

Judge Robert Sanders: Mr. Shore. That's a chair for witnesses only.

Really long speeches make me so tired sometimes.

Judge Sanders: Please get out of the chair.

Alan: Actually, I'm sick and tired.

Judge Sanders: Get out of the chair!

Alan: And what I'm most sick and tired of is how every time somebody disagrees with how the government is running things, he or she is labeled unAmerican.

U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Evidentally, it's speech time.

Alan: And speech in this country is free, you hack! Free for me, free for you. Free for Melissa Hughes to stand up to her government and say "Stick it"!

U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Objection!

Alan: I object to government abusing its power to squash the constitutional freedoms of its citizenry. And, God forbid, anybody challenge it. They're smeared as being a heretic. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American!

Judge Sanders: Mr. Shore. Unless you have anything new and fresh to say, please sit down. You've breached the decorum of my courtroom with all this hooting.

Alan: Last night, I went to bed with a book. Not as much fun as a 29 year old, but the book contained a speech by Adlai Stevenson. The year was 1952. He said, "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-Communism."

Today, it's the cloak of anti-terrorism. Stevenson also remarked, "It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them."

I know we are all afraid, but the Bill of Rights - we have to live up to that. We simply must. That's all Melissa Hughes was trying to say. She was speaking for you. I would ask you now to go back to that room and speak for her.

Bush Association

2006-03-20T12:42:00.000-05:00

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press sometimes asks a word association question along with its presidential polling. The question they use is "What one word best describes your impression of George W. Bush?" They offer no option to the polled. The latest results had the word "incompetent" as the leading choice at 29% followed by "good," "idiot," "liar," "honest," and "christian."

An interesting mix that has three of the top four choices as being derogatory toward Bush. The words get a little more offbeat following the above choices. Following "christian" were, "arrogant," "strong," "integrity," "ass," "leader," "jerk," "okay," "sincere," "stupid," "president," "selfish," and "untrustworthy." Out of 710 responses these words all had 6 or more people pick them as their word. I have to wonder what other choices were made, those with less than 6 picks.

Looking at the order of the list I find it funny to combine a few that perchance fell in order, for instance, "stupid president," or "president selfish." The best might be "ass leader jerk." One might say, "Oh that Bush, what an ass leader jerk."

Only once in my entire life have I been called to respond to a political poll, and that was for a presidential primary back in 2000. They didn't ask any word association questions that I recall, but that was a different type of poll. If the Pew people had called me for this latest poll and posed the Bush association question to me, I might have been a bit tongue-tied. Here is how I imagine the phone poll would go.

Ring, ring, (you still have to write the word "ring" as the sound of the telephone in this age of millions of types of ring tones) ring, ring.
Me: "hello"
Pew: "Good evening sir. We are conducting a presidential opinion poll. Would you be willing to answer a few questions?
Me: "You mean you want me to comment about that rat bastard Bush? Sure, I'll be glad to."
Pew: "Um, I see you already have a strong opinion about the president, but I'll need to go through the list of questions and all need to be answered to count as a complete poll."
Me: "fire away. I can't wait."
Pew: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling his job?"
Me: "DISAPPROVE!!!! Sorry, I'm shouting, but dang it's so good to be able to tell someone. Someone who will count it."
Pew: "Please answer whether you agree or disagree with the following descriptions of President Bush."
Me: "Agreed."
Pew: "President Bush is a strong leader."
Me: "No! Disagree!"
Pew: "The President is able to get things done."
Me: "He gets things done badly. He could screw up screwing in a light bulb. I'm surprised he can walk without falling down. Put me down for a disagree."
Pew: "President Bush cares about people."
Me: "Sure, rich people and religious nutcakes. The rest of us he considers as nothing but subjects of his realm. I guess that would be another disagree."
Pew: "President Bush is trustworthy."
Me: "I trust Bush about as far as I could throw Air Force One, which is not at all."
Pew: "President Bush is well-informed."
Me: "Sure, if you count those crooks of neocons as good advisors, but I don't. Another disagree."
Pew: "President Bush is a good manager."
Me: "...Of a last place team and should be fired. I disagree again."
Pew: "Do you believe that President Bush is "in touch" or "out of touch" with what is going on in the government?"
Me: "I thought he was on another vacation. He is way out of touch. He should be impeached. When are you going to ask me that?"
Pew: "That's not one of our questions."
Me: "Well, it should be. When are you going to ask me whether Bush should tag along with Dick Cheney on his next hunting trip?"
Pew: "Um, sorry, not on the list. Just one more question."
Me: "Okay, okay, go ahead."
Pew: "What one word best describes your impression of George W. Bush?"
Me: "Wow, that's an easy one, just let me think for a second or two."
(What one great word should I tell this guy? This is almost too easy, so many insults to choose from, so little time. Hmmm, howsabout "fucker?" No, that's foul language, they probably won't accept it. Maybe "dirtbag?" But is that one word or two? "Nose picker" I know that's two words, but it would be great. I've got to clean this up a bit. "Droolface?" No, ummm, "dunderhead?" no, geez, maybe, "sleazebucket.")
Pew: "Hello?"
Me: "I'm here, just thinking. This is harder than I thought."
Pew: OK, but when you first answered that you wanted to comment on that "rat bastard Bush" that would be two words."
Me: "Oh, yeah. I forgot about "rat bastard." But that's how I feel. OK, give me a few more seconds."
(Yeah, "rat bastard" two words, damn. Wait, I know! "Chickenhawk," that's a good one. "Deserter in Chief." Ack, three words. No, those words get dashes, "Deserter-in-Chief." Too complicated. Ummm, "Fathead," "peabrain," "screwball," "retard," they are coming fast, "dickhead" no, that's Cheney, "asswipe," "vomitface," "pinhead," "blowhard," "meathead," umm, umm, those are just insults. Think of something newsworthy. "katrina clown," no, two words again. "Iraq and a hard place." Way too complicated! Come on, come on, think, dammit!)
Pew: "Have you thought of a word?"
Me: "Look, this isn't easy. What have other people told you?"
Pew: "I can't divulge that. It would taint your answer."
Me: "OK. I've got a few choices. Let me think which one I like best."
Pew: "Sure. But you'll need to answer soon. I have more calls to make."
Me: "Thanks, hold on a sec."
(Ack, I need to come up with something. That bumper sticker I thought up before, Bush is a Dubya MD. No, way too obscure and too many words besides. Umm, "cheater," "liar," "torturer," ummm "bozo," "bimbo," "buzzard," "bastard," "backassward," and those are just bee words. Maybe some cee words, "chump," "crapface," "criminal," "crusty underwear," "clod," oh, wait, lots of people call him "chimp" because he looks like one. Maybe in the dees, "dogface," "dumb bunny," "dolt," dingleberry," "doofus," "dangerous," "dumb bell," deeee, ummm, geez, I can' go through the whole alphabet. But wouldn't that be fun. I wonder if there are any zee words, umm, "zipperbrain," umm "zero," "zilch," yep, even a few zee words. Come on now snap out of it. Think. Think dammit, think!)
Pew: "Hello? Do you have a word? I need to move on."
Me: "Umm, umm, hold on, I've got so many words in mind, ahh, umm, ack! FUBAR!"
Pew: "Fubar?"
Me: "Yeah, fubar, I can't think of the perfect word, but fubar is certainly how I feel."
Pew: "What's fubar?"
Me: "Fubar is a sort of army acronym, similar to snafu. But Bush is more fubar than snafu."
Pew: "What's snafu? What does fubar mean? I've never heard those before."
Me: "Well, snafu is situation normal, all fucked up. And fubar means fucked up beyond all recognition. Bush is fubar for sure."
Pew: "Is that your word?"
Me: "Yes! That IS the perfect word, fubar!"
Pew: "So, your one word that best describes George W. Bush is fubar?"
Me: "Yes, fubar!"
Pew: "Fubar? Hmmm, how do you spell that?"
Me: "I've seen it as eff, you, bee, aye, are and I also think it can be spelled eff, oh, oh, bee, aye, are, but that wouldn't actually be the acronym way. Eff, you, bee, aye, are, that would be the proper way if you ask me."
Pew: "Ok then, (type, type, type, type, type) fubar it is."
Me: "Fubar can also mean, fouled up beyond all recognition, that's the clean version.
Pew: "I'll make a note of that (type, type, type...).
Me: "But I prefer the fucked up version, it's more Bush."
Pew: "Well, that's all the questions. I want to thank you for taking the time to answer them."
Me: "Wait. You're REALLY not going to ask about impeachment?
Pew: "No, sorry. That's not a question on this survey."
Me: "Because that's probably my second choice on the one word."
Pew: "Impeachment?"
Me: "Actually, I wish the word was "fired!""
Pew: "Well, sir, I would say that fubar is the perfect word if you ask me, but don't quote me on that."
Me: "Yes, Bush is SO Fubar."
Pew: LOL..."Well, thanks again, goodbye."
Me: "So long."
~~~click~~~

So, there you have it. Simply out of panicked pressure I probably would have told the Pew Research Center that Bush is FUBAR. In which case my answer would not have shown up in the news releases as so few people would have used the word Fubar. My word would have gotten less than 6 responses. Here's my request. If the Pew people call you and ask the Bush association question, just say Fubar. Let's get that word into the press releases. Fubar.

Rumsfeld's Ramblings

2006-03-20T10:10:00.001-05:00

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote an opinion column in the Washington Post the other day. Most of it was basically complaining about the negative views about the Iraq War, but I was impressed with his lack of history or depth of deceptive analysis on the following paragraph.

Rumsfeld.. "Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vacuum -- and the free world might not have the will to face them again. Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great a disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries."

First, let's consider the Eastern Europe comparisons. The United States had very little to do with countries such as Poland and East Germany in their efforts to throw off the Soviet influence. I don't recall any Americans amongst the Polish labor union/party Solidarity or any Americans tearing down the Berlin Wall. Certainly we rooted and cheered for them, probably fronted them a few bucks, but the revolutions were "of and by the people."

The Soviet Union under Gorbachev had decided not to crush these revolutions. Gorby had tired of the cold war, at the most simple explaination. We won the cold war by outspending the Soviet Union with military googaws and they plain got sick of the debt of maintaining satellite countries as well as trying to keep the heartland going. Losing their war in Afghanistan was probably the eye-opener of so much wasted energy and money.

Rumsfeld doesn't mention any of this, trying to make it seem if we hadn't, what, not cheered on those satellite countries, that they would have slid back under the Soviet umbrella? Nonsense, the revolutions were on, the peoples of those countries were determined, and only a full force military crushing would have defeated them, which Gorbachev wasn't interested in doing.

Second, as to the Nazi comparisons, can we ever stop Nazi comparisons? Let's first not forget that the fall of Hitler and Nazi Germany was performed by a powerful alliance of major countries of the world, something lacking in the Iraq War case. Let's also not forget that the Germans exacted little resistence in the post war. Germans were essentially drained and exhausted from being in a continuous war economy that included such things as fire bombings of most of their major cities, the essential abduction of every able bodied male from the population, the lack of needed items for the households much less luxuries, I could go on. The Germans were fairly quick to understand they lost the war and were ready to submit to the Allies as long as the occupation/reconstruction was an honest effort, which for the most part it was.

Third, Rumsfeld's comment about the Saddamists is nearly a lie. All the experts I hear talking about the insurgency have discounted some sort of Saddam loyalists at this point in time. Maybe back in the first several months or so, but not now. Sure there may be a few pockets of Saddamists left, but they've mainly dispersed into various movements including Sunni groups.

He also calls our leaving Iraq as creating a vacuum, again nonsense. We already have various factions fighting each other in Iraq and our forces have essentially stayed out of the way. We haven't been doing a good job at protecting mosques, we actually are currently in Rumsfeld's vacuum with our troops still there. Oh, our troops go on some missions like the recent Swarmer to rout out insurgents, but with little to no effect on the current violence. I'm guessing that we have little effect because insurgents are probably warned in advance by infiltrators into the Iraqi security forces.

One of the problems the talking heads and the hawks and doves have had all along about the Iraq War is this penchant for trying to compare Iraq to other wars. The Iraq War is unique unto itself. It is not Nazi Germany, have we forgot Hitler swept through Europe? Saddam was bottled up with no-fly zones, no air force or navy. Iraq is also not Viet Nam, deserts not jungles, and we've not approached the body counts of that war. North Viet Nam was a far different political entity than Hussein's dictatorship.

Comparisons to other wars doesn't really serve the discussion well, it's wasted breathing. Iraq must be considered as it happens, as the situation presents itself. The Iraq War is the Iraq War and some day in the future during some other war, people might be comparing that war to Iraq, and probably also as essentially a waste of breath.

That Dollar Store Called Iraq

2006-03-19T07:37:00.000-05:00

The first time I drove past a dollar store, I wondered if it was true that everything inside only cost a dollar. I passed the store numerous times always wondering the same thing. Finally one day I stopped and checked the store out. It turned out that yes, plenty of items cost a dollar, but as well many things cost more than a buck. This reminds me of Iraq.

Prior to the war, the Bush Administration didn't spend much time on pricing the war, but they did give us some estimates. In January of 2003, Donald Rumsfeld for instance had said that the budget office had "a number that's something under $50 billion." And several in the administration were claiming that the Iraqi oil would pay for the war and reconstruction.

Those estimates followed what former White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay had quoted in September 2002 of a price tag with an upper bound limit of $100 to 200 billion. White House budget director Mitch Daniels quickly dismissed that estimate as being "very, very, high." And between then and Rumsfeld's figure, Lindsay was dimissed from his job.

Three years into the war the price tag is something like $400 billion. It is hard to give an accurate figure as some of that $400 billion goes to Afghanistan. Congress in the past year has been lumping the two wars together in appropriation bills. But it's safe to assume that Iraq is around $300 billion at the low end.

I decided to do some math. The estimated population of the United States is just under 3oo million, at about 295 million. So three years into the Iraq War we can guestimate that the war has cost every human in America about $1,000. That's every human, whether you are just entering the workforce, or laying in a bed at a nursing home, or a three year old child, or asleep in a coma, we all can be essentially assigned a bill of $1,000.

According to the CBO the Iraq War is costing the Pentagon about $6 billion a month, or to each US human about 20 bucks a month. At a per day, the Pentagon $200 million, per American about 67 cents. It doesn't sound so bad per day or month.

Of course we all don't cover that bill the same. Some people are over in Iraq working for the American reconstruction companies, so their bill kind of goes around back into their paycheck, in fact they don't even have to pay income taxes as foreign workers. Kids and infants don't pay, plenty of Americans don't have income tax to fork over. That leaves the rest of us working stiffs. Who could guess what the share becomes for us, maybe $3,000 so far?

But are we paying for it as we go? That's a question I can't answer. It's quite possible we are just adding the cost of the Iraq War onto the federal budget deficit. Just this past week Congress raised the debt ceiling to $7 trillion in order to not default on US treasury notes. Seven trillion dollars, when you're talking those astronomical numbers who can tell what dollars are rotating around in Washington and in which direction they go or what hole they disappear into. Our federal deficit this year is projected to be $423 billion. I suppose the Iraq War can be shoved into that and by definition the national debt that the deficit adds to every year.

The Bush Administration has been running yearly deficits since the second year in office with some vague promise that the annual budget will balanced by 2009, delaying it until the next president's term, if then. Bush took us to war at the same time he gave tax breaks to the rich, and continues to give those tax breaks. Americans have not been asked to pay for this war technically. We haven't been asked to sacrifice at home with our dollars, and the rich certainly haven't had to sacrifice for Iraq.

No, this war has been foistered into the future. This war is being paid for by the government credit card, via treasury bonds, etc. that we pay interest on to the holders. Holders of those bonds now are about 50% foreigners and foreign countries.

It all seems so complicated, but it's still true that every American can be assigned 1,000 dollars so far. But get this, new estimates for the total cost of the Iraq War (bearing in mind we really don't know when the end will be) are $1 trillion, whew! That would send our bill to over $3,000 per person in the United States.

My problem is that no one asked me whether I was willing to pay that much for Iraq. Of course no one asked me whether I believed that there were weapons of mass desrtuction either. I didn't. I also didn't believe the cost estimates that were being put out back then. I also didn't believe that Iraqi oil would be paying for it. And now when I hear a figure of $1 trillion, I wonder if someone is finally being honest (the trillion doesn't come from the Bush crowd, they stopped estimating) or whether that estimate is lowballed.

This is why the Iraq War reminds me of that dollar store. The sign outside may say "Dollar Store" but the prices inside can be anything. In fact at $1 trillion, why didn't we just pay Saddam Hussein say $300 billion to sell us Iraq? We could all have saved plenty. "Here you go Saddam, a check for 300 billion. Now go live in Monoco, we are taking possession."

Inflation, Universe Style

2006-03-18T09:49:00.000-05:00

More evidence for the big bang continues, specifically the inflation theory, thanks to the NASA probe WMAP. The age of the universe is now estimated at 13.7 billion years old following the big bang that caused one tremendous expansion of the universe in less than a trillionth of a second.

Currently I'm reading a book about this subject called The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene who gets a line in the article I linked above. I'm surprised he didn't get a few more lines as he is quite able in discussing physics and cosmology in layman's terms with a wit and wonder to boot.

I'm awed by the vastness of the universe. As the article states, all that we can see is a radius of 13.7 billion light years in distance, yet we now know that that radius is only a dot in the expanse of the universe. Conceivable there are parts of the universe that are trillions of light years distant. There may be no limit that we can even describe.

The information that is being revealed by the probe are more supportive of the big bang of the inflaton (without the i) theory. This theory is explained by Brian Greene in his book, I can't nearly do justice in explaining it here. But inflaton explains why the big bang happened as it did. It doesn't explain what was before the big bang or why we had a big bang. Those questions will probably never be answered.

Unless you care to say God did it. But that begs the question of who or what created God. In a cause and effect world and universe, what is the ultimate cause? How can there be a beginning when everything we know shows that something came before. Things we consider a "beginning" really have something that made that beginning.

A baseball game doesn't start on the first pitch, that's not the beginning of the game. It is a cumulation of players showing up, equipment being assembled, a diamond that was made sometime earlier, a history to depend on that allows for rules, etc., etc. It's the chicken or the egg, which came first? They came together, evolving beginning by beginning which weren't really beginnings. We can follow the chicken and the egg all the way back to the big bang that created the matter the chicken and egg needed to be made from.

Our universe may have been born from another universe, the theory is completely plausible but at this point unprovable. That chicken/egg may have come from a previous universe and universes. Our own universe may be giving birth through an inflationary burst (a big bang) to other universes, yet how would we know? We can't flip back and forth between universes to compare them, to verify them. At least as far as know now, we can't or are not doing that.

The one answer we may never be able to acheive, in a cause and effect universe was there an ultimate cause? Was there an actual beginning, nothing before?

IEDs

2006-03-17T13:26:00.000-05:00

President Bush's latest speech about the War in Iraq is an insult to American's intelligence.

First is his apparent obsession with IEDs or improvised explosive devices. He mentioned IED 26 times in the speech. I only wonder why he hasn't fixated on IEDs long before this as they are the replacement for WMDs as bad weapons in Iraq. No WMDs? Then IEDs.

Who comes up with these letters of weaponry anyway? I doubt it's the military, I think it's the White House propaganda machine. Three capital letters can sound so ominous to the public. The boots on the ground call them roadside bombs, that says it succinctly. IEDs are really just landmines, a creative Iraq War version.

In the speech, Bush claimed that parts for the IEDs are being supplied by Iran. Yet, just a day later General Peter Pace in a press conference said he had no evidence of that. Now let's consider some logic here. Why would Iran, a Shiite nation, supply Sunni insurgents with parts for roadside bombs that could as well be used in car bombs against Shiite Iraqis? Now it could be argued that Iran is as stupid as the Bushers and will supply parts just to keep the havoc going. The Bushers were dumb enough to think that once they ripped open Iraq that somehow Iraqi elections would turn out being religion-free.

Bush also said "My decisions on troop levels will be made based upon conditions on the ground and on the recommendations of our military commanders, not artificial timetables set by politicians here in Washington, DC."

This is interesting. Bush had claimed that Iran was supplying parts to insurgents. General Pace either is not informed of the information that Bush has, or doesn't accept what Bush says. Doesn't sound like the commanders and the Commander-in-Chief are on the same page. Gen. Pace might want to recommend that Bush explain what he was talking about.

Also of interest is that politicians in Washington are in fact the ones who set troop levels, that's been Donald Rumsfeld's job. He decided how many troops to invade with and has been deciding troop levels ever since. And since Bush is Commander-In-Chief, it ultimately is his job to approve these moves. And whatever timetable is to come (someday it will, win or lose) it will be decided by a Washingtonian, either by a president or by Congress.

Meanwhile the military in Iraq has begun a new offensive called Operation Swarmer. Three years into this war and we are still naming operations for the media to chew on.

Damn dem Dems!

2006-03-17T09:04:00.001-05:00

Damn, them Democrats! What is wrong with that party? President Bush's approval ratings (34%) are the lowest he's had. Dick Cheney's approval ratings are at about 17%, lower than almost any human that's had approval ratings polled. The Republican Congress has an approval rating of about 37%. Yet, the Democratic Party can't seem to get together and produce a common voice to take advantage of the poor ratings of the other party.

I'm disappointed in the Democrats. Whenever they have a member stand up and oppose Bush with an idea that is not heard by many from the party, the rest of the party recoils and and plays mute. When Rep. John Murtha put out a proposal for withdrawing from Iraq, very few in the party were willing to stand behind him. This past week when Sen. Russ Feingold (who also has a withdrawal plan) tried to bring to the floor a censure of President Bush for breaking the law, few of the Democrats backed him.

The Question is why? Particularily when polling for these issues show that Americans are on the side of those individuals. Censure is only a step to what just about 50% of the country really wants, impeachment. Withdrawal from Iraq? Polling is at around 60% in favor of that.

As a progressive, I really would like to know why so few Democrats will rally to a brave voice. Several reasons could be put forth.

The mid-term election that is only seven months away. The Democrats would like to gain enough seats in Congress to become the majority. It is likely that the party would rather play it safe and keep letting the Republicans trip over their own shoelaces. But my take on that is that playing it safe too often is how games are lost.

Too many Democrats are too much like Republicans. The Iraq War was supported by far too many Democrats and now they don't want to seem like flip-floppers if they change their mind as John Murtha did. My take on that, it's not flip-flopping, it's re-evalution. It's insane to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result, or in other words, it's gambling at long odds and expecting to win. Democrats that change their mind about Iraq, must be sure that they are adamant that they have thought long and hard to reach a new conclusion. That should be their message, that every American with a brain changes their mind on things, that's what brains are for, not doing the same stupid thing endlessly.

Too many Democrats think that being Republican-lite is what Americans want. Not true. In today's evenly divided electorate most Americans want a choice between two opposing viewpoints. A or B. Yes or No. Left or Right. Red or Blue. It's that simple. Americans don't want to pick from A and A-, or No and Almost No, or Right and Rightward, or Red and Reddish. Democrats that don't clearly distinguish their ideas as closer to the opposite of Republicans make themselves seem like copycats and given the choice between an original and a copy, people will pick the original. Better to lose as an opposition party than to lose as a faded copy of a Republican. And even if a Democrat wins as a Republican-lite what changes are likely anyway?

As a progressive I've long been disappointed with the Democrats. Far too many Democratic politicians have taken corporate mony in order to get elected, but then feel obligated for policy payback. The originators of free-trade pacts that have helped the outsourcing of jobs was the Clinton Administration with backing by Democrats in Congress. Sure Congressional Republicans helped, it was a real free-trade lovefest in the 1990s.

There is this "rumor" that the Democrats are going to do a "Contract with America" redux, taking a page from the Republicans from 1994 that seemed to help them take control of the House. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but again it seems like playing copycat. Whatever happened to party platforms? Can't the Democrats simply emphasize their platform? But I imagine they feel they have to give it some fancy name in a sort of advertising campaign, they will be copying what the Republicans did. I think there would be nothing wrong with getting together and refining their party platform, then they simply need to talk about it, alot.

It also seems they need to do this soon if they really are making a contract with America. It also seems that they should not avoid Iraq as an issue. It's time to listen to Americans on this, as Americans are who they plan to contract with. Pay attention to your voters, Democrats. If you want to re-illusion my disillusionment, OPPOSE the Republicans.

Tiger Stadium, Destroyed?

2006-03-14T08:21:00.000-05:00

The Detroit News has a front page article today about the possible demolition of Tiger Stadium this summer. I wish this action won't be happening, but I suspect that nothing will be able to be done to avoid the wrecking ball.

The stadium has sat empty now since 2000, with only an event or two to stir the cobwebs. The most recent event was during this past Super Bowl week when "Bud Bowl" put on a concert.

Outside of Detroit there may only be a few cities in the world that has had a beloved ballpark that elicits such passion from its citizens. Even today there is still a Tiger Stadium fanclub. There was quite a battle for fans of the stadium when Detroit Tigers owner Mike Illitch was preparing to build another ballpark, the new place called Comerica Park. "Save the Stadium" protests were common.

I grew up with baseball as my favorite sport, the Detroit Tigers my favorite team and Tiger Stadium an awe inspiring place to visit. I can still visualize on entering the stands that first image of the seemingly glowing green of the grass field with the contrast of the golden diamond. That sight just seemed to jump out at you. As a long ago built stadium it had its interesting nooks and crannys that you'll never find in the modern corporate sponsored ball parks. Tiger Stadium also had its awful features such as the posts that supported the upper deck that caused a slew of obstructed view seating and the almost ancient urinal troughs in the mens bathrooms.

Over the years I had sat in many parts of the park. From the sometimes wild upper deck centerfield bleachers, to box seats (that were oddly similar to the defendant box in Saddam Hussein's trial), to the press box when I had the fortune of working as a TV statistician for three games, to the upper dack where every pop-up at first semmed like a homerun and to those obstructed view seats which had you tilting your head left and right to see around those posts.

I had such great memories of specific games. I got to attend the 1971 All-Star game as a young teen, that game had a record number of future hall-of-famers, an all-star record 6 home runs that included that massive homerun by Reggie Jackson that banged off the lighting stand on the right field roof.

As an older teen, I remember going with my buddies to catch a few Mark Fidyrich pitched games in 1975. The "Bird" took baseball by storm as a rookie that year, including starting that years all-star game. Fidyrich was a one-of-a-kind, he would talk to the baseball, do plenty of fancy pitching mound grooming, and had a great fastball, Detroit loved him. Sadly he hurt his leg, then arm the following season and never made an impact again. Today he is a farmer and has no regrets, a person who truely likes life and considers his one year in the sun as a blessing.

The Tigers had two magical seasons in my life, 1968 and 1984 that both ended as world championships. The first year I remember as a grade schooler. For some reason I didn't get to attend a game that season, odd as I had been taken both in 1967 and 1969. But I followed them intently as I had a paper route and got to keep the sports sections all season. I can still recite nearly the entire roster. My favorite players such as Norm Cash, Willie Horton, Mickey Lolich, Denny McLain, Al Kaline, Gates Brown, Bill Freehan and Dick McAuliffe still give me a smile from thinking about that year.

I'll never forget how the World Series was played during the day back then and sprinting home from school to catch most of the game. The Tigers fell behind the St. Louis Cardinal 3 games to 1 and won the final three games. McLain had won 31 games in the regular season (the last pitcher to win 30 in a season), but his tired arm only gained one victory in the series. Thankfully Lolich won three games as the Tigers series hero.

1984 was awesome. The Tigers started the season with a record of 35-5, nearly unbeatable. They led the division from start to finish, swept the Kansas City Royals in three games, then flat out pummeled the San Diego Padres in the World Series. The series had memorial homeruns by Alan Trammell and Kirk Gibson (which became the photo of the series with his upraised arms). My favorites included Trammell, Gibson, Lou Whitaker, Chet Lemon, Lance Parrish and Larry Herndon to name a few. I remember 1984 particularily because I had discharged from the Army that spring seemingly just in time to catch such a great season.

The Tigers had many bad seasons in my years as they used Tiger Stadium. But like most true fans I still attended games, the stadium was a part of the charm of going. Low attendance games were no problem for me, it just gave me the opportunity to move around and sit in various parts of the ballpark. I have to confess that those upper deck bleachers were my emotional favorite.

It has been claimed that "the wave" was invented in Detroit in that 1984 season, and if that's true, it probably began in those bleachers. With no assigned seat, you could move around and find people to chat with, yell with, party with. Sometimes the game was just a diversion to the clamor around you. Those bleachers were a game in itself.

I finally went to a game at Comerica Park last season. I like the place but somehow it just doesn't compare favorably to Tiger Stadium. Coamerica is new, it's colorful, has a nice open feeling, is very kid and family friendly, yet...I'm not sure, maybe it's because I didn't grow up with it. Tiger Stadium was old, it had that working class feel that IS Detroit.

I don't often wish I was old (some people might say I am!), but as to Tiger Stadium I do. I've often wondered how it would have been to go to games in the 1940's or 1950's when it was named Briggs Stadium. Or decades before when Ty Cobb played in the stadium name of Navin Field. Tiger Stadium was a park that went through major renovations. For instance at one point home plate was in a totally different corner. A second deck was added, night tower lights to update for a new innovation night games.

The Detroit News article explains that the money has run out to continue to upkeep the stadium. Also mentioned is that it is highly uncommon to find a second use for old baseball stadiums, sadly. It seems the city of Detroit plans to auction off the entire stadium in pieces if the destruction is to come. As the article explains, everything from the steel beams to the seats. I may have to get into the bidding (will it be E-Bay?) for something as a memory keepsake. Strangely I seem to be attracted to the more unsightly features, an obstructed view post or one of those putrid urine troughs. I can't explain why, except that when someone came over to my backyard (the only place to keep those items) they would immediately know where they came from.

It may also be time for a field trip. A few months prior to the destruction of the Detroit Red Wings old home, Olympia Stadium, a good friend and I went down there to take pictures. That event was a memory I'll never forget. We snapped photos of the exterior then decided to explore the inside. It was spooky, having no flashlight on hand. Using just our dim vision and a lighter, we tried to find our way around as distant unknown sounds echoed and dangling wires (we think) brushed our faces.

I wonder if I could talk that same friend (he lives halfway across the country though) into doing a rerun for Tiger Stadium, I'll promise to bring a flashlight this time. Certainly I'll have to get to the Stadium for some final photos. How times have changed. For the Olympia foray I used a manual 35mm, for this trip I'd use my digital camera, although I'd also bring a 35mm. A picture of the actual takedown might be very interesting, and I doubt I'm the only one thinking that.

Destruction of Tiger Stadium seems inevitable, America doesn't save its ancient arenas like Italy does, but for so many in Detroit like myself it will be a sad farewell.

The Tennessee Taliban

2006-03-13T06:11:00.000-05:00

A few posts back I wrote about the South Dakota Taliban that banned all abortions except in cases of the mothers health, cases of rape and incest are banned. Now it seems the Tennessee legislature wants to be the Taliban as well, but on a different issue.

Check out the following from the Nashville Scene by John Spragens;

Senate Bill 3794 (House Bill 3798), legislation that would make it illegal to sell, advertise, publish or exhibit to another person “any three-dimensional device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs….” For that matter, if you offer to show someone your dildo collection—or possess a vibrator with the intent to show it to someone—you’d be violating this proposed state law. And don’t even think about wholesaling those three-dimensional sex toys.

Of course, as with all good public policy, state Sen. Charlotte Burks and Rep. Eric Swafford have included a few exemptions for responsible dildo-users. College students and faculty are allowed to enter the sex-toy trade—as long as they are “teaching or pursuing a course of study related to such device,” like Auto-Erotic Stimulation 101. Your doctor or psychologist will similarly be authorized to prescribe the regular use of a sex toy “in the course of medical or psychological treatment or care.” And finally, employees of historical societies, museums, public libraries and—wait for it—school libraries are allowed to traffic in devices named Thruster, The Emperor and The Horny Hare, provided they’re doing their official duties.
~~~~~~~~~

So, of all the important things to deal with or fix these days, the Tennessee Senate is worried about three-dimensional sex toys. And what a convoluted law this is. Apparently a doctor can prescribe a vibrator to someone who wouldn't be able to buy it in Tennessee. So that person would have to cross the state line to purchase one, but upon returning home would not be able to show it to their mate.

That person would have to have it well hidden on the drive home in case they were pulled over for a traffic related offense. If the police saw it, they might be able to arrest the person for possession of a three-dimensional sex object with intent to show. I could just picture the cop with gloved hand poised to place the dildo in an evidence bag. If the vibrator was of a rather large size, the cop might say "Whoa, this is a big one. Hey, Bubba, bring me a Hefty trash bag."

I would wonder if a special made vibrator would have to be produced just for Tennessee, one made with a silencer, so as not to attract attention in order that no one observed the three-dimension sex toy.

I'm not sure what's on the mind of the Tennessee Senate, but I'm guessing some Senator didn't like coming home to find his wife giving one of those sex toy sales parties. Or maybe their wife came home from a bachelorette party with a "special gag gift."

I've also got to wonder, does this legislation apply to sex dolls? They are three-dimensional, they are used to stimulate genitals. To continue to wonder, is that commercial I see on TV by poker.com that has a man playing poker with a sex doll constitute a violation?

I've really got to wonder what the Tennessee historical societies and libraries are going to be like if this becomes law. The local library is going to have some back room with some sleazy looking librarian displaying the banned items? "Yes, Maam, this whole shelf have the three-dimensional sex toys you found in the card catalog."

Call it my outrage I guess, but what the hell? What difference does it make to these prudes if three-dimensional sex objects are being used? And how long before the Tennessee Senate decides that the human hand is somehow illegal?

Church Burning Pranks?

2006-03-11T08:26:00.000-05:00

They caught the perpetrators of the recent church burnings in Alabama. It turns out it was three college kids who admitted to the crimes describing it as "a prank that got out of hand."

The first church they torched might have credibly been called a prank, if they had any brains and quit right then. But no, they go on to burn four more that night of drinking. And then precede to burn another four, days later to "throw off the police."

The "pranks" are nothing but high crimes, felonies, repeated arson, terrorism. Those idiots are certainly lucky that no person happened to be taking a snooze in one of their church targets. Regardless, throw the book at them. The fact that they recognized their stupidity and tried to throw off the police investigation clearly indicates their own acknowledgement of understanding the seriousness of their crimes. They could have turned themselves in prior to the additional four church burnings.

The good news (if you could use the word good) is that these church torchings were not hate crimes. To Alabamans they were thinking hate crimes, which places these acts in the category of terrorism. There was a fear in Alabama that more churches were to be targeted.

I just don't understand. I've been plenty drunk in the past, but never came close to this type of behavior. I don't care how drunk a person is, after the first burning the fog of alcohol could have been penetrated to understand that repeating the incident is wrong. Yet these three chose to repeat it four more times. Unbelievable!

Cheney Picture

2006-03-10T14:40:00.000-05:00

You can't beat this picture for telling the truth of what the vast majority of Americans would like.

The South Dakota Taliban

2006-03-10T13:19:00.000-05:00

By now most people have probably heard that South Dakota has banned all abortions except in one case, the life of the mother. Forget things like incest and rape, the victim still must carry the fetus to birth.

You've got to hear the reasoning of Republican state Senator Bill Napoli, if you can call it reasoning. As he explains (and as I supplement in blue), "When I was growing up here in the Wild West how old IS this guy? if a young man got a girl pregnant, birth control was only a dream they got married, you know, of the shotgun persuasion and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding don't want the couple to get cold feet while escaping across the river. I mean, you didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, that's two "I means" he must be a bit confused they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, who cared whether the couple loved or even liked each other? you know, that whole story. Napoli does seem to be spinning a story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again...loveless forced weddings I don't think we're so far beyond that, that we can be like the Taliban that we can't go back to that."

I have to wonder about that whole neighborhood business Napoli speaks of, since the abortion he banned included cases of rape and incest, maybe his memory of the old neighborhood was a town filled with inbred rapists, that was some Wild West I never read about. Was Napoli's old Wild West the place where Jane got her nickname of "Calamity?"

The South Dakotan politicians that voted for this bill are not even conservatives, they are Talibans forcing the entire state to live up to their ancient religious practices of forced pregnancies and apparently forced marraiges (I guess that will be a law to come). If they reach back far enough into the Bible, they could bring back ritual sacrifice.

The real story of the not too distant "Wild West" was of the religious families that were so embarassed by their pregnant out-of-wedlock daughter that the girl had a "vacation" or "illness" while visiting an out-of-town abortion doctor. These abortion laws are really about parents who in their minds can't control their daughters. In the old days they snuck their daughter out of town for a few days, today they want to be proud parents of a controlled daughter, and worse, proud that they can control other peoples daughters as well. This is not about religion (abortion is not in the Bible) except as modern fundementalists have been told to believe. It is really about who controls whom within a family and as well in a community/society.

Of course we all know this is really an attack on the poor. The pregnant girl that wants an abortion that grows up in a wealthy family won't have any problem navigating to a state or country (Canada for instance) that allows abortions. So, South Dakota will get just what they probably don't want, poor children birthed to poor women. And if Napoli had his way, pushed into loveless marraiges as well, to give birth to more poor children.

And we also know that this performance by the South Dakota legislature is to test the two new Supreme Court judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the abortion issue. The law has already been challenged and long before it reaches the Supreme Court the law will be ruled illegal. I will bet plenty of money that the Supreme Court won't even bother to hear the case as the law is so draconian that even anti-abortion advocates have to question it. Rape? Incest? These are cases that only the most fundementalist frenzied could like.

(S)ports News

2006-03-09T13:13:00.000-05:00

The latest news about the Dubai port deal is that the Rupublican House voted overwhelmingly to bring a bill to the floor to block Bush's effort to give Dubai control of some of our ports.

I've been a bit amazed at the yapping about this issue. Again I'll state that this much ado about nothing. We've been selling US assets for years. This deal is just a transfer of control from a British company to a Dubai company. Yes, I know of the tenuous ties to Al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean that individuals in that country represent their government anymore than American terrorist Timothy McVie represented the US government.

My outrage, which is so mild as to name it near disinterest, is that the Dubai government is the owner of the company. I'll state this again, if a government is going to run our ports, well, then it should be our own government and by the Constitution it would therefor be owned by all Americans. The ports should be run by Americans.

The Bush Administration is telling me that foreign governments are better able to run our ports than we are. I don't know if Bush is saying that Americans are too stupid to control the ports or that the government that he is in charge of is too stupid to operate these ports. If you ask me Bush is unpatriotic, his slogan should be "If it's American, foreigners are best able to own it."

Now, let me show my non-partisanship here. Under the Clinton Administration China was allowed to purchase American shipping ports on the West Coast, almost a duplication of the Dubai deal, a company in another country that is really owned by the government of that country. So, back then the Republican Congress and Bill Clinton had no problem saying the same thing as Bush is saying today. Somehow, it's all different now. Those ports should as well be run by Americans, all ports should be under US government control, not another country's control.

Somehow though Dubai has touched a nerve across America. I think part of it is simply Islamaphobia. Bush can only blame himself for this phobia as he has been trying to scare the bejeebees out of us for the last five years about the Middle East, for much of America it worked.

Partly this is Republicans in Congress seeing Bush's low polling in the last half year and deciding to pick an issue or two to distance themselves from Bush.

Democrats have disappointed me on this issue. Here they have a chance at stating a progressive stance, that some industries in America should be nationalized. Our ports should be under complete control, operation, employing, only Americans. And they have this opportunity under the auspices of national security to appear more strong on that issue. Mostly though the Democrats have simply let the Republicans themselves take this issue, but with actually no solution.

The Republicans want to block the deal, but offer no option for the British company that wants to unload the ports. Eventually the Republicans will probably get some money sucking corporation like Halliburton to take control of it. And the Democrats by not jumping on the solution of nationalization, will be sniping about the dummy corporation that will eventually milk our government with massive overcharges.

When Bush Plays Spy

2006-03-08T18:36:00.000-05:00

Click to enlargeI drew this up because this is how I imagine what President Bush would be hearing if he was sitting in the oval office with headphones on and listening into American phone conversations.

Bush's Punch Line Item Veto

2006-03-07T11:43:00.000-05:00

President Bush just made me laugh with his latest proposal, he wants to have a line item veto in order to reduce pork coming out of Congress. This makes me laugh which is why I call it Bush's punch line item veto.

First off, let's be clear here, the Republicans control Congress and the White House, they haven't needed a line item veto to organize efforts to reduce pork projects, all they have to do is REDUCE IT! What is Bush trying to say, that his own party has been guilty of producing massive pork? Well, at least in this he is correct. His party is indeed spending like drunken sailors. Worse still is that they don't provide funds to pay for their spending sprees. They run the deficit higher and higher, reduce taxes on the wealthy, and never tackle the tough issues of fiscal responsibility.

The Republican Party has fully become the party of borrow and spend. Every time I see the Bushites sending another fiscal budget that's in deficit to the American people, or some pork project slipped into a bill in the midnight hour, I point out to the two teens around here how the Bushites are spending their future. I usually say, "See that? Guess who's going to pay for it?" They've figured out the answer is "We are."

The borrow and spend Republicans won't be so honest with our youth, in fact they never explain how they are going to pay for their largess. They also won't explain who won't be helping with the bill either. They don't sing and dance "Tax cuts for the rich are here again, who we love is clear again, so let's sing a song for the rich again, happy days are there again!" No, they are pretty quiet about who gets a break on the spending bill.

Line item veto, what a joke. President Bush hasn't vetoed a bill EVER!

Now picture this. Bush who has repeatedly said that he doesn't like to read, sitting down to study the phone book size bills passed by Congress. Most Americans don't realize the vast amount of pages that these bills entail. So Bush is going to sit at his desk with a red marker, scratching out bits and pieces of the bill that he doesn't approve of, day after day for weeks until he's happy. Yeah, right.

What will really happen is that his advisers and lawyers will be the readers that eventually tell Bush what he should edit out. There is no way Bush is going to read the document to see if they are advising him correctly, as he says, he likes to delegate. This will be another thing he delegates, his line item veto decisions.

Personally I think this is all about future politics. The Republicans are worried that they will lose either the House or Senate to the Democrats this fall. So the Republicans want to pass this line item veto to block Democratic bills in case they do lose power in Congress. If they don't lose the Congress then it will continue to be business as usual, a Republican Congress will send its bloated pork laden bills to the White House and Bush will sign them without reading a word.

The Lie of the Storm

2006-03-06T07:46:00.000-05:00

The following is an editorial from The Boston Globe describing President Bush (and the White House) as basically a clueless leader during hurricane Katrina. I couldn't have said it better myself, although I would have outlined the timeline of Bush (including attending a birthday party) in those several days after Katrina hit. The Globe also omitted when discussing the other administration officials lack of actions that Condelezza Rice was spotted shopping for shoes in New York then attending a play while New Orleans drowned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lie of the Storm

Television images can be misleading, but not in the case of the shadowy video that showed President Bush sitting quietly in Texas as he heard that Hurricane Katrina, bearing down on the Gulf Coast, was going to be ''the Big One." Dressed in a suit coat even though he was on vacation, he looked like a president but did not act like one. Despite the warning on Sunday, Aug. 28, Bush let several crucial days slip by before he rallied the resources of the federal government to deal with this epochal disaster.

Perhaps he was lulled by the take-charge attitude of Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who, the video shows, accurately gauged the magnitude of the storm and told his subordinates to do whatever was necessary: ''I'll figure out some way to justify it," he said. ''Just let them yell at me." FEMA, however, didn't have resources to cope with a disaster of this magnitude. It would have required an immediate massive response by the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and only the president could have ordered these bureaucracies into action.

Instead, it was business as usual when the storm struck on Monday, Aug. 29, and for a day or two afterward. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff attended a conference on bird flu in Atlanta. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld toured military bases in California on Monday and the next day joined President Bush in San Diego for a ceremony commemorating the end of World War II.

Bush considers himself a delegator, a character trait that was a weakness in this crisis. Vice President Dick Cheney and Chief of Staff Andrew Card were on vacation; the response wasn't coordinated until the full staff returned to duty later in the week. A hands-on president, Bill Clinton or Lyndon Johnson, for example, would have done better.

Bush was further hampered by his decision, made after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to focus his administration on the war against terrorism. In a speech at the San Diego ceremony he implicitly criticized Clinton for failing to respond to attacks in the 1990s. By fixating on his own war, Bush neglected the threat to America from wind and water.

Three days after Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, Bush went on television to defend his handling of the crisis, saying: ''I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." That may be technically true. The weather specialist who delivered part of the video briefing only expected some water to wash over the levees, but cautioned that worse was possible. Bush did make one misstatement during the video. ''I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared," he said. But the Bush administration was not. History will judge him harshly for this failure.

Too Much TV, Not Enough TDs

2006-03-04T11:04:00.000-05:00

I watch too much TV but I don't get enough TD (touchdowns, as in a good result). The other day when I was channel flipping once again, I was as usual disappointed in the lack of interesting choices. As someone who grew up in the era of three major channels (through VHF) with a couple of minor UHF to go along with the big three, the addition of cable was at first a huge widening of TV choices. But over the years those choices seem rather empty.

I started thinking about what on TV do I actually look forward to watching, which would be a standard for a desire for the medium, and actually I had trouble developing a substantial quantity, not even considering quality. Now bear in mind I only have the basic cable service, mainly because of reluctance to pay more money compared to whether the price would really be worth it. Would enough of the added channels attract enough interest to cause me to dig deeper into the wallet? So far, the debate has been won by the wallet.

The following is the TV I look forward to watching, but I need to begin with a sub-category of programming that isn't part of regular time slots.

Sports...I enjoy sports to an average degree. I have a tendency to be a realistic "homer" in that I don't invest as much of my time to local sports teams that are losers. For instance I have barely watched the Detroit Lions in the last decade, but I enjoy the Detroit Pistons and Red Wings. The Lions may be an eternal special case as they have sucked for so many years that I'll probably never care if they win. As a lifetime baseball fan, even as the Detroit Tigers haven't been winners in many years, I'll still tune in to enough games just for the joy of the game and memories of better seasons. Locally I'll also catch Michigan and Michigan State college football and basketball, but not devotionally. National sports tends to bore me except for the ending of seasons. I really like the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament. But unless a Detroit team makes the playoffs, I don't pay much attention to professional endings.

Award shows...don't watch them.
Movies...I like movies.
Commercials...I hate them with such passion that I will flip away from them or read a book/magazine instead of watching them. Plenty of times I'm on the computer while watching TV, so I will pay attention to the computer rather than commercialize.

Now the regular schedules in no particular order, the following is stuff I look forward to these days.

1) Lost, ABC...OK, I'll admit it, I'm one of those devotee's that can't miss an episode. Although I'm getting a little frustrated at the slowness of the storyline.

2) Washington Journal, C-Span....This program runs from 700am to about 1000am every day. It is a political talk show of sorts that allows for viewers to call in their comments and questions of the guests. They have a different host for each day and all of them are completely neutral. They have times where a question relating to current events is posed to viewers to comment on. They have times where guests ranging from politicians to think tankers to public interest group representatives to international commentators to reporters to even a celebrity or two. They usually set up the call-in lines as "support Bush," "support Democrats" and "support others." I don't always enjoy this show as it can be boring at times, but I almost always try to catch a little of it each day.

3) News, various...I'm not real happy with news coverage, but I need to know things and see how the mainstream media spins the stories. I balance my national news between CNN and MSNBC and almost never FOX News. Local news on occasion.

4) Comedy Central....John Stewart's "Daily Show" is a big favorite of mine. The new show following his is great as well. Stephen Corbert former Daily Show regular fake TV reporter is the host of a parody Bill O'Reilly style show called "The Corbert Report" (the two T's are silent). Running back to back makes this one fantastic hour of political humor.

5) Science Shows...One long standing great science program that I've watched for years is "Nova" on PBS. I'll flip to the Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel when they have an interesting new program, but these two stations can be frustrating with plenty of repeat programming and pseudo-science programming, like investigating bigfoot.

6) History Channel...When the history program is real, not the endless UFO shows they broadcast.

7) My Name Is Earl, NBC...I get a kick out of this offbeat comedy as well as the following time slot show, The Office.

8) Sit-com reruns...Reruns are good because they are the best of the best of long ago series. I have no problem laughing at some of my former favorites. Among them are, Seinfeld, MASH, Dick Van Dyke Show, Andy Griffith Show, Leave it to Beaver, Cheers, Friends, and a few others. It's hard to say I look forward to these, but they work as fill-ins that stand out among the range of crap across the cables.

9) The West Wing, NBC...Although I've missed much of this season because they switched it to Sunday nights, but I'll catch up on it through reruns on Bravo.

10) Frontline and Now, PBS...Two very good news magazines. Frontline covers only one subject in each hour program, which allows for very detailed investigation. Now was better when Bill Moyers had one hour, these days the show is only a half hour and Moyers is gone, but they still have a progressive slant investigating government and business.

11) Sunday Morning political shows on the big networks...They all basically run at the same time so I flip around to the one that has the most interesting subject matter or guests. I tend to like ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolis and NBC's Meet the Press coming in second.

12) Monk, USA...That Monk dude cracks me up.

13) Late Night Talk...Too often I can't catch these programs but I like them when I can. David Letterman has always been a favorite of mine, and Jay Leno is just as good.

14) Law and Order, NBC...Only the original show. I'm not one bit of a fan of Law and Order SVU, or to annoy a friend of mine Law and Order SUV (they catch murderers that drive big vehicles).

15) The Red Green Show, CBC...This a Canadian comedy, but a laugh riot. A show about a sort of country Canadian Elks Club. Red Green is the "host" and star of the show and is famous for his down to earth advise.

Well, that's pretty much it. Looking up at this list it does seem like alot of TV, but due to my work schedule I can't be a regular viewer of all of it. I depend on some of these choices as being rerun at other times than original broadcast. Also others in the home trump my choices.

TV is a double edged sword. It entertains and informs, yet makes us disengaged homebodies. I've struggled with that sword my whole life. TV is the defining invention from the 20th century if you ask me. No other invention has affected the lives of Americans more for both good and bad. Certainly I've been one of those Americans affected or infected in ways that I don't probably fully understand.

Afghanistan, The Invisible War

2006-03-03T12:07:00.000-05:00

I read a good article pertaining to Afghanistan by cartoonist/columnist Ted Rall. I agree with his viewpoint that is titled "The Other Bad War."

In the article he points out that even much of the progressive left has been quiet about the war we never hear about. Maybe he read a blog I posted back in October.

We both agree that Afghanistan is unwinnable. We both are appalled at some of our tactics in that country. I had cited an incident where US troops had burned bodies of dead Taliban and broadcast to the local town what they did in order to incite anger. I've also posted about the completely mangy treatment of the parents of former NFL player Pat Tillman by the Bush Administration, using Tillman as a propaganda gimmick. Ted Rall discusses the prison problems in Afghanistan.

In my October post I explain my feelings about Afghanistan. Like most Americans I was numbed by 9/11 and hadn't begun to think clearly and rationally about the response. It seemed natural to attack Afghanistan, but as in Iraq the Bush effort was lacking and uninformed.

A point that Ted Rall makes is the lack of commentary against the Afghanistan War from progressives which I had as well noticed. When I wrote that October post I felt alone in my opinion. It did seem lonely expressing opposition to something that very few voices spoke about. Running across Rall's column has given me a feeling of being in a little cliche no one wants to hear from. I'm sure there are others who have expressed similar ideas, but I can guarantee that those people are not in the mainstream media or the mainstream Democratic Party.

I'll say it again, we've lost the Afghanistan War, we just haven't realized it yet.

Polling Paradox?

2006-03-03T10:34:00.000-05:00

Another poll came out (USA Today) that has Bush at a 38% approval rating, the pollsters contend he is down due to the Dubai Port debate. Nearly 70% disapprove of selling the port to the Dubai company. But here's the odd number from the poll, Dick Cheney's numbers are up. His approval rating is now at 40%.

So, Cheney has a better approval rating than Bush. I'm beyond confused. What has Cheney done in months to deserve an upswing? The only thing that he has done that the public would notice is to shoot a guy in the face. Otherwise he's been mostly vacant or I guess in his undisclosed location.

It's odd how I seem to fall into some weird category about the Dubai port deal. I'm not upset about the deal because I don't really sense that there really is some sort of security risk, which is why most Americans are opposed to the deal.

My objection is mostly about another country running our businesses. I find it odd that the free enterprise Bushies are willing to let the United Arab Emirates own many of our ports, rather than a private company. A government run business is socialist, I thought that was antithetical to Republican ideals.

I have no problem with government owned and operated businesses, but if the business is in the United States, then it should be run by OUR government, not a foreign government.

Bush Caught Lying Again, Umpteenth

2006-03-01T20:41:00.000-05:00

Well, surprise, surprise, President Bush gets caught in another lie. In a press conference awhile ago, Bush claimed that no one could have forseen the levees breaking in New Orleans. Now a video has been released showing ex-FEMA director Michael Brown explaining to Bush that Katrina was the big one they've been worried about. Warnings included possible breaches to the levees. As well, a top meteorologists explained the possibilities.

You can see the video of the briefing here.

More conclusive evidence of the way Bush and the White House has operated from day one. Deny first, before even attempting to tell the truth. Lie, obscure the facts, change the subject, anything but the truth, anything but taking responsibility.

Add this to the recently released testimony that the White House ignored assessments of the dangers of an Iraqi insurgency that went unheeded and unbelieved. This was from a National Intelligence Estimate from October 2003. Just as the Bushies ignored intelligence that didn't back up their ideas of Saddam's WMDs, this report was dismissed.

Simply put the Bush bunglers dream up their own version of the world and anybody or anything that disagrees with them is dismissed, pooh-poohed, and ignored. How anyone can find that this attitude is good for the security of the United States is beyond me. Particularily at this point in time when it's been revealed that this dismissal of contrary points of view turned out to be bad policy and mistakes. The advice given has been correct, the Bush viewpoints have been wrong.

And I have to improve my assessment of Michael Brown. He quite clearly warned Bush and Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff of an impending disaster. Brownie was certainly made out as the designated scapegoat despite his obvious awareness of Katrina's potential devastation, despite reporting this to his superiors.

I Believe, In Percentages

2006-03-01T09:39:00.000-05:00

I believe things in percentages. For instance if you were to ask me if UFOs are real I might say, "Oh, I'd give that a 70% chance of being true." Who shot JFK? Lee Harvey Oswald I'd estimate at about 70%, the Mafia or the CIA at about 14% each and the last 2% some assassin not known. The above percentages fluctuate depending on new information that I become aware of. If a UFO would crash land into my neighbors house, my UFO belief percent would naturally jump. But not to 100% as there still might be some explaination (which would appear to be conspiracy theory at that point) to counter the evidence.

I'm not 100% sure how I came to my philosophy because I don't believe in anything 100%, but I've gravitated to estimating what is the truth over the course of my life. Partially it has to do with my brushes with probability and statistics and reading of theories in science that sometimes get overturned.

I dislike absolutism. I dislike all-encompensing statements. Even when I myself declare something, I might add a disclaimer of doubt as I never want to fall into absolute belief. Even if I don't put a hedging statement into my writings, know that in my mind it is there. The problem is that since I don't believe in anything 100%, then everything I write or say would need a disclaimer and that only makes one seem wishy-washy or indecisive, which is wrongly considered a weakness. Constant disclaimers would be wordy and make a listener or reader bored and the subject tedious, at least I give it about a 80% chance of that being true. See?

What we call conspiracy theories is a fun subject to ponder in percentages of belief. The word theory immediately conjurs up an iffy probability because theory is a disclaimer word. Conspiracy makes the theory some type of cover-up and adding the word theory to conspiracy is the effort to expose a cover-up using evidence. The reason I consider it fun is that many percentages of belief can be applied and the percentages can change often. 9/11 has plenty of conspiracy theories. The government did it, put that as a 5% chance of my belief. The buildings were blown by charges because the owners wanted new buildings, 3%. Al Qaeda did it, 90%, something else, 2%. As you can see, I see a preponderance of evidence that Al Qaeda was the cause, yet I'm open to other ideas, just not very open. The believers in the other possibilties would consider me fooled or a dupe of the conspiracy.

Here's a shocker, I consider God as a possible massive conspiracy theory, yet I have at least a 90% belief in a God or higher power. The problem of a belief in God is that philosophically it still comes down to faith. That's what the true believers always end up using as their basis of belief, faith. My 90% is simply derived out of a preponderance of this faith throughout the world and a lack of an explaination for how the universe began or what came before the universe. I expect some type of cause and effect to the birth of the universe.

Belief in God(s) has categories, atheists, agnostics, monotheists, polytheists, and I can beleive in all those categories but in percentages and those percentages ebb and flow through my life. There are days that I'm nearly 100% atheist, there are times I'm squarely on the side of the montheists, yet I wonder if the polytheists might be right. Overall then one might call me an agnostic, that I question the existence of God. And maybe that is as well my overall philosophy, I'm agnostic on everything.

The world is flat. The world is round. Large masses of people believe in things in percentages. If one were to go back to different times and do polling, we would find that the two above statements about the world have changed in percentage of belief. But still the world is round seems not to be believed 100%. There is a group called the Flat Earth Society that appears to truly believe that the world is flat.

Here's where absolutism gets in the way. The world is invisible. To beings from some far away planet, Earth is invisible. It's a small world after all, Disney said. Well sure, now we can think of it that way, but when human thought had Earth at the center of the universe, it wasn't small. The world is flat. Perspective plays a part, walking in some wide desert gives the impression that the world is flat. One lost in a desert has a flat Earth perspective or reality. That lost individual doesn't walk along imagining that each step is traversing a curved planet.

The world is round doesn't impress me as being completely true or my belief changes as my mind considers the other possibilities. I have to believe in a round Earth only in certain situations. Equally my mind can think of the Earth in many ways and believe them all, small, big, flat, invisible, round, etc. they all have merit and I can believe in them together or seperately or even not believe in them as each concept dominates another in my mind.

One plus one is two. Simple, right? Well, when I do fruit math I can change that mathmatical statement. One apple and one orange equal two fruit, despite admonitions that you can't add apples and oranges. One banana and one orange put into a blender makes one fruit drink, delicious. Do I believe one plus one equal two? Sure almost 100%, but I also believe it doesn't, also almost 100%. Contradictory certainly, but that's why I can't believe in anything 100%. Absolutisms can be found to be contradictory.

Language and semantics get in the way of belief. Humans see things with their eyes. To a blind person, they "see" with other senses. The word "see" causes an absolutism to be incorrect due to the various meanings of the word. So to me even non-blind "see" without using their eyes. But I still can believe almost 100% (99.9%, hell, maybe this world is all an illusion that has fooled us into believing our eyesight is real) that people see with their eyes. Besides humans only "see" what is called visible light, we can't see infrared or ultraviolet light. So do we really see everything?

I like to consider myself a contrarian. Tell me a fact or give me an absolutism and if I'm in the mood I'll want to contradict the fact and will do the research and the thinking to find plausable evidence in order to accurately contradict the fact. I may not even have a high percentage of belief in my researched contradiction, but with my philosophy I can accept in my mind the possibility of the contradictions truth.

I could go on extensively and probably will at a later time, but know this, everything I've written in the above is only believed by me in percentages.

Hysterical Channel

2006-03-01T08:25:00.000-05:00

I like history probably because history is all there really is. My entire blog is history, it's already been written. Even that last sentence is now history. Each word that I type becomes instant history. History happens faster than a person can write it.

I like historical movies, history on TV and books about history. But I feel that in specific subjects or timeframes of history as opposed to just things that have already happened the subject must be truthful and factual to be real history. Which is why I have to wonder at the programming that the History Channel runs sometimes.

The History Channel is among the channels that I will flip to when channel surfing hoping to find a good history story. But far too often what I find there I would be generous in naming it history.

Remember I expect history to be factual and truthful, so when the History Channel has yet another episode of UFO history, I just have to think "Whoa! That's not history." Of course that statement will offend UFO believers, which is a majority of Americans. Or what of the shows the History Channel will do about ghosts or psychics or Bigfoot or the Lock Ness Monster?

One of the stations more popular shows, I'm assuming it's popular as it is run nearly endlessly some days, is Modern Marvels. This is a show about man-made things like bridges and buildings. I saw the recent promo for the next episode on the subject of glue. OK, I suppose the invention and development of glue can be considered history, yet I don't know, glue? I suppose the episode could provide some good answers to a Jeopardy question.

I have a feeling though that if I was given control of programming at the History Channel the ratings would fall. Out would be all of the guessing history such as Bigfoot and the others I mentioned above. UFO shows would be sold to the Sci-Fi Channel. Sure that stuff probably attracts viewers, but to me those paranormal subjects make me want to rename the channel, The Hysterical Channel.

The Hillary Headache is Beginning

2006-03-01T01:15:00.000-05:00

The media and political pundits can't seem to get away from the Hillary Clinton presidency predictions. So, why not me as well?

"Hillary...Don't RUN!"

I have no interest in her being my president, in fact I wonder if I'd be as disappointed if she were to win as I was with George Bush. It seems if she were to win we'd just have part four of some type of kingdom successions, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, when would it end?

My full thought is that Hillary is just another opportunist politician. She wants to continue to "triangulate" the Democratic Party by moving it to the right. Why can't the party rid themselves of these half-assed loyalists. She comes from the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that was husband Bill's launching point. But the DLC has been inching right year by year and increasingly cozying up closer to corporate interests. But they are causing the internal division of the Democrats, a widening schism.

As low as Preseident Bush's ratings are these days (a new poll puts his approval at only 34%) and the corruption scandals lurking all around the Republican Congress, it should be easy to assume that the opposition party holds all the cards. But Americans don't perceive the Democrats as having any answers. Partially this is the result of Republicans saying that and the media mimicing that line, but as well blame can be placed on the DLC which really doesn't have any new ideas. The DLC doesn't come up with new ideas, but attempts to triangulate or a better term co-opt some Republican themes.

The Democrats are split into two groups, the DLC and then the true ideology of the left which can be named progressives these days. The big money goes to the DLC sect and thus the larger voice which drowns out the progressives. Yet the progressive side is the section of the party that can be truly called the opposition party to the Republican Party.

Progressives were the ones who opposed the Iraq War right from the beginning and it's getting very hard to argue they were wrong. Even noted conservatives like William Buckley have now acknowledged Iraq was and is wrong. There are a number of issues that progressives should be allowed to articulate in the main stream media, but get overshadowed by the Hillary types and ignored by the media.

I shudder at the thought of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination for 2008. I tend to think of American presidential races as obscenely important coin flips. A call it in the air choice between two opposition political parties. Hillary in 2008 will make that coin flip one sided. A conservative Republican on one side of the coin and not an opposition candidate on the other. Hillary is in the middle, nothing but the edge of the coin.

Sure there will be a few issues I might agree with Mrs. Clinton on, heath care issues for instance, but hell, I could agree with a conservative on a few issues. Just a few issues doesn't thrill me, I want a total ideology and strong opinions and beliefs. I want a candidate that can point to the opposition and state that they are wrong on most issues. And certainly after the Bush blunderful years I want a vast change in the direction in this country.

Hillary will not be that change. Oh, she may at times during her campaign act like she is the candidate for change, but the real person she is will be tied to corporate interests. I mean has she ever fully backed campaign finance change, or large reform of lobbying? She's all about business as usual in politics.

I'm sure I'll end up blogging more about Hillary as we approach 2008, advocating people to not support her, but I wanted to chime in early. At the minimum it's time for some new blood besides the Clinton/Bush blood or to paraphrase a French revolution, "off with their talking heads."

Supernova!

2006-02-27T08:48:00.000-05:00

Scientists have discovered the birth of a supernova this week which perks my curiosity. Pondering the universe is a thinking hobby of mine and the concepts of novae, black holes, the dimension of the universe, etc. allow for much dreaming.

Considering that black holes were only a guess and a subject for sci-fi movies when I first became aware of cosmology brings about a sense of discovery and realization of theory into fact.

A supernova is basically the death of a massive star. This particular one is expected to turn into a black hole. The discovery of this supernova was caught using a satelite that measures gamma ray bursts. Following the burst is the visual death of the outer portion of the star and if you have a fairly powerful telescope and live in the Northern Hemisphere you should be able to view it.

The distance from Earth in cases such as this always leaves me in awe when pondered more deeply than merely hearing the numbers. Located in the constellaton Aires this supernova is 440 million lightyears distant from us. To think how long the light from this particular stars collapse took to reach us leaves me awestruck. This event is actually history, long ago history, I mean a really long time ago history.

If there was a world (I'll name it Katrina) like ours near this star with sentient beings with a similar technology and they of course realized that this star was going to collapse and destroy them they might be frantically trying to signal anyone beyond their planet to help them. And let's imagine that their signal reached the earth instantaneously. That would have been futile for the Katrinians as humans didn't exist. In fact that signal would not have been during the age of dinosaurs, that signal was far before then. It would have arrived in the early Silurian Period, a time of the first reefs, rapid evolution of fish, and the beginnings of spiders, centipedes and vascular plants. Important for life on Earth, but completely useless for the Katrinians watching the impending supernova.

If we could imagine that the communication signal came just a few years ago, we would be forlorn because there would be nothin we could do. "Sorry, we can't help you," in fact we can't even get a signal to them before they all die to tell them "sorry, we can't help you." In fact they had all died ages and ages ago. But we can imagine planet Katrina and imagine the Katrinians preparing to die because of the supernova AND we can watch the star do its thing. We can also imagine (and hope) that some planet (call it planet Fema) with sentient beings that was located much closer to planet Katrina came to rescue those beings just in time, like a good sci-fi movie. Hopefully the Femians didn't leave many Katrinians behind to die.

Astronomers this coming week are watching a display that might be thought of as an old (anciently old) cosmic movie. This all happened so long ago, but the light has finally reached us to let us in on the event. This is like turning on some bizarre TV. The channel shows live what happened multiple millions of years ago. The promos for this bizarre TV channel would go something like this, "Watch ancient history, live as it happens" and they would be completely accurate.

Reality in space depends on which cosmic TV station you're watching and from what seat in the universal theatre. If you're a Katrinian or Femian the event happened long ago and is replayed on their Ancient History Channel, but to us it is live, yet isn't.

Islamphobia?

2006-02-25T10:23:00.001-05:00

A reaction to the Dubai port sale from those in favor of it is to blame the crowd that is alarmed by the sale as affected by Islamaphobia. And I tend to agree.

But why has so much of America become afflicted by Islamaphobia? The gut answer is 9/11, but my feeling is that it is deeper than that. It is our reaction to 9/11, or at least the reaction by the Bush Administration to 9/11.

Certainly we needed to become more aware of the dangers of Al Qaeda type terrorism and defend against it. One of those ways was suppose to be Homeland Security. HSD was supposed to improve or defenses to terrorism. Yet here we are full circle. We are alarmed that Dubai is purchasing many ports on the East Coast. The 9/11 Commission gave our port security a grade of a D- and that was mostly because we only check about 10% of the containers coming into the country. That percent hasn't changed, so the alarm of an Islamic country taking control of the port business again points out the lack of improvement in port security. It really doesn't matter who owns the ports, but whether we have made progress in security, which we haven't.

Understandably one reaction to 9/11 was to go after Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, most people in this country had no objection to the Afghanistan War. But Iraq? There is still only the small excuse that Iraq was somehow part of a broad War on Terrorism. Now a few years into the Iraq War, most Americans still don't understand the Middle East, Islam, the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, to the point that the recent events of the destruction of the Mosque outside of Baghdad means little to the uninformed American except that somehow the Islamic people are nuts.

George Bush pushed us into the Iraq War and had to get enough Americans to believe that the Middle East needed America to set some things straight. To do that Bush had to play on the inner emotions of Americans using various means. To some he used the noble cause of promoting democracy. To some it was the use of fear of Islamic fundementalism. To some (like me) there was no argument that was believable coming from Bush. But the result of Bush's efforts a few years down the road is that many Americans have tilted toward an Islamaphobia, a fear of anything Islamic.

Phobias toward countries that we are at war with has occured often in our history. The best examples were the Japs and Krauts from World War II. Phobias of Japanese and Germans was rampant to the point that we had interment camps for Americans of those descents. Phobia toward Islam is evident in Guantanemo Bay where we have a prison camp holding Arabs that for the most part have nothing to do with some war on terrorism. Most Americans hide their head in the sand and ignore Guantanemo Bay, ignore the holding of people without trials.

Yes, America is afflicted by Islamaphobia. There probably will be no healing of that phobia until we withdraw from Iraq. We have to get most Americans back to doing what they do best, ignoring the rest of the world. Having the daily Iraq War footage only intensifies the phobia.

Bumped Butt Bone

2006-02-24T09:09:00.000-05:00

The other day I bumped my butt bone and now it's been bugging me. That's not to say that I have a bug in my butt, that would be awful. But, my butt does hurt.

I think it happened at work, I vaguely remember bending down to pick something up and when I stood up my butt made hard contact with something like a table. It's one of those injuries I get when I work, where I bump, burn, wrench or cut myself somewhere on my body but don't stop to really investigate what happened because I'm concentrating or hurrying on a task. It's not until later that I notice I hurt.

Now this bumped butt is a bummer or is that my bumped bum is a butter? I can only sit down in certain ways without pain. Driving a car is one of those places where sitting is none too comfortable. And an easy chair is not easy! Sitting forward is painless, so a toilet seat is more comfortable than laying back on a couch, this is not fair. I feel like I'm in the bizarro world for seating. Standing or walking is painless, but I can't do that 24/7. And don't mention bending over, owwww.

The spinebone is connected to the butt bone, the butt bone is connected to....I guess nothing. It's the end of line, so to speak. I looked up the medical word for the butt bone and that word is hardly comforting, it's the coccyx, pronounced cock-sicks which according to the dictionary is so called because the bone is the shape of a cuckoo's beak. Which I don't quite get, wouldn't that be the kook-sicks?

I've been telling people that I hurt my coccyx and I get strange looks, afterall it does sound more like something located in a frontal location, groin high. No, I didn't hurt my cock and it ain't sick either. Someone asked me if I got that word out of a thesarus, I said "yeah, the sore ass, because that's what I've got."

I can only say at this point that I hope this discomfort goes away. I'm guessing that I slightly fractured my coccyx, but what could a doctor do, put me in a waist cast? It will just have to heal over time. So for now I'm trying not to sit too hard or in a formerly relaxing manner.

Dubious on Dubai

2006-02-22T13:21:00.000-05:00

The latest controversy is the sale of US port systems from control by a British company to the country of The United Arab Emirates and a company called Dubai World Ports. Politicians from both parties are jumping on Bush in opposition to the sale.

I wish I could garner some outrage or even some mild disgust but I don't find this unusual in the world of global capitalism. Nothing is very sacred as to who owns what anymore. I don't understand why we didn't question ANY foreign country running our ports. So what if Britain is considered a friend, does that mean that all the employees of that British company were are friends as well?

But we've sold out long ago. Free trade has mixed up every industry here in the US. Cross country ownership backed up by World Trade Organization rules that Bush and Clinton both liked. Here in Michigan thanks to free trade rules FORCES my state to take Canadian garbage to despoil more of our land occupied as landfills. The state has tried to stop the importation of the trash, but the WTO has rules and the US is a signator to the WTO.

The last two US auto companies (Ford and GM) are hurting from unbalanced trade where Asian countries restrict American imports, but the US allows all foreign cars for sale in the US. So, we will respect the WTO when it comes to garbage, but not when it comes to autos. We allow foreign auto companies to build cars in the US but the same isn't true for the American auto companies as to Asia unless it is through a government coalition company like in China.

We have a German company now owning what used to be a member of the "big three" auto companies, Chrysler. So, what difference does it make if an Arab country is running some of our sea ports? Does it make any difference when we know that only about 10% of containers are checked? Does it matter if those containers don't get checked by that British company or this United Arab Emirates company?

Now, I think it makes a difference, but most Americans haven't seemed to care that foreign companies run things all over the US. Most Americans don't care that our huge national debt is paid for by foreign countries. Most Americans don't care that we are trading decent paying manufacturing jobs for lower paying retail jobs.

Most Americans aren't aware that history has a few lessons about this. Going back to the other dominate economic nations in the past, giving up the manufacturing and craft industries was a precursor to economic decline. Before us it was Britain, Spain and The Netherlands that lost their production strength. They as us started relying on the world to be their workers and creators of new technology, products and new ideas. We are about halfway (just a guess) to becoming a declining economic power. We are giving away our strength for one simple reason, greed at the top of the economic food chain.

It wasn't enough to make millions for the elites of the business world, they wanted much more. But when the day comes that most Americans finally understand what we've been giving away, they need to blame themselves for laying down or falling asleep and not paying attention. OK, maybe this port deal is the wake-up call, but I doubt it. Congress might block the deal, but they have let so many other deals fly right by them that if they do block this deal it is only a small drop in the ocean.

Lame Excuses For Cheney Shooting, Bush Spying

2006-02-21T07:06:00.000-05:00

This past week I've read several editorials and letters, and seen enough pundits to make me barf that are laying out the same lame excuse for Dick Cheney's shooting. The line goes like this; It's a personal matter, it's not for the public to worry about.

This is just more claptrap that the Cheney/Bush supporters would never have said if the tables had been turned and it was a Democrat in the White House. But I don't care which party is in the White House, this is certainly the public's interest. Let's start with the fact that Cheney is paid by the American people through our taxes, Cheney is our employee, he answers to us. Let's add the fact that while on his hunting trip he had secret service and aides also paid for by us by our taxes. Cheney's travel to his hunting trip was footed by the taxpayers and if he had bothered to get a hunting liscence, we would have probably have had to slip him the seven bucks for that too.

So when my employee, the vice president, is out shooting a guy in the face on my dime, I want to know about it. I want to know all the details, I want to know if my employee is being responsible. Only someone that believe an employee can essentially give the finger to those that pay him should be saying it's a "personal matter."

Let's as well compare this to the corporate world. Corporations believe they have the right to delve into our personal life, they drug test, they use lie detectors, some companies are even firing people for smoking cigarettes (a legal product) off the job. Well, Cheney comes from the corporate world (CEO of Halliburton) he should understand if his employers (the American people) would like him to submit to a drug test and a lie detector test. I say let's clear up what really happened on that ranch that day, put Cheney in a chair and submit to a lie detector.

As to the Bush domestic spy program, the lame excuse is "well, if you're not guilty you shouldn't be against the government eavesdropping on your conversations." Again these are Bush/Cheney supporters for the most part, Republicans who USED to say they hate big brother government. They now apparantly trust our government, a government that spied on such "terrorists" such as Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lennon among the multitudes our government in the past "feared." Again let me reiterate, all the money spent spying on people who we have nothing to fear from (those who are not guilty of anything) is a waste of my money (taxes).

The big brother government Republicans and supporters of Bush have now fallen in love with is driven by vague fear, a fear the big brother Bush has been yapping at us for about four years now. These people now like a government that is moving to practices that are more in vein with fascism or state communism. These were the big brother governments we fought against, now we are becoming like them, in fact cheered on by the right, "Go big brother Bush, go!"

Spying on Americans is wrong, we don't do that in a democracy. They did that in fascist and communist countries. They do that in theocracies like Iran, they do that in dictatorships, like when Hussein ran Iraq. When did we decide we want to be like those type of countries? When Bush said so, that's when. And apparently when all the blind faith followers of Bush agreed with him.

Bush can be refered to as Commander in Chief of our armed forces, but when did he get the added title of Commander in Chief of the American people?

Curling, Is It A Sport?

2006-02-20T09:12:00.000-05:00

I've been watching intently the Olympic curling tournament. For those of you that don't know curling, it is basically a sport where rocks with handles are slid down a sheet into a target. The sliding rock is helped by players who sometimes sweep the ice to encourage the rock further down the ice.

My girlfriend calls it "just sweeping, any janitor could do it." I call it an odd combination of billiards, darts, bowling, golf, AND sweeping. But it is none of those in any resemblance.

Living in the Detroit area I've been exposed to curling on TV since I was a kid through Canada's national TV, CBC. It should also be noted that CBC has always had the best hockey coverage with its Hockey Night In Canada broadcasts. As a kid I was always intrigued but confused by curling, bored yet with the feeling that this sport was something unique. As an adult, I have no problem catching a few "ends" (curlings equvalent to baseballs innings) every once in awhile.

Someday I'd like to give the sport a try. To do that you have to visit a curling club where they would have a number of curling strips to play on. There aren't that many around, although the sport is growing in popularity due to Olympic coverage every four years. Curling isn't highly strenuous and I suppose you'd have to like cool temperature as the air in the curling club mustn't be too warm to mess with the ice. The most physical work in curling is the sweeping, when necessary sweepers may be really sweating up a storm for a minute or two.

The key to curling is the person throwing the rock as that is where the impetus for a rock to curl must start. Down in the target area (the house) the idea is to have the most rocks closest to the center. A shooter tries to place blocking rocks, tries to place close shots, or tries to knock out opponents rocks. A good shooter has the ability to run a rock down past a blocking rock, curl it behind that rock while having enough speed to slowly float it into a close scoring position or knock out an opponents rock while leaving that shooting stone right there after the knock.

The advantage goes to the last stone in the end, having that last chance to finalize the target area. They call this final rock "The Hammer." If no score results at the end of the end, then the same order for throwing transfers to the next end, the same team keeps the hammer. One strategy is to purposely not to score just one point in an end thereby holding that hammer position further into the match. Many teams won't give up the hammer unless they can score two or more points in an end. There are tens ends to a match, having the hammer in a close game in the later ends is a powerful position. The hammer can be related to tennis and having serve, the advantage.

Now, I'm not exactly an affectionado and I don't know all the nuances to the game and I probably don't know all the rules, but I like it better than plenty of other sports. It's a great TV sport as camera men can be in close along the edge of the ice both up by the shooter and down by the target. They also place a camera directly overhead of the target which lets the viewer get a great angle of the house. As well, audio pickup is close and a viewer can listen in on the strategy decisions being made.

Catch a few ends during these Olympics, curling can become addicting.

Cheney Interview, Drinking?

2006-02-17T13:39:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I posted about the Cheney interview on Fox News. I failed to mention something that didn't fit right.

Cheney explained that he had drank one beer at lunch well before the shooting. But interesting is that previously the ranch owner and "designated witness" had said that no one had drank any alcohol.

It should also be noted that Fox never aired the part where Cheney said he had one beer. Curious but exactly as I had described a taped interview yesterday, that some questions/answers would be edited out later.

The ranch owner, Mrs. Armstrong, was already caught giving two different versions to the story to two different newspapers, now what of the difference between her no drinking and Cheney's one beer? Or was it more than one beer?

Armstrong was not even a good witness because she didn't actually see the shooting. She said she was in a pick-up truck and saw all the secret service agents running over to the scene and imagined that Cheney was having a heart problem.

And I'm having problems buying that Cheney was in control of his weapon. He shot the man in the face, neck and chest, that's nearly ground level, the birds were that low? And was Cheney really 30 yards away from his victim considering the damage the man received?

We'll probably really never know the truth. Isn't that such a repeatable phrase ever since Bush has been president?

Figure Skating is Irritating

2006-02-17T11:52:00.000-05:00

Last night we happened to all be home together (that can be unusual these days with my work schedule and two older teens) and we ended up watching some of the mens olympic figure skating. When American skater Scott Weir did his routine I had to express my disgust with all that is wrong with figure skating.

Figure skating is not a sport, it is not "athletic competition" it is entertainment, at least as it exists these days. What sport requires background music? What sport does wearing frilly costumes constitute importance? What athletic competition needs the competitor to spend much of the event creating graceful hand mannerisms to gain points?

Scott Weir(d?) was the epitome of all that is wrong with mens figure skating. I mean what's with that costume? I thought we was wearing some sort of party dress on his shoulders.

So, first let's fix this costume problem right away. Skaters must have uniform styles such as any other winter olympic event. Put the nations colors and flag on the clothing. And add a number, name optional. And cut off that frilly stuff, you don't see skiers coming down the hill with threads waving in the wind for image effect, which is why figure skaters have that junk.

All those mannerisms should count for nothing. No use of body parts like the head, hands, arms, ass, etc. to play to the judges for points. That's not athletics that's acting. If the competitors want to still play actors they can, but no points just wasted energy. I suggest they do more jumps with the added energy. This goes for floor gymnastics as well when the summer olympics come along.

Cut the music or make them all skate to the same music. Yeah, it will be a bit more boring, but I call for equal competition. Or to really make it interesting, play random music not known by the skaters prior to hitting the ice. I could just hear some skater after the event saying, "I was hoping for Bach, but got Bachman Turner Overdrive instead."

And let's make the scoring more understandable. Geez, I saw scores like 89.45 which meant nothing to me. How do they get to these numbers? Show the math. And what's deductions? A skater tries to make a triple lutz and loses points for a failed attempt? If they make the jump, they get points, if they don't, no points. Simplify.

How about some wild suggestions? Put some hurdles out on the ice, make them leap over some obstacles. Or to really make it interesting, combine the event with the biathlon. A sharpshooter using the skaters as targets would really bring some excitement. Don't panic, rubber bullets. Or make it a real head to head competition, two skaters at the same time and give them hockey sticks.

Oh, I'll probably rile a few figure skating enthusists, mostly women. I imagine gay men won't like my changes to the competition either. Nothing wrong with a sport for gays, but I want to appreciate the sport as well, and frilly costumes, music and body mannerisms have nothing to do with muscles, which is what athletic competition is really about, even for a more sedate sport like curling (which is one of my favorite winter olympic events).

Mens figure skating has become something like an evening on Bravo, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy combined with Project Runway. And womens figure skating is moving toward a combination of The Playboy Channel and Law and Order (sorry Tonya Harding we will never forget). The womens costumes are getting more sexy every four years, I don't mind that I suppose, but uniforms for the women would be in the same vein as for the men. I'm waiting for the day that a breast gets exposed and the sport goes into SHOCK. I suppose we could go to nude skating, I'd watch, the women at least. But seriously...

...I'm barely serious in this particular blog post. Yes, lose the frilly costumes as a first step back to sport respectability.

Cheney Interview, Just As I Expected

2006-02-16T09:40:00.000-05:00

Well, I basically predicted how Vice President Dick Cheney would tell the public in my post yesterday. I said I expected Cheney to control the scene. As it turns out he gave his exclusive interview to Fox News with host Britt Hume which aired at 600pm. No surprise there as Fox News has been the Bush/Cheney cheerleading team on the boob tube.

Consider the fact that Fox News does have the highest ratings of cable news stations, yet also understand that the major over the air networks (NBC, ABC, CBS) still far and away have much higher ratings for the evening news. So, as I stated, he controlled the scene by selecting a less viewed news program and choosing Fox News the friend of the White House.

My morning Detroit Free Press included a side article to the Cheney interview story that was illuminating as to how Cheney deals with the press or speaks to an audience, it's almost alway to sympathetic ears. Here is list of his most recent public appearances.

Feb. 9, The Conservative Political Action Conference
Feb. 7, Jim Lehrer, PBS NewsHour
Feb. 3, Laura Ingraham, radio consevative
Feb. 1, Rush Limbaugh, radio conservative
Jan. 20, Hugh Hewitt, radio conservative
Jan. 19, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, conservative think tank
Jan. 4, The Heritage Foundation, conservative think tank
Nov. 16, the 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, republicans

Only the Feb. 7th appearance would be considered a non-conservative interview or speech. Jim Lehrer is highly regarded as unbiased or non-partisan. So, even that interview wouldn't even slightly step into left wing territory. Most of his other speechs are given to military troops.

And of course we will never know whether his interview yesterday with Britt Hume was controlled as to questions. Cheney may have asked for a list of questions to be pre-approved or he may have refused to answer some questions with that portion of the interview edited later. The interview was taped, not live, which gives me reason to suspect question manipulation. Pre-approved questions in taped interviews are more common than most TV viewers understand.

Consider as well the two-way street many Washington reporters drive when dealing with politicians. If they hector a politician too severly then the politician is far less likely to agree to later appearances. Many reporters massage a relationship to keep information flowing or appearances forthcoming, former NY Times reporter Judy Miller a strong case in point. Fox News has been cozy with the White House since Bush took office, everyone knows that. They've had several exclusive interviews with Bush and Cheney as with other White House figures from the last five years.

And let's not forget that Cheney has had four days to prepare for every possible question with answers that he has had his aides review and critique. He had the time to prepare for this interview as he did for the VP debate in 2004. Make no mistake his responses were well thought out. American politicians are the best actors in the world.

It would take plenty of inside knowledge for me to believe that Cheney wasn't using Fox News to get an image he desired for the American public. And Fox ate it up as I'm sure they got a little boost in the ratings for their evening newscast to boost their advertising dollars. Once the deal was struck with Fox, I flipped over and monitored Fox for a time and saw their promos running for the big Cheney interview event.

TV media and politics is pure manipulation by all sides which leaves the viewers nothing but glassy eyed stooges

Katrina the Saga Continues

2006-02-15T11:01:00.000-05:00

A day doesn't seem to go by that I'm amazed at the ineptitude of the aftermath of Katrina and I don't mean what the storm did, but what our government does or rather doesn't do.

We've just had a GAO report come out that reports that FEMA wasted untold millions of dollars. Untold because they are still counting it up. A soon to be released investigative report from the House of Representatives has already let slip that virtually everyone who had any sort of leadership during the storm failed at providing that leadership. Surprising the report that was conducted by Republicans was honest and direct at passing the blame around to include much of the administration.

From the GAO report one appalling aspect was that in Hope, Arkansas right now sit nearly 11,000 mobile homes that are basically sinking into the ground as they await FEMA's disposition. FEMA won't allow them to be placed in a flood plain (somewhat understandable) but apparently will let them sit on a field that can't support the weight of all those homes. The price of these homes? $301.7 million. Meanwhile evacuees are being put out of their hotels, in many places into homeless shelters while the mobile homes sit empty and sinking. Note to FEMA, mobile means they can be moved!

As far as the Congressional report plenty of criticism goes to Homeland Security (does anyone believe those two words belong together anymore?) Director Michael Chertoff. I've believed this as well since days after the storm hit. Chertoff it will be remembered decided that giving a speech in Atlanta the day after the levees broke was more important than getting involved in Katrina. Today Chertoff is to be hotly questioned before a Congressional committee. I wonder what bullcrap he's going to use to explain his lack of leadership.

I watched most of Michael Brown's testimony last week and came away with two major impressions. First, that although he was responsible for some mistakes and has admitted so, he has until this point in time been the "designated scapegoat" as one senator put it. The other thing that caught my attention was that he testified that he was in contact several times to the Bush ranch in Crawford where Bush was vacationing at the time. It is rediculous for the president or the White House to claim they didn't have any information about the levee problems and flooding.

Bufoonery! If there was any reason that trumps others to impeach Bush, the handling of Katrina is it. And considering the massive disapproval Bush received across the country and around the world in the days and weeks following Katrina you would think that they would be spending much time on ensuring more acts of stupidity don't continue as the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast attempts to begin. Yet, that doesn't seem to be the case as noted above with the mobile homes sitting unused. As well, the rebuilding has been going slow and we're a few months from hurricane season again. It was recently reported that only about a third of the refuse has been carted away in New Orleans, might as well wait for another hurricane to come along and blow those huge heaps away. And forget about levees, they've got no chance to improve them to category 5 hurricane for this season.

New Orleans will never be ready for another hurricane this coming year, there has been too much running in circles led by the inept White House with a Vice President busy shooting his friend while hunting. Oh, wait, I just remembered something. Didn't Bush put Dick Cheney in charge of the Katrina rebuilding? He did, I certainly remember Cheney in one of those photo-ops pointing at a pile of wood looking so concerned and interested. He was photo-oped around for a few days and hasn't been back since. The shooting occured near Corpus Cristi, Texas which is sort of in that region, but I guess he was just too busy spraying his friend with birdshot instead of checking out the Katrina zone for progress. Dick Cheney is just a complete buffoon in the house of buffoonery.

Cheney Shoots Himself In The Foot While Hunting

2006-02-15T08:57:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry Cheney didn't shoot himself in the foot, he blasted his hunting friend in the face with birdshot instead. After sitting back for a few days and watching the media coverage of the Dick Cheney hunting incident I've come to the conclusion that this would not have been quite as big of a story had Cheney come forward and told what happened.

Yesterday his victim Harry Whittington had a mild heart attack due to a pellet that had come in contact with his heart muscle. He has been readmitted to the intensive care unit. The condition of Whittington would have been the continuing story (and rightly should be) if Cheney had been more forthright.

Now, it's not unrealistic to wonder if the Vice President has been covering up something for several reasons.

First was the fact that the owner of the ranch was the one who informed the media but not until the next day and then only to a friend reporter. Why didn't Cheney with his coterie of aides not be the one to do the informing? Not one of his aides could begin the process?

Second, now that the incident is out in the open, why has Cheney STILL not spoken to the media, even after returning to Washington? Remember Cheney has no problem talking to the press and giving speeches when it comes to terrorism.

Third, why is his friend former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson all over the cable talk shows describing the hunting incident as if he was there? Apparently (but not confirmed) Cheney took the time to call Simpson and ask that he be the one to play the spin. The spin being that Whittington was out of position when Cheney took his shot at the birds. So Cheney had time to phone Simpson and describe the shooting, yet not the time to inform the public? Or Cheney had someone else call Simpson, but the spin seemed inportant to Cheney, more than facing the public.

Fourth, Cheney has paid a $7.00 fine for not having a Texas hunting stamp. It seems unlikely that this small mistake is a reason to run from the media, but maybe this was what he was worried about. Maybe all of his other hunting trips that's he's been on since he's been the VP have also entailed failures to obtain a liscense. Maybe he's worried that a connection will be made and it will make him seem unlawful as well as an elite above the law.

Fifth, maybe there were other things going on during this hunting incident. Could drinking have been involved? The police weren't notified until long after any alchohol consumption might have been detected. Or could the other people involved be subject to scrutiny for their association to the VP, such as oil or arms industry?

Sixth, it's been reported that Cheney didn't talk to President Bush until Monday, two days after the shooting. One wonders why he didn't talk to his boss as soon as possible.

Seventh, there is no seventh that I can think of yet, someone else may come up with various other reasons to suspect Cheney of covering up something. If the informing had been forthright, Cheney wouldn't be under the microscope to the extent he is now.

One also may wonder why White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan has been completely closed mouthed about all this. Yesterday even though he had been informed of Whittington's heart attack he refused to reveal this to the press in that days press conference. As to the entire incident he has been telling the reporters that the need to refer to the Vice Presidents office for questions. This is common practice by McLellan on any issue he isn't going to speak about, usually with the result of the pertinent office also declining to answer questions. It's a practice that might be called "the silence-go-round."

As a reminder, this is the third hunting trip that Cheney has gotten unwanted press coverage for. The first was when he went hunting with Supreme Court Judge Antonio Scalia at a time that the court was preparing to hear a case against Cheney for his secret energy meetings that involved forcing the release of the meeting notes and list of attendees via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It certainly appeared that this hunting trip smelled of something unethical.

The second trip that the media got wind of was a trip in Pennslyvania where Cheney apparently bagged something like 400 doves in a cage release hunt. Not exactly hunting by the standards of most hunters.

Now, he has shot a person hunting and Cheney has to be worrying that Whittington fully recovers. Whittington is in his 70's and at that age complications are more common and could result in his not recovering. At the least, his face will probably have some unsightly scars.

Cheney's lack of an appearance before the public seems so common of him when the focus is on him when he doesn't want it to be. It also is similar to the whole administration, a veil of secrecy when they want it, openness when they have something to spin.

I think it's time for Cheney to stop his hunting until he has left office. All those trips are paid by our tax dollars and I think he has given up the right to frivolously waste those tax dollars by his "accident." And I think we've finally figured out his "undisclosed location," it's in the field and woods.

This story is not over. There are plenty of questions to be answered by Cheney and you can bet when he finally does talk he will control the scene. He will only answer questions he wants, or he won't even answer questions, only reading a statement. The last time I saw a poll about Cheney his approval rating was less than 30%, even some Republicans apparently don't like him. You've got to wonder how many like him now that he won't talk to the American public about him shooting another human. You have to go back to the 18th century to find a vice president shooting another human, Aaron Burr, remember him?

Muhammad Cartoon

2006-02-11T12:57:00.000-05:00

This is the first cartoon I've drawn in quite awhile. I'm having a bit of a problem with sizing, but I'll fix that in the future hopefully.

I wanted to add some comments as to the above cartoon. First you'll notice I managed to draw the prophet Muhammad without depicting his image in any way. I find this part of Islam so different from Christianity and Judaism at least from the perspective from here in the United States. It's not uncommon for cartoons and humor in general to take pot shots at Jesus and Christianity or for Jews to laugh at themselves, case in point John Stewart does this regularily. Although Muhammad never made it sacreligious to depict his image, he did frown on it as he felt that this would lead to idolatry.

My comment in the cartoon that the box was "sheilding Islam from the vulgarity of the modern world" is a personal viewpoint that Islam is struggling with the 21st century. One the one hand, they've embraced communication technology such as satellite TV and cell phones, yet deplore the "information" that can be viewed through this technology such as pornography and alcoholism, to name a couple of things.

As a amateur cartoonist I've looked on in wonder as the Islamic world has took to the streets with violent protests over a cartoon. It's that old argument of freedom of speech versus what speech is acceptable. The Islam world is struggling with this concept. The people want more freedom of speech, but with limits, at least as concerned with Muhammad. As well, there is the feeling that they have been persecuted and laughed at by the West.

I look at these protests as part of a larger picture. I think the Arab world is essentially in a civil rights movement. They want to throw off the controlling regimes in various countries, they want a type of democracy, they want a voice in how their lives are run. We just don't recognize it as a civil rights movement because many of the voices are wrapped in the language and desires of their religion of Islam.

In some of the countries, Iran and Syria for instance, protest is only allowed by the ruling government and almost exclusively in opposition to the West. We have to wonder if when given the chance to protest, the people in those countries are willing to participate because they are never allowed to spontaniously protest for other issues and in particularily against their own governments. Iran and Syria use similar tactics as George Bush in that they turn anger at their government from within by using fear of others in the world to get the people to forget about their own government.

The White House gives us an endless feeding of fear of terrorism as Iran for instance gives their people an endless fear of the U.S. That's when you know a government doesn't have the full support of the people, the use of distraction to other countries. "Hey, look over there, don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain."

Burger In The Face

2006-02-08T09:03:00.000-05:00

The oldest teenager of the house got himself a new job last week. He's now a fast food flinger at MacDonalds. Already he's had a insulting incident that would make anyone quit.

I can only repeat this story as told to me because I wasn't there, but I'm fairly confident that I can trust the general storyline. This happened on only his third day at the new job. He has been trained to run the cash register from day one for the lunch crowd, and anyone that has been to MacDonalds at lunch time can attest that this is probably the most busy and hectic part of the day.

Apparently he took a special order burger and retrieved the burger from the burger makers, you know the drill, and gave it to the customer. Very soon the man returned and angerily said his burger was made wrong and promptly threw it into the teen's face. Unbelievably bad behavior for any human. The teen was so shocked and with an understandingly quick response of embarassment and indignation he told the customer to "fuck off." He then realized the situation was not good and went and got the manager. The manager had him apologize for his bad language.

I questioned him about the customer and he told me that the man was in his forties and was wearing a suit. From that I can only guess as to the customer. I figure the man to be a mid-level paper pusher or maybe a salesman, you'd have to figure the guy wasn't rich or why would he be fighting the lunch crowd at MacDonalds. So, I continue to wonder about this guy, what in the world was in his mind to actually throw a burger at an employee in front of other people? I wonder whether he was having a terrible day and his anger at his own boss maybe became transference into some kid he didn't even know and who didn't even make the burger. In other words was he was taking out his anger from earlier in the day on someone else? Yet, that doesn't excuse this complete rudeness to another person.

And what of MacDonalds? This type of behavior by a customer is tolerated? Anything for a future sale? Isn't the act of throwing food in someone's face something like assault and battery? Shouldn't MacDonalds take legal action against this man? I'm sure the incident was all caught on camera, why weren't the police called?

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if anyone reading this could tell a story or two about customers they've seen treat employees of the company they want service from in similar rude fashion. Is this the result of a country that is now mostly a service economy and the collision of the old saying that many companies use "the customer is alway right" or is this just a case of an isolated jerk who treats the human race as his doormat to wipe his feet on?

I've had incorrect orders given to me at fast food joints and have never reacted in such a manner. I can remember a few years back when our family was on a trip and stopped halfway on the drive at a MacDonalds. Talk about a wrong burger order, two burgers were burgerless, nothing between the buns except condiments. We were a bit shocked and then laughed it up and took it back and slyly suggested that we could use some replacements. The employees realized we weren't angry and we all had some minor fun with the incident.

Finally I'm encouraged that the teen hasn't quit his job. He learned a lesson about the world of consumerism, that some consumers don't understand how to consume. He's also learned that work can be degrading, very few of us in America probably haven't been degraded at some point at our jobs in the past. I had to eventually tell him "welcome to the world of retail."

I feel for him because I've spent my whole life purposely avoiding working at jobs that deal with masses of consumers. I think of those jobs as the modern version of the plantation house nigga (excuse my french), jobs that involve putting your emotions in a box and trying to please people who can't be pleased. Even at my advanced age I don't think I could have restrained my language anymore than the teen did. I'd probably have used every cuss word I know and would have wanted to leap over the counter and smush a Big Mac in that guys face, and then told MacDonalds "I quit!"

Super? Bowl, From Detroit

2006-02-06T09:33:00.000-05:00

Finally the Super Bowl is over and take it from someone that lives in the Detroit area, thank the higher power. In any year the hype for this year end game can be way over the top, but as a resident of the host region, the hype has been endlessly incessant.

For the last two weeks it has been almost impossible to avoid hearing about the "big game." And as the game closed in, it became even more impossible. The two local newspapers, The Detroit Free Press and Detroit News, have run endless stories to hype the game. Every section (except the classifieds) of these papers had to way in someway.

The Sunday paper was loaded with Super Bowl articles, every section blathering about players, the effects on business, comparisons to the last time Detroit hosted the game, the parties, the A-B list C-lebs, on and on. And then today's paper was just as fat with Super Bowl crap, I mean how many ways can you describe a game everyone saw? And if a person didn't care to see it, there would be no reason to even buy the newspaper.

Now don't get me wrong, I have football interest, but it's just a game among thousands they play every year. I understand the finality of a season working itself through the playoffs to culminate in a last contest. But I don't understand waiting two weeks to get to the game simply to build more hype. I also don't understand playing the game on a Sunday when a Saturday evening game would make more sense to be able to hold their after-game parties on a more reasonable night where people can get back to work on Monday refreshed.

I could understand the hype here in Detroit more if the Detroit Lions were a participant. Unlike all the other major league sports that host cities have teams in their respectful finals, the Super Bowl is played at a neutral cite making Detroiters nothing but sort of peeping toms, spying on something they aren't a part of. I mean geez, with no home team there's no reason to get so over-excited as to burn a few cars or riot.

Maybe my disinterest in the Super Bowl has something to do with the fact that the Detroit Lions have sucked for so many years and have never appeared in the game, that would make XL years. The Lions have to go back to 19-LVII (1957) to be called an NFL champion, years before the Super Bowl. I've long since given up on the Lions and probably wouldn't car a hoot if they should ever get talented enough to appear in the game.

Fortunately Detroit has the Pistons and Red Wings to follow for a taste of championships and every few decades the Tigers become the toast of the town, but not EVER the Lions in my entire years of living.

Well congratulations to the Pittsburgh Steelers and sorry to the Seattle Seahawks (the team I was sort of pulling for) but it's been tiring waiting for the game to come and go. So, get the hell out of town and take the massive amounts of media personnel and the who cares celebrities with you please. It's time for Detroit to clean up after the partying and go back to being the average, grimy, unemployed, freeway quagmired, metropolis.

Earth Science Books

2006-01-29T08:35:00.000-05:00

I've just finished reading another book. This time it was about earth science, a favorite subject of mine. The book, When Life Nearly Died by Michael J. Benton, was a great trove of information pertaining to paleontology and mass extinctions. In particular the greatest mass extinction of all of time between the Permian and Triassic Ages when approximately 90% of life ceased to exist.

In recent years most people have become familiar with the "death of the dinosaurs" between the Cretaceous and Tertiary Ages or what is known as the KT Line. This has become the most studied and talked about mass extinction, yet it pales in comparison to the Permian extinction at only about a 50% extinction rate. Dinosaurs have captured the minds of young and old alike for a long time now and people have always wondered what caused their demise. It was in the 1980's that theories began to emerge of a catastrophic cause and the evidence began to build that an asteroid was the perpetrator and this is now the current belief.

This book takes a look at the Permian mass extinction and wonders whether catastrophic cause/s explains how 90% of life didn't make it into Triassic times. Little time has really been spent investigating the biggest mass extinction as the dinosaurs seemed to capture the fancy of most paleontologists. The author does well to take the reader though the history of paleontology, how the different rock ages came to be named and sorted to time and how we've accumulated the knowledge to this point.

Benton talks of the different people in history that played a part in exposing that there was such a mass extinction, the different theories involved and the debate in science circles through the years. I was pleased at how he presented all viewpoints and didn't simply take a side to argue. And I was fascinated as Benton wrote the book as one big jigsaw puzzle placing the pieces of information into the readers mind so that by the end of the book it seems as though a nearly complete picture has settled into the readers thought. I say nearly complete as certainly more will be learned of this greatest of all mass extinctions.

I also found that it reminded me of two books that I read last year. Information from those two books flirted within the words of Benton's book. The first book I read was Frozen Earth, The Once and Future Story of Ice Ages by Doug MacDougall and the second one was Earth, An Intimate History by Richard Fortey. Both these books delve into geology in a similar way as When Life Nearly Died providing chronological history to bring the reader up to date. Earth covers much on plate tectonics, earthquakes and volcanos as Fortey jumps around the globe pointing at evidence that's been gleaned from the rock and Frozen Earth tells the tales of the various ice ages.

I think of these three books I've read as a sort of trilogy that in the end makes me think of the earth's future based on what we've been learning about the past. Are we in an extinction phase? Is global warming a precurser to an ice age? And how does volcanism and earth movement play into these questions? These books give plenty of insight into these questions for the future and presents many more questions to ponder about our human role in relationship to the earth.

Mayor Nagin is Afraid of God Too.

2006-01-23T08:12:00.000-05:00

Last week on Martin Luther King Jr. day, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin made several stupid comments. Most of the media jumped on his remarks that New Orleans should rebuilt as a "chocolate city." And certainly it had the feel of a racist tone, but I get what he meant.

He's worried that the racial makeup of New Orleans won't be majority black as it was before Hurricane Katrina. And it probably won't be as high a black population as it was due to the fact that so many former residents in the destroyed part of the city will probably remain where they've been relocated. By the time neighborhoods get rebuilt many of the former residents will probably have established themselves with new jobs and new places to live.

You've got to have some sympathy for Mayor Nagin. He is in charge of a city that will be transformed by both nature (Katrina) and the federal government, neither of which Mayor Nagin had/has any control over.

I remember in the days after the flooding happened he gave a radio interview that was in turn played all over the TV networks during the Katrina coverage. He was irate to say the least. I remember thinking that he had just gone through the worst event of his life and was probably sleep deprived as well. I chalked it up to raw emotion.

But the other remarks he made on MLK Day that wasn't given as much media rap was his ideas about God's wrath. He said God had brought the US all of the recent hurricanes because of our collective actions. Unlike the religious kooks who blame moral sins or homosexuality, Mayor Nagin placed the blame on our war in Iraq.

He stole my idea. I had sarcastically said the same thing in two blog posts (here and here) on just this subject of God's wrath as viewed by religious leaders like Pat Robertson. I also tongue-in-cheek wondered why God goes so easy on Canada as that country has legalized gay marraige and has legal abortions.

Simply put, I don't buy into God's wrath for one moment. I find it humorous that so many people want to attribute the weather or an earthquake to some moral failings that God decides needs violent attention. But when you ask these people something that flips their logic like, why not Canada or why do innocent people die during God's wrathing or maybe it's because we are at war, then they say something like God works in mysterious ways. So, these people want to ascribe reasons to disasters via God as if they understand God, but then they claim they don't understand the mysterious God.

And now Mayor Nagin falls into the God's wrath guessing game. I wonder why? Well, he probably is a bit religious and maybe it's because he's a former Republican (he switched parties basically in order to win the Mayor race). But maybe he's just a bit nutty.

Book Tally

2006-01-23T07:48:00.000-05:00

My last post I explained my book reading estimates for a year, about 25 or so. And I also have blogged about all the books I've read so far this year, except one, which I will do shortly. Including this one, I'm up to three books this year and this month and I'm in the middle of one right now.

That last post I mentioned that I'm not into fiction books much, but the first book I read this year was a fiction book. A Christmas gift was the book The Teeth of the Tiger by Tom Clancey.

Basically if you like international spy thrillers then you can't go wrong with Clancey. I liked the series that had the CIA operative Jack Ryan, that three of the books became movies, The Hunt For Red October, Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger.

In Teeth of the Tiger, Clancey brings us back to Jack Ryan in a way with a central character being his son, grown up and ready for the spy business. This book keeps to Clancey's theme of being involved with whatever seems to threaten the US at the time. So naturally it involves Islamic terrorism and a major attack on US soil.

I won't go on anymore as since this is fiction the rule of thumb is not to give away too much of the plot and certainly not the ending. I will say this, the attack on the United States happens midway into the book and what follows is the hunting down of the mastermind. If I had had any say in the plot though, I would have made the hunting down part as a sort of race against time to foil a second attack, which is not quite what Clancey does. Oops, I hope I haven't given too much away. Anyway, it was a decent read.

Books Block My Blogging

2006-01-22T08:27:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I get so involved in reading books, that I don't pay attention to the Internet or my blog. The previous post shows the last book I read before the one I just finished. I've decided that I'm going to blog on every book I read this year.

I estimate that I read between 20 and 30 books a year. That of course doesn't count the reading that I get though newspapers, magazines and websites. Thankfully I have a fairly good city library just across the road from me, because that saves me plenty of dollars. I do buy books as well and I currently have three book store gift cards tucked in my wallet from Christmas (see, everyone knows I like reading).

I've nearly given up reading fiction, for when I do delve into a novel I find that in the back of my mind while I'm reading a little voice tells me, "It's all fake." And I can't seem to shut that little voice up. I guess at this point in time in my life, I'd rather just try to sort out reality. The subject matter I read includes, science, humanities, politics, history, social issues, economics, and other things in the real world.

The book I just finished was San Francisco Is Burning by Dennis Smith. This book is about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. It's written in a "novel" fashion in order to make the book seem more personal to the reader of the people involved during the three days that the city faced being completely burned down. I'm not a big fan of this type of history, but I certainly understand the writer using this method as nobody that witnessed the event is still alive to tell the tale. Yet, Mr. Smith does do well in providing facts.

What most affected me is that there was a sort of reminder of what happened in New Orleans this past year. San Francisco during its catastrophe didn't handle it well and plenty of mistakes were made that ended up costing lives and property. San Francisco as well was aware that they were in effect a "sitting duck" for cataclysmic destruction and didn't prepare for the eventuality.

One interesting fact that I wasn't aware of was that on the first day San Francisco came under marshall law due to the mayor's acquiescence to the local Army commander. This became probably the worst consequence to the disaster. The commander (who had no experience in fire control) decided that using dynamite and explosives to destroy buildings as a way to create firebreaks was justified. In this misguided effort more fires started as a result of the explosions. In some cases the explosions were not even needed as the fires in the area were burning themselves out or were being handled by the fire department.

The marshall law aspect also reminded me of New Orleans as "shoot to kill" orders were instituted. Estimates of as many as 500 people may have been killed by either the military, the national guard, or "deputized" armed citizens during the three days. Another factor was that the military was told to evacuate the city and in their lust to follow this order many homes burned down as homowners that were having an effect at preventing their homes from starting on fire, were ordered to leave at the point of a gun.

There certainly were heros in San Francisco during those three days. The one that jumps out the most was a naval commander who arrived with his ships early on the first day. He provided much help to the fire department as he used his small fleet as fire boats and water taxis to retrieve water. The fire department had been faced with water shortages due to the poor water supply for the city in those years. The earthquake destroyed water mains to add to the problems.

Finally, it should come as no shock to find that San Francisco is probably less prepared for another earthquake of that size than they might have been a few decades earlier. Between Oakland and San Francisco there is only one fire boat of any stature and the author points out that budget cuts have forced the fire department to downsize in the past few years. Well, I guess there is always FEMA.

So, now I'm into another book. I'll tell you about it later.

The New American History

2006-01-13T03:58:00.000-05:00

I've just finished reading a book that I found very fascinating. Authored by Charles C. Mann the book is 1491, New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.

The year 1491 was of course the year before Columbus began the first (at least as far as the general populace believes) of a wave of ocean crossings from Europe to the Americas. The book examines what has been learned within the last few decades of the people living in the Americas prior to Columbus. Essentially this book erases virtually everything I had been taught when growing up. So many myths exposed, so much truth revealed.

Not that I haven't known of many of the more recent discoveries made in archeology since my upbringing, this book wraps so many of them into one good reference location, despite the authors own admission that his work is incomplete and lacking much as to sections of the Americas not covered due to page constraints. The book is very personable in the respect that Mann periodically describes his own visits to dig sites and places of interest.

Some of the "truth" I was taught back in school that gets overturned covered in this book I found most interesting and to be honest more believable. For instance, the idea that the Americas was basically an empty "pristine" land with a smattering of natives living as a hunter gatherer society. Or that the Indians simply walked over a temporary land bridge from Asia. Or that the Americas didn't have sophisticated civilizations. I was particularily intrigued by the very recent understanding that the Amazonian basin supported large masses of farming peoples that could create a soil that was endlessly reusable, unlike the slash and burn techniques of today.

The saddest part of pre-Columbus history is first the lack of understanding of the peoples of the Americas viewpoint and second the tragic loss of so many millions due to the diseases brought over by Europeans. In the America of today we get bombarded in the news about the coming avian flu epidemic in contrast to two continents that were waiting unbeknownest for a slew of diseases including the most deadly for Indians, small pox. The diseases were so potent that white settlers found essentially empty land and abandoned villages within a few decades after early settlements as the movement west began. The diseases began in the very early contact and swept west even before the Euros even "discovered" more of the continent.

The lack of understanding is due to a few factors, such as the history of the Americas was written by Europeans (certainly the history books I was brought up on) with a self interest or self promotion of those that came to dominate the Americas. Europeans were very little interested in even accumulating the wealth of knowledge to be gleaned from Indians of their oral tradition (spoken history) as conquering and later Manifest Destiny became the primary motivation. Another reason is the lack of writings from the Americas prior to Columbus. A very interesting section of the book deals with the "writings" of the Inka civilization that still is not entirely understood. A unique form of recording involving knots on strings. The Inka created three dimensional "books" if you will. Sadly much of the collections of knotted strings (Khipi) were destroyed by the Spanish. A book burning in a real sense.

Whole books have been written in the recent decades about some of the more unique and largest societies of the Americas. The Mayans and Inka, the Aztecs and mound cultures of North America have begun to receive the attention they have long been due. Yet, much is still not known by most Americans (North and South) of those that lived in the very lands we now reside. Our history books in our schools are still decades out of date and will probably be that way for many years to come as recent understandings keep emerging faster than any school book publisher could include. But of course most of these history books don't see that pre-Columbus America has any relevence to modern times.

Thomas Mann does well in pointing out some aspects that do indeed have relevence. The myth of the pristine wilderness for instance. It is now becoming consensus that Indians certainly manipulated nature on a grand scale. In our modern world that has a keen interest in how the relationship of humans and nature play out, understanding Indian culture and their interaction with the environment could be helpful, even critical. Here in the United States we could learn from pre-Columbus Americans and their practice of yearly "controlled burns" throughout much of North America. Indians "landscaped" for their needs much as modern Americans do today, yet in such different ways.

Indians culled animal populations in ways we might understand. The overlapping Hopewell (white-centically named for a farmer whose land a mound was discovered on) and the Mississippian cultures that were known for their mounds more than likely culled bison in order to prevent tramplings of their maize fields. An interesting story is the city of Cahokia with a population of at least 15,000 in approximately 1100 AD was comparable in size to London of the same time. A huge mound located east of today's St. Louis, it may have been a city that learned the hard way about environmental manipulation in a couple of ways. It's been speculated that they reformed a river that later caused major flooding problems after an earthquake and they also may have deforested all the land around them due to the massive need for wood for building and fuel. Of course Cahokia isn't the only culture to ever face a natural fuel resource shortage.

Mann covers the subject of the Americas most important crop, maize. Even today botanists don't understand how maize came to be, except they know that Indians essentially created a plant never known to the earth. In contrast to the earliest civilizations we've been taught most about that had easy grains to begin to cultivate, Indian civilizations came up with maize in what was probably a difficult transition from plants of their time that in no way resembled the corn we know today. The varieties of maize they created was profound, yet we've only recently revisited some of these other varieties for our uses. Corn became the staple that was exported and planted all over the world. Potatoes from South America as well, but that's another story.

Mann also covers the recent upsetting of consensus that the Americas were first settled via an opened land bridge connecting North America and Asia about 13,000 years ago via the Bering Strait at the end of the last ice age. Recent scientific work has shown that there probably was no ice-free corridor. But genetic research finds that Indians are most closely related to North Asians, so conjecture now focuses on the transition being made by boat along the rim of the Pacific. As well the date for this happening is being pushed back to as much as 30,000 years ago based on evidence on a dig in Chile called Monte Verde. The old theory is dying and new ideas are now forming. The Clovis society was not the first people of the Americas anymore.

Well, I could go on at long length about this book, but why don't you just read it. If you are interested in knowing more about the people who once ran the Americas, 1491 is a remarkable read and a sample of the book printed in the Atlantic Monthly can be viewed here.

Thomas C. Mann's website pertaining to 1491

Hey Tom DeLay, What Was the Delay?

2006-01-08T08:54:00.000-05:00

Finally Republican Tom DeLay has officially resigned his position as Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. I've wondered what took him so long.

But I haven't wondered too much. It probably had plenty to do with trying to retain power. DeLay had originally temporarily stepped down from the position, but was keeping his foot in the door, so to speak, in hopes of returning to the job. His temporary self-removal was caused by all his ethical problems back in Texas where he is facing indictment for money laundering having to do with shifting campaign funds all over the place in his attempt to cheat Texas campaign finance laws.

As Republicans go, Tom DeLay is no favorite of mine. He is basically ruthless in his pursuit of power. He is an example of what is wrong in politics. Instead of just being a representative that goes to Washington to vote on issues that his constituents would like to have, he had gone overboard in his aspirations of running the Republican Party from the House of Representatives.

He is also closely tied with the in-the-news Republican lobbyist crook Jack Abramoff and probably will get splashed in that growing scandal.

DeLay has been one of those so-called Religious Right politicians, but it turns out he is just a hypocrite. He used the RR to collect campaign money, but it had little to do with pushing their issues and plenty to do with his personal goal of political power. DeLay has also been one of those Republicans that bleat on and on about morality and here he is facing all kinds of ethical charges. It seems like it's always the loudest moralists that then get outed as immoral and unethical.

Abramoff and one his buddies Christian political fund raiser Ralph Reed, both pals of DeLay, it turns out were bilking one casino interest in favor of a different casino interest. So these Christian moralists are not only basically stealing but as well they are favoring gambling. Unless I'm mistaken isn't gambling something conservative Christians aren't too fond of?

DeLay and his many buddies are why Christian Conservatives used to stay out of politics, because they eventually get taken by these conniving crooks. I guess no one learns from history, or rather ignorance of history isn't bliss. These pretend moralistic political scum have succeeded at seperating tons of millions of dollars from conservative church going folk, money better spent on their churches and communities. One wonders if these folks will grow upset with getting robbed by the political snake oil salesmen.

At any rate, SO LONG Tom DeLay, I knew you were a crook and am glad you are getting what you deserve. I'm enjoying your fall from grace because you were always a disgrace.

Bush Will Stop Torturing, Or Will He?

2006-01-06T14:44:00.000-05:00

George Bush is God. How do I know this? Because when recently Bush signed the anti-torture bill that was started by John McCain, Bush decided to add his interpretation to the bill. He basically said that if he wanted to (under the power of the presidency) he would not follow the law.

This is how Bush does politics. He could have vetoed the law, although he has yet to veto anything and besides the law passed so overwhelmingly that his veto would be overturned. So instead he adds a quick remark to the bottom of the bill as a "just in case" exception thereby altering the bill he signed.

Our president is suppose to be a person that follows laws just like all Americans. Sure, a president gets some special powers and some allowances as to some laws that don't have to be followed, but when Congress sends him a law to sign, he is suppose to follow that law if he signs it. By signing he agrees to those words, yet Bush feels he doesn't have to do it that way.

Imagine if any of us signed a contract but then at the bottom wrote that we would follow it most of the time but not under certain circumstances not explained. That contract would be torn up and we would be told we couldn't do that. When our city, county, state makes a law, no one gets to write in at the bottom that the law will be followed except under a personal exception.

But maybe I'm thinking up the wrong tree on this. Maybe torture should be welcomed. Maybe we all should be able to torture. When we find out we've been cheated on the receipt at the grocery store we should be able to torture the clerk and managers and owners until our money is given back. Let's just skip laws and "innocent until proven guilty" and court systems and innocent mistakes and mistaken identities and all that tedious stuff called the legal system, let's just go straight to torture.

We could torture stupid people. For instance after Pat Robertson's latest dumb remarks that Israels's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was caused by God, we should be able to go to Robertson's TV studio and torture him on the air until he apologizes to basically everyone including God. And after torturing Robertson, we could torture the owners of his station for letting him continue to say stupid things on TV.

Ah, but I'm just not into torture. I'd rather stick to laws. I may not like all our laws, but citizens can take action to change laws they don't like. We've outlawed torture and that's a law I agree with. It's too bad that Bush doesn't agree. It's also too bad that he seems to think he can change a law AS he signs it. We shall see if he will be able to get away with this one.

Bush Lied About Wiretaps

2006-01-04T11:35:00.000-05:00

April 20th, 2004...The day President Bush lied all over the map about not wiretapping. Read this article that explains the whole episode. Here's the quote;

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed by the way. When you're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

~~~~~~~~~~~
Who values the Constitution? Not Bush. He lied about busting the Constitution and claims to care about it? What a joke. Bush is turning the presidency into his own kingdom. You've got to wonder when he plans to ORDER Congress to change the part of the Constitution that only allows two terms for the president.

Endless War, Endless fear

2006-01-02T07:59:00.000-05:00

As the Iraq War goes on and we hear the debate over when to pull troops out or how do we define victory, it's curious to me why we don't hear the same debate about The War On Terrorism.

Are there people that really believe that there will be a time that there are no terrorists? I read a lot of history and there really has never been a time that someone couldn't be described as a terrorist. Whether it was a nation or empire that was doing the terrorism on other people or whether it was an opposition terrorizing a nation state, there has always been those who were viewed as "evil" by the type of actions that were used.

England viewed the American colonies as terrorists by the acts of disobedience they used such as the Boston Tea Party. And during the Revolutionary War the American force (insurgents) used what would be termed today as guerilla tactics and England considered the Colonial Army as evil renegades. Later the United States terrorized Native Americans in the sweep of manifest destiny using terrorists tactics, such as brning of villages, yet the US government called the indigenous opposition evil (literally) and as wagers of terrorism, such as scalpings.

A historian could easily trace a history of terrorism from practically the dawn of man. Terrorism is nothing but political war tactics that are deemed appalling to the recipient of the attacks. The aspect that the tactic is appalling to the recipient is the inner feelings of fear and that's why terrorism past and present ellicits such strong reactions from those that are being attacked. Further it's the discovery that a tactic induces that fear which causes the attacker to consider it a successful tool and to use it even more.

I'd have to say that when we decide that Al Qaeda type attacks are not considered so appalling is when we'll decide that the War On Terrorism is over. Sure, there may be a time that these type of attacks are reduced, but will they ever be completed stopped, not likely. We don't even name the same type of attacks on our country as always terrorism. The Oklahoma City bombing done by an American did not get the terrorist label. Yet the exact same truck bomb attack was used by Al Qaeda on US embassies and that was called terrorism.

My problem with this War On Terrorism is that we are being told that this is some type of new war and could last decades. This "new war" is being waged with many crossings into our Constitutional rights. Secret spying, torture, suspensions of habeous corpus, etc. are deemed neccesary in this new war. But I'm not buying it.

Going back to World War II, we can trace nearly a continuous line of wars, every one different from the next, that the US has been involved in, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Granada, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and I'm probably missing a few and have the order mixed up. Somehow only this War On Terrorism justifies being called a new war and stepping on Constitutional rights.

And no these examples are not to be called "conventional warfare" if a person does the research and understands all that was involved in most of these wars. Conventional war is only a defintion of war as a point in time where there seems to be a large agreement in how war should be waged, yet war is simply never the same from one to the next. The use of guns and bullets were at one time seen as a terrorist weapon, just ask Montezuma. The use of napalm in Viet Nam was considered appalling by much of the world and many here in the US, yet the US is one of a handful of countries that refuse to sign an international agreement to ban that type of weapon and we used it early in the Iraq War.

The War On Terror is not some war that we will consider over, as we never deem the War On Drugs as victorious. These type of wars are really just a state of mind, or rather a state of our collective mind. There will be a day that we view the War On Terror as not something to always fear attacks in the recesses of our mind. I mean how many of us really fear terrorism this long after 9/11? Did we fear terrorism for years after the Oklahoma City bombing? Most Americans don't live anywhere near what would be considered a terrorists target. New Yorkers didn't evacuate their city for other parts of the country after 9/11, they adjusted their state of mind to not fear.

Almost 3,000 people died on 9/11, yet we have approximately the same number killed on our roads every month, yet drivers aren't considered terrorists and people live with the knowledge that driving is a dangerous act. The fear factor is the difference, note that we aren't fighting a "War On Traffic" (maybe we should be). As Franklin Roosevelt once famously said, "All we have to fear, is fear itself." We will stop paying much attention to terrorism when we end our collective fear. I for one had done that not long after absorbing the shock of 9/11, but many people will live on in fear. They will buy into the Bush Administrations use of fear to scare Americans into allowing our Constitutional rights to be eroded.

I refuse to give into fear. I don't care what color the terrorist warning threat is, (haven't heard much from that have we?) I live my life on my terms not some vague fear I'm suppose to imagine. I just hope more Americans understand that we are being made to fear by both our government and our media. Simply acknowledging that fact lessens fear quickly. Fear itself is not going to get me!

All Quiet On The Washington Front

2005-12-31T10:16:00.000-05:00

It's been a relief that Christmas came and went and no news came out of Washington, DC. Of course we know that the reason that all is quiet from our capital is that President Bush is on another vacation in Texas, and that Congress has adjourned for the holidays.

What is so great about this is that these politicians running our lives do far less damage by doing nothing than by doing something. We don't have Congress passing budgets that screw plenty of somebodies or writing new laws that we probably don't even need. We don't have new revelations from the White House of hidden agendas or President Bush with his mistatements and half-truths.

It's times like this Beltway hiatus that I wonder if America would be better off not even having a full time government. It's been joyful not hearing some DC politician telling us what is good for us (which usually causes me to do some serious eye-rolling). It's been wonderful not seeing politicians from the two political parties verbally duke it out over some issue that they probably don't even plan to solve.

A part-time government is not such a strange idea. Several states have part-time legislatures. Oregon for instance only meets every other year to basically settle the budget. Sure, that might not be often enough for the federal government, but a reduced time in session for Congress might be beneficial for us citizens. George Bush can take more vacations if you ask me (I'd opt for a permement vacation if I had my way) he seems easier to take when I don't see his ugly mug on TV daily. And if Dick Cheney stayed in an undisclosed location for another three years, I'd be a happy guy.

Now if only we could change how Congress gives themselves raises. Even if they did reduce their time in Washington, they'd still increase their pay every year, I'd have no doubt. Most people don't know that they don't vote for a pay raise, they actually vote not to cancel the yearly automatic pay raise, which as far as I know they never do.

Wouldn't that be nice for the rest of us. We'd get a raise evey year UNLESS we said no! Shoot there's another perk these politicians get that most of us are required to do sometime in our work careers, they submit to no drug testing. I had to practically scream at my TV when they held hearings this past year about athletes and drug testing. "Look who's talking" I lashed out at some elected yahoo on my tube. I've had to pee in a few cups in my life just to apply for jobs, so I think that politicians should have to piss for us before running for office, call it my version of clean election campaigns. Yup, Bush and Kerry in 2004 should have been forced to visit the bathroom with an empty cup and returned with it filled with their yellow fluid, and that goes for all who run for Congress.

While I'm on the subject I firmly believe any company that requires drug testing should require ALL employees to be tested to include top executives. Surprise some of them just after their lunch out while their bladders still contain the "two martinis."

At any rate, I'm enjoying the silence from politics. It's too bad it isn't this serene more often. All quiet on the Washington front, short lived as it may be can last a few more weeks in my opinion.

CEO Pay Continues To Boggle The Mind

2005-12-27T07:17:00.000-05:00

As reported in this article, CEO pay continues to rise into the stratosphere.

It boggles my mind that the American public just lays back and seems to pay no attention to the fact that executive pay is beyond all records compared to the average workers in this country. Back in the Gilded Age the masses became plenty mad at the "haves so much they can't count it" and caused Congress to take action. The have nots became vocal enough that politicians were forced to take measures.

One result was the progressive income tax, where the highest income earners paid higher percentages of their taxes. The progressive income tax has all but vanished thanks to the Bush tax cuts. It's no wonder CEO pay has continued to rise at record rates.

Check out some of the highlights mentioned in the article. John Mack, CEO of Morgan Stanley is getting an $11.5 million bonus after only five months on the job. Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson is getting a $38 million bonus after last years mere $30 million bonus.

Adding insult to all of us corporate workaholics many companies are now paying CEO personal income taxes as part of their compensation. And this is to save the CEOs the trouble of not having to go through the tediousness of dealing with an off-shore tax-free account. All I can say is, WHAT?! Wouldn't that be nice for us plain old employed bums of the corporate world.

And what are these guys really getting paid for anyway? Basically telling the executives just below them to begin downsizing the company by canning employees, is all that I can figure out. They don't even do the firing, they leave that for others. Downsizing the workforce so that they get an obscene bonus, it's nothing but transferring wealth. And anyone who has survived a corporate downsizing well knows that the workload gets piled on those that remain.

Of course these CEOs are proving their genius, because they've figured out that in these times the vast majority of Americans are too meek and stupid to complain or do anything about it. We've been fooled into believing in this "American Dream" that only a few ever realize. That somehow we will actually be elevated to the top through hard work, when the truth is that only an infintesimal percentage ever crash the elite good old boys glass ceiling. The fact is that hard work in an American corporation is more likely to get you a pink slip so that the top fat cat can get another astronomical bonus.

When are Americans ever going to say, "enough is enough." It's time to demand from Congress some action on these obscene pay packages. There is a bill swirling around in the House of Representatives called the Protection Against Executive Compensation Abuse Act. Write your congressional representative and ask that they sign on. This is only a start though, but average Americans should start doing something that's for sure.

Christmas Trash Tree

2005-12-24T05:19:00.000-05:00

So this is my first time that I phoned in a post. Not very good, but hey, it was just an experiment. I was actually a bit surprised that the procedure worked as yesterday afternoon I dialed in umpteen times to get repeated busy signals. Maybe there was a problem at blogspots incoming call center, don't know. But after work this morning I tries once again and was able to audio post immediately.

Now that I know that it works, I'll try again in the days ahead but I'll be prepared to talk about a subject better. This audio post is just a quick description of our Christmas "trash tree."

Unintelligent Design

2005-12-22T09:16:00.000-05:00

The effort to force the school district in Dover, Pennslyvania to teach intelligent design in science class has ended in failure, thankfully.

This case has been in the news much in the last few months. The school board that decided that intelligent design should be taught, was promptly voted off the school board. Meanwhile, a lawsuit had also been brought by parents against that school board to end the practice of teaching intelligent design. That case recently was concluded with the parents winning.

Interesting the judge in the case was a appointee of President Bush (who thinks that intelligent design should be taught). The judge was highly critical of those who defended intelligent design as being very dishonest of their intentions. They were trying to play it off as not having anything to do with religious. They essentially were arguing that intelligent design is not creationism, yet fully believed that it was. There is a possibility that perjury may be charged.

It should be noted that crazy evangelist Pat Robertson made some weird threats in the name of God when Dover voted out the school board.
~~~~~~~~~

Now I don't have much problem with people believing in whatever creation story that suits their liking, but keep it out of science class, please. They have places that teach creation stories, they are called churches. And if a school wants to teach creation stories, they can do it under the auspices of religious study where plenty of creation stories can be discussed.

A sad fact of the United States is our lack of scientific knowledge as a population. A bit more than 50% of Americans for instance believe that humans existed during the dinosaur ages. Not even close, humans followed dinosaurs by 150 million years. The only mammals existing at that time were small rat-like creatures. So, to add insult to the old false statement that humans were descended from apes, we can actually say that humans came from rats. I've often wondered whether the false perception of humans coexisting with dinosaurs could be readily blamed on cartoons. The Flintstones and the comic strip B.C. by Johnny Hart are just a few of the imaginary drawings that give Americans inaccurate science.

Worse they are some from the religious right that don't want to even admit that dinosaurs ever existed. They will put forth all sorts of rediculous theories to try to placate their own faith in a Bible that never mentions dinosaurs.

The judge in the case ruled that intelligent design is not science. No surprise to me. But I will concede that intelligent design is just what those words are. An intelligent design to fool Americans who are too lazy to study real science or too gullible to question whether intelligent design is really just creationist propaganda.

Now I'm not going to say that God doesn't get involved in Earth's going-ons, God could indeed be answering people's prayers, but I don't believe that intelligent design explains God. I don't think God planned every piece of life, from killer bees to Hitler to the human appendix. God probably has better things to do than to micromanage every cell and atom in the universe.

Finally, evolution can be learned by those that believe in God, those that question a God, and anyone who doesn't believe in a Supreme Being. Evolution is nothing but understanding how the universe works and how we got to this point. Evolution explores what we can investigate directly, our world, our universe. We can't do experiments on heaven or God, so science leaves that up to religions. It's that simple.

War And Peace On Christmas

2005-12-19T07:30:00.000-05:00

I'm a bit baffled about this "war on Christmas." It seems to be mostly coming from the religious right that resides in the media. Somehow they decide that the shopping season isn't inundated enough with images of Christmas and are somehow offended by some stores that don't use the slogan "Merry Christmas." They are claiming that if someone says, "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" that Christians are being shorted in their own celebration somehow.

So what do they do about it? They threaten to boycott stores that don't plaster the "Merry Christmas" signage all over the premises. This is despite these same stores selling Christmas labeled crap in every nook and cranny of the building. On the other hand they don't seem to be offended by Santa Claus, who most certainly has taken over the limelight from Jesus during the holiday season. But that must be because Santa is the chief salesman for the Chistmas commerce.

It goes to show you how much these religious rightys even know about their own prophet. They apparently know nothing about the fact that almost all the Christmas trappings are linked to pagan celebrations involving the winter solstice. The Christmas tree, the wreaths, the holly, etc. are all linked to paganism. A long time ago the Catholic church started meshing the pagan events with their estimate for Jesus' birth in order to get more people to believe in Jesus. Most Christians don't even realize they were paganized into believing that Jesus was born in December. Most Biblical historians don't even think Jesus was born anywhere near December.

But I suppose that reading up on history that isn't written in the Bible is just too much work for these people. I personally don't give one wit if they sing about Christmas at the top of their lungs, but they need to be more informed about their own religion. They also need to understand that corporations don't care what holiday is being celebrated as long as people are dropping bucks into their tills. Many companies don't make a yearly profit until Christmas shopping season.

I was brought up Christian, but in the last few years these rediculous cultural "wars" involving Christianity is frankly turning me off of religion. I wonder if these religious right dictators have ever considered that with their "in your face" religiosity they are probably unintentionally creating people like me that are ready to say "the hell with Jesus." I wonder if that is what their mission really is, to alienate any Christian that doesn't want to be in these wars?

I have a suggestion. Let's rename Chistmas as Santa Time, that would make these religious dictators squirm with rage. After all I see Santa everywhere, he dominates from Thanksgiving until New Years.

So have a Super Santa Time!

Bush Spies

2005-12-17T11:34:00.000-05:00

So now it's been "officially" revealed that the Bush Administration has been spying on U.S. citizens. I say officially because after the New York Times recently published a story about President Bush authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans, then Bush refused to deny that to reporters. As well the NY Times apparently had not published the story for over a year after the White House claimed that publishing would jepordize on-going investigations.

But this "revelation" is not news to anyone in the peace movement. It has been well known to peace activists that spies had been planted in their groups to monitor their activities since the early run-up to the Iraq War. Even peace movement groups associated with the Christian Quakers (centuries long peaceful protesters) have been infiltrated.

It's always been a curiosity to me as to why people who are non-violent are considered a threat to America or the government, but throughout our history, peace groups have been spied on and considered "subversive."

As to the current government, we well know that they would view a populous that voices opposition to invading other nations (and interfering with their war plans) would be considered the enemy. In public the refrain has been to brand peaceniks as un-American or traitors, simply because they don't want to kill foreigners in foreign lands if those foreigners didn't attack us. Applying the Golden Rule to foreign policy is considered betrayal to America.

Ah, but there's the rub with the so-called Christian Right that permeates the Bush Administration, they don't like to use things like the Golden Rule, or "turn the other cheek" to guide our country. These type of Christians have never cared what Jesus said, only that they get to rule the world, or worse. Some are followers of Revelations and wish to see the world destroyed so that maybe they might be picked to go to heaven.

Beyond that, what is with this administration? In the recent months we've found out that they've spied on us, planted stories in the Iraqi and American press, and advocated torture. These guys are the traitors to America. They are becoming so undemocratic it's pitiful. One wonders why anyone supports this government any more. But maybe that's been their plan all along, make everyone in America hate and fear their own government.

Back From Hiatus

2005-12-16T08:35:00.000-05:00

Hey, Web!

You can't hide from me. My computer went down, but now we have a new one. A brand spanking new laptop with all the kicks and giggles.

I do have to admit that it felt a bit "out of touch" to not have a home computer. I've had more than six years of on-lining. I started back in 1997 on a Compaq with Windows 95. Went to a laptop with Win98. Following that was an iMac (which may still be repaired) and now the new laptop (Acer) with XP.

This new laptop has the Wi-Fi, which allows me to go mobile if our power at home goes out. Where I work, they have free Wi-Fi, so I could always go up there when it's open (if I'm not working). It's funny, sometimes we have cars pull up and not come inside, they just hang in their cars stealing the Wi-Fi. I can be one of those people now.

But I'm basically an at home computer user. I like to have a comfy chair and be relaxed when Webbing. So, relaxed as I am right now, time to go though.

Jimmy Carter, He Da Man

2005-12-07T08:49:00.000-05:00

I just finished former President Jimmy Carter's new book, Our Endangered Values. I had checked it out of the library a few days ago (the first person to read this particular copy) and while I was reading it, the book hit number one on the New York Times non-fiction best seller list.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, but then again I've always thought Carter to be one of our greatest presidents, except his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis. His administration was perhaps the most honest administrations in the 20th century. He also was somewhat of a visionary as to energy and environmental policy and those ideals still ring true today. Certainly he could be regarded as the most active ex-president in our history.

In his book he outlines many of his actions since leaving the White House, including Habitat for Humanity, his work on international issues such as poverty, health care, human rights, peaceful negotiation, election monitoring and civil liberties.

But the book is mainly about how the Bush Administration and political partisanship in Washington have created the illusion of an American divide. He particularily is unhappy with how the Bush Administration has rolled back so many things that Americans have stood for.

Carter spends several chapters on religious fundementalism in the United States and how it has infiltrated the Republican Party to force issues that most Americans don't even want. He explains in depth his Baptist upbringing and how his faith shaped his views. Carter doesn't see anything in the Christian faith to encourage the merger of church and state, contrary to what is happening today.

I found the book to be a quick read, yet thought provoking in the sense that he puts together quite an array of issues that mesh well. It would behoove the Democratic Party to listen to Jimmy Carter and speak with the same courage and faith in ideals. In a country that "appears" to be shifting to the right, Carter seems far-left, yet he really is close to middle-of-the-road. Most Americans would find nothing alarming in this book, just a nodding in agreement sentiment.

I recommend this book as a good read as to how to answer the Bush agenda. Our country needs to return to respectful discourse and this book gives answers in how to address issues from the left that most Americans can relate to and believe in.

This is a paid commercial (for Iraqis only)

2005-12-05T12:49:00.000-05:00

So the big story lately is how the our military has contracted out to a company called The Lincoln Group to buy media space in Iraqi newspapers to run positive stories. In other words, paid propaganda by the Pentagon.

Now this doesn't surprise me in the least. The Bush Administration has been previously caught paying "journalist" in our own country to write positive stories with the appropriate White House spin.

What's strange to me is the Bush Administration's version of a free press. Apparently the only free press they believe in is the one they can buy off. Well, maybe not so strange when you consider the Bush friendliness with the upper reaches of the corporate media. And of recent revelations, friendliness with reporters of the ilk such as Judith Miller formerly of the New York Times and newly exposed Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, reporters who were allowed inside who were nothing but recorders of the White House line.

In a previous post I cautioned Iraqis about democracy, American style. I should now caution them about media, American style. People of Iraq, don't believe everything you read in the paper! Of course I could just as easily be saying this to Americans as well.

In this day of advanced technology within the media it sometimes seems the truth is more elusive than ever. Increasingly I hear complaints from both sides of the political divide that the media is biased. Certainly in some cases it is, but for the most part the bias is towards incompetence and profit, which can be a huge problem for finding the truth. They say that the truth will set you free. I'm wondering at what price is that truth and who's paying for it.

Republican Scandal from Spokane, WA

2005-12-04T09:42:00.000-05:00

The scandal of Republican Spokane, Washington Mayor Jim West has to be one of the most embarrassing scandals Republicans have been involved in.

The story goes like this. Mayor West was caught in a sting done by local conservative newspaper Spokesman-Review. West was found to be trolling for gays in a chat room and offered a job in the mayor's office to the newspaper's "victim." He was performing his internet gay surfing from his office during work time.

Before I go on, I should note that I'm not opposed to gays, but I am opposed to Republicans that are against the gay lifestyle but then turn out to be gay as Mayor West has been revealed. I'm also opposed to politicians doing any kind of internet dating during work using government computers.

The story continues that Mayor West is now facing a recall vote this coming Tuesday. He now claims that he has given up chat rooms and his gay sex life. So, rather than just live the sexual lifestyle that he is, he is attempting to ignore his inclination. It won't work, he is what he is, denying it won't change that.

In his recall attempt, he is finding it very hard to find any campaign contributors from his party. The Republicans in Washington state have run away him, yet he still wants to cling to his little power job.

I find this example of hypocrisy from the Republicans so strange. All over the country they want to ban gay marraige, yet time and again we learn of closet homosexual Republican politicians. They reside in a party that hates them so they try to keep their inclination hidden. They know that if the outed themselves it would be political suicide. I guess I'm unclear why they would be in that party in the first place. I suppose that they grow up with Republican friends hiding their true feelings because they've developed party connections.

Mayor West has now found out what his party thinks of him now that he's been outed, they basically abhor him. They've distanced themselves and aren't willing to accept his apologies. In contrast, many Republican politicians have been caught having affairs, yet in most of these cases party friends accept the apologies. Case in point is in my state of Michigan where Republican Attorney General Mike Cox has been forced to admit to having two affairs on his wife, yet he is not going to drop out of his upcoming reelection campaign. In fact many in his party are accepting of his apologies and plan to back him.

So Republicans will accept apologies from two-timing cheats but not from outed gays. I guess this religious conservatism called Republicanism has degrees of broken morality. They accept some things that they consider immoral, and don't for other things. Hypocrisy reins in the Republican Party. Either they condemn all their politicians who prove to be immoral or they should change they're "moral" rhetoric.

"The Duke" Cunningham leads other scandals, for now

2005-11-30T11:52:00.000-05:00

So another Republican bites the dust. Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham who represented San Diego in The House of Representatives has tearfully resigned after admitting to taking massive bribes. The loot he was found to have amassed from these bribes included a mansion, silver candelabras, a Rolls Royce, $1.8 million in cash and a yacht he named "Duke-Stir."

He took his rewards from the defense industry businesses in return for steering defense contracts toward them. The Duke has agreed to cooperate as the investigation continues into the web of bribery. He faces 10 years in jail.

By the way, what the heck is going on in San Diego politics? It wasn't that long ago that an underfunded city pension scandal resulted in two consecutive mayors losing their jobs as well as accusations against six former board members. Must be that warm Pacific water that causes Republicans out there to become scam artists.

Back to the Duke. It's funny how back in July, Cunningham claimed he was innocent and earlier in June, Representative Tom Delay (of all people) called him an honorable man. It's becoming a given in Washington politics that when someone claims innocence, you might as well think the opposite, particularily Republicans.

Tom Delay is fighting an illegal campaign money indictment in Texas and had to resign his leadership role. Senate majority leader Bill Frist is now being investigated by the SEC for insider stock sales. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is of course fighting several indictments for being a liar. And if you aren't up on the confusing Jack Abramoff scandal, you will be sooner or later as it is growing to include several Washington lawmakers.

But if you like your money scandals at the state level, try Ohio and their "coingate." The Republican Governor Bob Taft has single digit approval ratings after being involved in coin dealer Tom Noe's bribery.

Now I may smile a bit at the fact that it's Republicans front and center in these scandals, but truthfully I understand that this is our corrupt political system. The money flows to those in power. The evidence has always been there and is gaining national attention once again that an election system that relies on so much money being given to politicians who then vote for things that will benefit others is so obviously open to corruption. Quid pro quo with dollar signs is our election system.

Only drastic campaign finance reform will ever cure our election ills. The answer is a system called "clean campaigns" in which campaign dollars are funneled into a blind fund where candidates don't know who made the contributions. Our current system is frought with bribery and only a portion ever rises to the surface to be known by the public. So much of the "bribery" is actually legal.

Obvious as well is that those of us that make small campaign contributions never get our voices heard, it's those that gather the big money that get the ear of the politician. You know in your heart that it is the "pioneers" that helped raise large sums for George Bush that get to chat with the president and upper reaches of the Republican Party, not those of us with a few bucks to donate. The same goes for big donors in the Democratic Party. And you know full well that somehow your tax dollars are going to pay for something the rich donors want. The moneyed political system we've evolved is corrupt and heavily weighed to those with money. Elites electing elites, what a country!

Oh, sure, you might say that the rest of us actually do the voting, but with the knowledge of so many cases of election fraud in the last decade or so, do you really believe your vote counts? Do you really believe that the CEO of a voting machine company (Diebold) that states that he will deliver the state of Ohio to George Bush is really playing honest?

Those of you that are Republican may think, "so what, my party won." But is that really the way you want to win, by cheating? And did you ever wonder how you will feel when some day the shoe is on the other foot? Pendulums swing back and forth and if we continue with a corrupt election campaign and voting system, that shoe will eventually be on the other foot.

I have to laugh when we are in two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) trying to build democracies, and here at home our democracy is absolutely corrupt. I have to wonder if our nation builders are over there explaining democracy as we play it. "See, first you collect as much money from the voting dupes as you can, it won't be much from each individual of the masses. Then you promise them things you won't deliver on. If you win election you only listen to those that payed in plenty to your campaign and do their bidding. You follow that up in about four years and do it all over again. Oh, and be sure to use lots of words like "freedom" or "man of the people" and the word "we" is important because you want to make the masses think you are just like them."

A warning to the Iraqis: Watch out for your politicians since they are being taught democracy by Americans. Don't trust them, they are being told how to pick your pocket.