My Write!

The Danger of Oil

2006-03-06T23:17:00.000-08:00

As a former failed Texas oilmen, and addict, our President spoke from experience when stating that we are "Addicted to Oil". This made plenty of headlines, and snide comments such as the ones made here, but do we understand the full scope of the problem?

The first seventy years of the last century were fairly terrible for the Middle East. With the British and French drawing arbitrary lines in the sand, revolution after revolution, and one failed social movement after the other. The along came OPEC. OPEC allowed oil countries to group together and have some clout against the west. It made it possible to more efficiently exploit their only major natural resource.

Despite this, they were beholden to the west, as that is where demand came from. As more demand comes from the East and oil supplies become more fragile. The balance of power is shifting to the Middle East, as proof I would like to give you the case of Iran.

Iran is one of the countries most impacted by the Bush Administrations war on terrorism. It is now surrounded, with American forces in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet, almost defying common wisdom, they have recently become very aggressive in pursuing nuclear energy, and with a total lack of concern for the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and the UN. Just a few years ago, the international community would be outraged and demand immediate sanctions, yet Iran controls oil production, and through that can pull the strings that affect the world economy.

Iran, a country ranked 19th in world GDP can now control the actions of all the major world powers. The cost of addiction.

Much Ado About Nothing, No Ado Over Something

2006-02-22T19:46:00.000-08:00

The recent furor over a company owned by the UAE, and its contract to manage six ports, is only the latest row in an escalating battle over National Security. The latest is possibly one of the worst managed political situations in recent memory. Yet, strangely enough, real issues involving lack of security go unchecked. While selling rights to manage key infrastructure to foreign companies seems very silly to me, the contract does not extend to actually providing security for these ports. With all the furor lately, it's easy to forget the bigger picture, that we are not prepared for a Terrorist attack, nor are we doing enough to safeguard against one.

While we are on the topic of ports, why is it that only 5% of the 9 million cargo containers handled in our ports today, are actually inspected? If immigrants are smuggled into our ports, why not weapons, drugs, or worse? It is unfortunate that such a critical part of the US, is left open as a backdoor. More funding is necessary for US Customs, as well as the Coast Guard, for more advanced screening equipment, as well as the manpower and expertise to actually screen a majority of incoming packages.

This lack of funding and equipment is even more pathetic, when applied to our Airport Security. In a recent report(pdf), the 9/11 Commission Public Discourse Project recently gave anywhere from a C to an F to our airport security. After the events of 9/11, one would think that we can at least close the door out of which the horse ran out of, but we remain vulnerable to being hit again. Instead of improving on the system of private contractors, it appears to be an identical issue of lack of funding, and bureaucratic incompetence.

This pattern of lack of funding, and attention, repeats itself everywhere and leaves us open for attack. Yet when that attack strikes, we are less prepared for it, then we were at the beginning of the Bush Presidency. Hurricane Katrina laid bare our inability to respond to a natural disaster, one that gave plenty of prior warning. A terrorist attack on this country, will not come with such a warning. I fear that this will create a disaster on an unprecedented scale. FEMA, a model of a government agency under Clinton, has been gutted. Ruled by incompetent management, and without the direct ear of the President a Cabinet post provides, its collapse was magnified during Hurricane Katrina.

The issue is really focus, the focus appears to be not on making our country safer, but waging a war in Iraq that creates the terrorists we are supposed to be fighting "Over There". We are leaving our own homeland unprotected, while spending billions of dollars to attempt to secure the homeland of the Iraqis. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are to blame. The Republicans for their silly talking points, and complete inaction in these manners. The Democrats on their inability to get a message across, and possibly get real legislation pushed through. The matter needs to get it's due attention. We need our country secure, our disaster response strengthened, and the priority on our Defense funding needs to be for our actual defense. Our lack of security can not only be solved by money alone. This issue needs attention, something the politicians are wasting on a spat over port contracts, while at the same time those ports still carry the gaping holes we created.

Happy New Year!

2005-01-01T19:38:00.000-08:00

Tsunami's, american soldiers being killed, Bush getting re-elected... not a year for real hope for mankind, maybe 2005 will be better?

NOMD

2004-12-27T16:36:00.000-08:00

I'm inventing a new acronym, Not On My Dime. It's what happens when shortsided politicians, fail to think in the long term. They use current term fiscal policy, and a concern for their own ass, to sell the future down the river. We see this, in various different ways. The 9.0 quake, and the Tsunami's that soon followed show a perfect side of this policy.

We don't undertake a real cost:benefit analysis of prevention decisions. For example, 9/11 cost the country anywhere from 100 billion to close to half a trillion dollars. Yet an additional 2 billion a year, could have very well prevented it. Cost:Benefit. This Tsunami... wiped out 12,500 lives, half of which could have been saved with a proper early warning system. Cost... maybe 5-10 mil a year, benefit.... well what value does one place on human life?

We see this with global warming, with Social Security, nobody wants to touch the future. Nobody wants to attempt to solve gaping problems, until the horse is well out of the barn, and probably is already married with two kids.

Both parties are being reactive on issues of this sort, let's get proactive!

The Truth

2004-12-27T16:26:00.000-08:00

Folks, I want to talk to you today about something that has been getting downplayed lately. The Truth, the gods honest Truth. This is not coming to you from any particular side, as both parties are guilty of the same. Both sides have Spin Alley, they are basically saying that we are manipulating the truth outright, and the media buys in. They don't a place value on Truth, they just report what each side said, occasionally commenting on the accuracy of figures, but never getting to the core, The Truth.

It is as if, all along, the goal has been to manipulate the American people into thinking that Truth is irrelevant, it's only what is said, that is the real truth. We spin things, and take them out of proportion, and we all focus so much on how the canidates say things, and what they said, but we don't get to the core of the issue. For example, both sides tried to spin the actual numbers, the fact is, from 2001-2004 america had a net loss of jobs. That isn't spin, it's just The Truth. Now, granted, it is open to interpertation. Is it really Bush's fault? Is it 9/11's fault? Is it Clinton's fault? Yet we have to get the fundamental fact right. We went to war on bad intelligence, that is not arguable. We can't find WMD's, and any ties to Al-Queda are shaky, that's not spin that's Truth. Howard Dean, was giving a speech to energize his campaign, he's not a raving lunatic, he was just trying to cheerlead his people.

You see folks, when The Truth is laid out... it ain't always pretty. We want to put on rose tinted glasses, and say Global Warming isn't a problem, or trickle down economics really works, despite all empirical data. When we put that sense of Spin, when the leaders believe their own politically motivated lies, is when the country gets in trouble. It is when good, sensible, policy and leadership all get replaced by political consideration. We need to remember, we deserve The Truth, we need to demand the Truth. I disagree with Jack Nicholson, I think we can handle it just fine.

Creative Commons

2004-12-27T16:25:00.000-08:00

If you have noticed a new logo on the sidebar (you have no idea do you) it is because this site, is all under a creative commons license. Clicking on it, shows you in very simple terms, how you may use my work. I give a few rights beyond fair use, as well as reserve some rights for myself. Everybody should have this on their blog, it removes any and all legal ambiguity about copy and paste.

The Cold Winds of Change

2004-12-25T19:00:00.000-08:00

With the Ukrainian election, and the Yukos takeover, it appears clear what President Putin wants. A return to days of empire, to spheres of influence, democracy be damned. Yet there are quickly growing chinks in Putin's seemingly impervious armor. We are seeing the world community slowly turning against him.

It's not as if a sense of empire, has not led formerly powerful nations to seek some sense of greater power, then what they have been demoted to. The bickering of France and Germany in the UN are another example of formerly great nations, trying to get back their glory days. Yet, I don't think, it has ever been as blatant as in Putin's case. Firstly he criticizes an Iraqi election in a US controlled Iraq, as rigged. All the while, holding what he claims to be "free and fair" elections down Chechnya way. Not to mention his undying support for the unpopular Pro-Russia presidential canidate in the Ukranian election. The most galling thing, is him using terrorism as a pretense, to consolidate his total control of every possible check and balance that could exist. The Yukos thing is just another clear example of the my way, or the highway, Putin presidency.

There are chinks in this armor though, unfortunately many of them cannot be seen in Russia due to the control of all media by the Putin regime. Relations with the rest of the world are growing colder and colder, even President Bush is having a harder time justifying the alliance that spits in the face of all that America as a nation holds dear. These relations are critical to a country, that is so reliant on foreign trade. Another place where they are really losing, is foreign investment. Deutsche Bank pulled out the buyout of Yukos, because of the bankruptcy ruling in the US. Foreign investment, especially oil investment is drying up. Russias natural resources cannot be exploited. Once the russian people see, and they will see, that Putins stances, his authoritarianism, are heading them in the bad old direction of more poverty, less equality, we will see just how much power he really has.

The Dangers of Yes

2004-12-23T23:02:00.000-08:00

Slate has an excellent article of another Yes Man in the Bush administration.

This got me thinking on the dangers of always saying yes. In the "Price of Loyalty", as well as subsequent New York Times articles, Ron Suskind makes a case for a very scary White House. He describes one, in which loyalty, not sense, prevails. That is a very bad idea. I have always believed, information is what wins in the end. Granted you have to be able to make a decision at the end of the day, but it has to be based on good information.

It appears to me that President Bush has managed to surround himself, with a trained cadre of Yes Men. Having vetted out those, like O'Neill and Whiteman, that actually do speak their minds. He tries to shut out any press, that does not give the results he wants. His style of leadership is that more associated with Stalin, not Reagan.* We need a leadership that does see both sides of an issue, compromise, and middle ground, is where good policy is found. The fringe left does not have the answers, neither does the fringe right, and hearing both sides and coming up with a sensible solution after reviewing facts is only the answer.

We frown on this kind of corporate leadership, why not the same in national leadership?

*A brief disclaimer, I am not saying the President brutally assisted in the murder of millions of Russian peasants, just making a point of comparison.

Oh Reilly!

2004-12-17T23:41:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Salon:

But during his Dec. 3 radio show, O'Reilly got more specific. When a caller identified himself as Jewish and began to complain about "the secularization of Jews and about Christmas going into schools," O'Reilly shot back that "overwhelmingly, America is Christian. And the holiday is a federal holiday honoring the philosopher Jesus. So, you don't wanna hear about it? Impossible. And that is an affront to the majority. You know, the majority can be insulted, too. And that's what this anti-Christmas thing is all about."

At one point, O'Reilly told the caller, "Come on, if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then.

Afterwards he actually attempted to defend himself by stating:

"If you think that's anti-Semitic, I wanna know. Do you think that's anti-Semitic?" O'Reilly asked listeners after replaying a tape of his Dec. 3 caller.

Well bill... if you aren't anti-semitic you are at least a prick.

Guess what, Christmas doesn't have a real place in the public square. It should not be a federal holiday. It celebrates a particular religion, and in fact this pushing of a christian agenda is a very particular form of Christianity that is not truly seen anywhere else around the world. Look kids, we are not a Christian nation, we are a nation with Christians, time to learn the difference.

Arguement thats gotten me riled up.

2004-11-18T01:14:00.000-08:00

And researching quotes!

The First Amendment has erected
a wall between church and state.
That wall must be kept
high and impregnable.
We could not approve
the slightest breach.

JUSTICE HUGO BLACK

The government
of the United States
is not, in any sense,
founded on the Christian religion.

GEORGE WASHINGTON
Treaty of Tripoli
1796

The legitimate powers
of government extend to such acts
only as are injurious to others.
But it does me no injury
for my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods, or no God.
It neither picks my pocket
nor breaks my leg.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

More from Slate

2004-11-17T22:24:00.000-08:00

On Goss being a prick.

Yay Scalia!

2004-11-16T18:35:00.000-08:00

We need this view in all branches of government:

The context for all this was a decision by a European court that struck down a ban on group gay sex as an intrusion into private life. Attendees stressed that Scalia's construction was, of course, hypothetical. He frequently has said that judges have no expertise in matters of morality. The justice's central point, one attendee told us, was: "Judges have no greater capacity than the rest of us to decide what is moral."

The Purging of Good Intelligence

2004-11-16T18:07:00.000-08:00

This article brought to you... again by Salon

Since his appointment, Goss has given his top aides -- basically, his former staff from the intelligence committee -- the green light to draw up lists of people to fire. The zeal with which Goss' enforcers are exercising their power has led to angry resignations by top CIA veterans like Stephen Kappes, who had taken over as deputy director of operations just this summer, and brought the brutal shakeup onto the front pages. The CIA's case officers and analysts, meanwhile, are extremely distressed by Goss' slashes at the professional staff. "I do nothing but talk to disgruntled and sick people there," says a recently retired senior CIA official.

And that suits the White House just fine. Many conservatives in and outside the administration, especially the neoconservatives, view the CIA as a subversive element bent on stymieing Bush's agenda. The last several months of the presidential campaign saw a series of intelligence disclosures concerning Iraq and the war on terrorism that the White House regarded as intended to derail Bush's reelection.

The widespread animosity toward Goss is likely to mark his entire tenure. Effective, long-lasting DCIs typically owe their success to an ability to balance three constituencies: the White House, Capitol Hill and Langley. DCIs who neglect their CIA power base don't often survive or implement much. Goss seems to be predicating his career on deliberately antagonizing the agency and forcing it into submission. But without the support of the agency he runs, Goss will be forced to rely on the warm wishes of the president for his continued service, which will only escalate the bitterness between Goss and the CIA.

Tenet lasted, and was fairly succesful given the open animosity towards the CIA from everyone. Goss... Over and Under odds are probably a year.

Preserving Secuirty

2004-11-16T18:00:00.000-08:00

Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism is the title of one of the latest reports from the Belfer Center at Harvard University. It's a long but fascinating read, some particularly good bits include:

"The United States must comply with its treaty obligations not to engage in torture. Treaty obligations not to use cruel and inhuman techniques short of torture must also be obeyed unless there is a clear immediate threat to American lives that only coercion might stop; the president must approve this limited exception. Regularly permissible interrogation techniques consistent with the Convention Against Torture should be approved by the president and provided to Congress."

and

On government oversight: "If the executive branch feels compelled to take extraordinary measures that impose on traditional freedoms in order to protect the country, Congress should establish a nonpartisan commission to continually review the need for them. Each government agency's inspector general should annually review the use of any extraordinary authority."

Those are just a couple of the wide and insightful quotes in there. If you have some free time, please take a look.

Powell in Depth

2004-11-16T01:26:00.000-08:00

Per Washington Post

Republican officials said the selection of Rice reflects Bush's determination to take personal control of the government in a second term, especially departments and agencies that he felt had undermined him in the first four years. Powell's departure is also a victory for conservatives, removing the administration's most forceful advocate for negotiations and multilateral engagement on such issues as Middle East peace and curbing nuclear activities in Iran and North Korea.

Press Think on Sinclair

2004-11-15T22:50:00.000-08:00

An excellent article about the controversy over Sinclair.

Hey Kids!

2004-11-15T19:57:00.000-08:00

It's Vietnam Re-enactment time!

Thanks CNN, and Kos. Warning Images may be Very Graphic

Arafat's Death

2004-11-15T19:42:00.000-08:00

The Weekly Standard has a great piece on Arafats death, some good quotes:

His greatest propaganda victory was on Europe's university campuses, where Fatah replaced the Viet Cong as the most popular liberation movement. The effect on the left was amazing. In just one generation, they went from championing the socialist utopia of Israel's kibbutzim to regarding Israel as an archetype of imperial colonialism and capitalist oppression. Against nearly insurmountable obstacles of plain fact, Arafat succeeded in creating the image that Israel was the racist aggressor. This image, the dominant view in Europe today, has always been a fantasy. And the consequences were to prove historic: By embracing Arafat as the hero of a liberation movement, the Europeans legitimized his methods. Arafat tapped into latent anti-Semitism, which permitted the Europeans to view anti-Israeli terrorism as somehow different from terrorism generally. But the terrorists, as we know, make no such distinctions.

If Arafat failed again in Palestine, he was still successful in supposedly enlightened quarters in the West. Al Qaeda's successful recruiting in the mosques and universities of Europe would have been unthinkable without the governing elites' generation-long love affair with Arafat, but al Qaeda, thankfully, has never absorbed the deep lesson of Arafat's career--that a nod in the direction of diplomacy and a friendly demeanor make terrorism more powerful, not less. Arafat so thoroughly hypnotized Europe's elites--blame the victims, blame the Jews--that it may take them a generation to recover. Fifty years after General de Gaulle understood that terrorism was a religion of murderers pure and simple, Jacques Chirac now shamelessly proclaims that the sources of terrorism are the Israeli and American occupation of Arab lands. And it's not calculated for advantage, like almost everything else he says. He actually believes it.

Hold the Rice

2004-11-15T19:36:00.000-08:00

From Slate:

The bad news: In her four years as national security adviser, Rice has displayed no imagination as a foreign-policy thinker. She was terrible—one of the worst national security advisers ever—as a coordinator of policy advice. And to the extent she found herself engaged in bureaucratic warfare, she was almost always outgunned by Vice President Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld. Last year, for instance, the White House issued a directive putting her in charge of policy on Iraqi reconstruction; the directive was ignored. If Rumsfeld and his E-Ring gang survive the Cabinet shake-up, Rice may wind up every bit as flummoxed as her predecessor.

More Responses to CIA Purges

2004-11-15T19:29:00.000-08:00

From Salon:

Good thing those political purges at the CIA are underway, though. We're feeling safer already.

And straight from internet conversations

FriendofMine: I feel safer knowing none of them will undermine the president by offering a dissenting opinion
FriendofMine: if we fight amongst ourselves the terrorists win

Critical thinking not here

2004-11-15T19:22:00.000-08:00

This quote is brought to you by a Salon article.

Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel of Concerned Women for America, a lobbying group on a mission "to bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy,"

Off course a return to real Biblical principles would mean she couldn't hold the job she does now. Ah... Irony... or is it Irony... Or is it Ironic that I think it's Ironic... To modify the fox news slogan, I ramble you decide

Powell gone...

2004-11-15T19:11:00.000-08:00

Rice to replace...

I will just briefly comment on this.

I said this before, I think it's sad when intelligent moderates get pushed out of the discourse on either side. The democrats will do well to include some of these people in their party, and make this administration realize, unilateralism does not work... domestically or on a foreign scale.

The Dems and National Security

2004-11-14T17:48:00.000-08:00

The Democrats suck on national security.

Sorry, it's true. It is not because of people like Michael Moore, and it's not that liberals are inherently weak. It is also not because of the GOP "Attack Machine". It is because liberals do not have a plan. A major part of the electorate said to the democrats, it's about national security stupid!

It is not because the democrats are inherently weak, it's that they don't have any alternatives. Kerry really did not lay out a clear solid plan, to fight terrorism. Do I think the Bush one is stupid? Yes! But that does not mean that the democrats can run on what's basically fluff. We need to fix this, we need to get some ideas and plans together, and really push them forward.

What with all the layoffs in the CIA, I don't think we would have a problem finding security experts.

The Shouting Down of Dissent

2004-11-14T15:15:00.000-08:00

I posted a bit earlier about the shouting down of dissent coming up from the White House. We see it in the Senate as well.

Senator Specter stated the truth, it will be a damn hard fight if you want to put anyone against abortion rights on the Supreme Court. Now the evangelicals are upset, and as a result the Senate majority leader is upset. He is supremely competent. One of the few very bright republicans in Congress. One of the few so willing to reach across the aisle. But godforbid he should have an opinion.

In fact, it's an opinion shared across most political commentators. After all, despite 7 out of 9 supreme court justices being nominated by Republican Presidents, Roe V Wade stands, and is even clarified with the current court in 2001.

I think the attempt at blocking the Senator is part of a trend in the GOP. The consolidation, and the alienation of moderates. With the swing vote, being as tight as it is, they face a real risk of going too far to the right. If you push moderates like McCain and our fair governor, further out of the party, you are going to be losing your touch with the majority of americans.

There are more posts on the weekend...

2004-11-14T13:07:00.000-08:00

Because I am more likely to be sitting here, bored.

Evangelicals and Blue States

2004-11-14T13:04:00.000-08:00

The New York Times has a piece on a trend towards a much more religous New York. What bothers me is the unquestionable assumption of the more religious you are, the more "moral" you are, you vote republican.

We really need more people espousing real american ideals, tolerance, understanding, the belief that you do not hold the ONE ultimate truth. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Violence and Sex on TV, those are choices people make, you should not make the choice for them. Meddling in the way other people run their lives is fundamentally very unchristian.

Thailand the new front on the war on terrorism

2004-11-14T11:57:00.001-08:00

This is brought to you by global guerillas.

TARGET:THAILAND

On Kerry

2004-11-14T11:57:00.000-08:00

The Boston Globe has a great lengthy article today on Kerry. I think that it basically summarizes all the major goods and bads of his campaign, as well as his main problem.

"John's complexity hurt him"

It's time for some good old fashioned purging...

2004-11-14T11:48:00.000-08:00

[Insert Yeehah here]

Now we all know about the GOP retaliation machine. I thought that it was only in existence, for high level political enemies. Well it looks like the Purple Kool-Aid isn't just for high level goverment officials anymore, as per this Newsday Article. Apparently

The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda

A Hotbed of evil liberals, those same evil liberals that dared question the Iraq War. This administration really scares me, because I think anyone that doesn't hold their exact view on a subject is isolated out. We saw this with Powell, Snow, and Richard Clarke. To join the Bush administration you really do have, it seems, to sign a loyalty oath.

Off the defense on the attack

2004-11-14T11:44:00.000-08:00

This is kind of stolen from Atrios but the man who wrote this piece makes a damn good point.

It points out that the GOP will attack anyone and everyone, so maybe it's not so good to vote for someone who you view is unattackable, and vote for someone who is willing to fight back. I thought Howard Dean would have lost for sure, but now looking back on it I may be wrong. He might have been the kind of guy the Dems needed to really counter the GOP's constant attacks.

Great Stewart Interview

2004-11-14T01:14:00.000-08:00

I love John Stewart and I wish I could transcribe half the things I agree with on the interview. So listen to it, and think of it as my views, except funnier.

John Stewart CSPAN Interview

Making Votes Count

2004-11-13T21:13:00.000-08:00

The NY Times summarized the issue with the voting in this election in just a couple of sentences:

It's important to make it clear that there is no evidence such a thing happened, but there will be concern and conspiracy theories until all software used in elections is made public. Voters who use electronic machines are entitled to a voter-verified paper trail, which Nevadans got this year, so they can be sure their votes were accurately recorded.

That is the fundamental issue from this election. Exit polls don't always mesh, things look a bit funny. Until we do have a very open and auditable voting system, we will continue to drop the faith in voting itself.

More changes

2004-11-13T21:09:00.000-08:00

I have also been attempting to make this page less ugly... so far so good I hope.

Couple more Peterson trial quotes

2004-11-13T20:31:00.000-08:00

First one comes from July 27th :

Peterson's defense has said the prosecution's theory is impossible because the boat would have capsized if Peterson had attempted to toss his 153-pound wife overboard. Weber said the standard tests included one in which 142-pound weights were placed evenly along one side of the boat. In that test, he told jurors, the boat tilted so that the lower portion of the weighted side was 1 1/3 inches under water. It did not, however, "turn turtle" — Weber's term for capsizing.

On cross-examination by defense lawyer Mark Geragos, Weber acknowledged that the tests did not include placing 400-pounds — apparently the defense's estimate of the couple's combined weights — on the side of the boat.

The second quote is brought to you by August 24th.

"He never told you that he loved you," defense attorney Mark Geragos asked.

"Not in those words," the 29-year-old massage therapist said quietly.

"He never said, 'I love you,'" the lawyer pressed.

"Not in those words," she repeated icily

The Peterson trial

2004-11-13T20:20:00.000-08:00

This trial is ridiculous, it seems that reasonable doubt is not really in use anymore, here are some quotes from the CourtTV piece on it.

"I came right over," she said. "I just wanted to be here and see this. I knew from the beginning that he was guilty. I don't know anything about the law, but everything I saw — the lies, the disguises, the money, the fishing story — I knew he did it."

Under the first foreman, the jury requested more than a hundred pieces of evidence. Under Juror No. 6's leadership, the panel that reached the verdict did not ask for a single piece of evidence.

"Juror No. 5 was the fly in the ointment," said criminal defense attorney Dan Horowitz. "There was a revolution led by the most impatient, bored juror who took control of this jury just like a fireman rushing into a burning building."

So the guy was a creep and the jury was getting bored. Sending a man to prison for life just for that seems a bit crazy to me.

Arafat's death a possible good thing

2004-11-13T20:12:00.000-08:00

It seems that Bush may actually get off his ass and do something for peace. With Arafat dead he is running out of excuses not to get involved.

The New York Times is reporting that Israel is quietly, making some concessions to the palestinians. For example:

"...Israel released $40 million in frozen tax funds to the Palestinian Authority after long resisting such an action..."

It appears that Arafat's death may bring about peace. Sharon can be pushed from power after all, and we may finally have two people dealing that were not fighters. That were not enemies of each other, and maybe, the Palestinians can have their own land, and the Israeli's can gain a real sense of security.

Priorities....

2004-11-13T20:03:00.000-08:00

I remember being 9 and having my daytime viewing of the Power Rangers interrupted by the damn OJ Trial. I remember thinking, gee, Power Rangers are more important than this.

It appears the average american is stuck at that level, this past week we said goodbye to a CBS producer for daring break into an episode of "CSI: New York". Godforbid TV viewers at home may have to suffer through hearing a major world event for 2 minutes before going back to their escapism.

Dan Rather... still not fired...

Listen I just write the stuff

New Format

2004-11-13T20:02:00.000-08:00

I am going to be trying out a new format, with some lengthy posts, and some short quick posts. I recommend as always, using RSS to subscribe to this blog as updates range from 5 a day to 2 a month.

Did we make it up?

2004-11-12T23:05:00.000-08:00

A Fascinating BBC Documentary on the reality of terrorism. And how misled and lied to we are about such things.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/121104powerofnightmares.htm

The Deficit

2004-11-07T23:13:00.000-08:00

So this may be part three of god knows how many on the aftereffects of the election. I don't think it is though, the deficit is something the Democrats and the Republicans have been worried about.

We are concerned about outsourcing of our jobs, but what about the outsourcing of our nation? 7.4 Trillion dollars of national debt, that number growing by 4-500 billion dollars a year and the trade deficit running 300-500 billion dollars a year. That trade deficit is entirely money flowing out of our nation into others, the national debt is mostly that as well. The largest holder of US goverment debts, are foreign nations. So we are looking at the outsourcing of our economy and assets.

Yet who in Washington, truly listens. Not the Democrats, and not the Republicans. It' s like give a fourteen year old girl a credit card with a large limit, she never thinks about having to pay it back, or the impact it might have on her. The dangers of a growing deficit is that countries may simply not finance it for much longer. There is so much debt that we can afford, and we are hurtling towards that magical number.

Solutions... we need those bad.

Step #1- Tax Hikes

Sorry kids, the rich don't get a free pass this time around. In 1980, the richest individuals payed 65% of their income as tax. Now those same folks pay a 35% tax rate. I'm not advocating a return to 65%, but perhaps 40% is not much to ask. Is it that unfair to tax the rich at what would still be the lowest rate in the developed world?

Step #2 Spending Cuts

We don't need to cut programs, we need to remove excess. Spending 200 million a pop on F-22's, while having unarmed Hummers, may not be the best allocation of resources. We need to push for discount drug rates for Medicare users. We need to push for tort reform, which would not only save us, but the goverment quite a bit of money.

Step #3 PAY IT BACK!

With step 1 and 2 completed, we may be at a budget surplus. GREAT! Pay the debt back. Don't attempt to balance the budget with taxcuts and the like. The budget is underbalanced by 7.4 trillion dollars, we need to clear the debt from over our heads. We need to remove the over $25,000 debt on every man woman and child in america.

Step #4 Trade deficit fixing

I would like to hear comments on this. But besides protectionism and the like, it is really hard to fix the trade deficit, any thoughts?

We have a large amount of debt over our heads... we need to fix it. Tax cuts for the rich are not the solution, they are the problem. Raising and raising spending is not the solution, it's the problem. We need to fix this, soon, or else our economy may well be... fucked.

A brief summary of the day

2004-11-06T22:46:00.000-08:00

So today I went to bloggercon, and I am now completely exhausted. I will post a more detailed account tommorow, and may reconsider the direction of my blog. Don't worry, no podcasting, my voice just sounds too damn terrible.

On Elections

2004-11-05T01:30:00.000-08:00

"Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters." - Abraham Lincoln

Civil Liberties

2004-11-04T19:11:00.000-08:00

This is part two of a series on the impact of election.

I see positive signs in Civil Liberties. Ashcroft leaving, democrats in congress upset as all hell over the Patriot Act. The Senator from Disney gone, the digital rights cause with a possible win. The Induce act dead, partially due to activists from the web. There is a scary trend though with conservatives coming in office.

It's clear that certain large factions in conservatism, especially their unholy alliance with evangelicals. If you want about religious fanatics that hate our freedoms, look no further. With a republican congress, and a republican president, and a dying chief justice, we are going to see some real problems in the future.

Issue #1 Freedom of Speech

Now Howard Stern is entertaining to me, offensive to others, but fundamentally he is on the edge of this movement. The first ammendment states as follows

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is important. It is a fundamental part of our society. So when we have people that want to use their religion, and the idea of "decency" that they derive from it, that is dangerous. Sure the thought of anal sex may be blasphemous and offensive to some people, but it is speech, and thus protected. I don't like this idea of limiting where free speech can take place. That is not the intention of the constitution, it's intention is truly, to give me the right to say something patently offensive. Not to libel, not to endanger life with my speech, but to say something, anything, that is such a fundamental right. The press includes television, and radio btw. The press room in the white house is not exclusively newspapers. The supreme court needs to read a copy of the constitution sometimes.

Issue #2 - Privacy

We have a right to privacy. We have a right not to have goverment interfere with our lives. Proposition 69, which allows the goverment to gather DNA from those not even convicted of anything, is just the first step. The overturning of Roe V. Wade will also overturn a right to privacy. The right to not be searched, the right not to have your internet conversations tapped. Privacy is a critical right, and we have to fight for it.

Issue # 3 - States Rights

We need to fight for the right of states which is constantly being taken away. I won't much on this, because much has been said. I will say this, medical marijuana needs to be seriously looked at by the Supreme Court. Pot grown, sold, and used in California, is not a federal crime, and it is truly reaching for anyone to think as such.

Don't let any of your rights be taken away. We are always one step from the Taliban or Soviet Russia. Our freedoms are what we defend, don't let anyone, even under the wrapping of the flag, tell you otherwise.

Four more years, and the world

2004-11-04T18:42:00.000-08:00

So this will be part one of a series of articles on the impact of the election. This one will discuss the impact of our current election on our world political standing.

It's simple really, the world doesn't really like bush. Robin Cook has said so in his guardian piece. With newspaper covers like, 'How can 59,417,374 Americans be so dumb' it seems clear what the world opinion of Bush is.

Let's dig in though, I mean what is behind the world perception and can it be changed? Does the world now think the US deserves what comes to it in the next four years, or is their view not so polarized?

These are hard questions, questions that I cannot pretend to know the answer to, I can only offer up some solutions and guesses. Remember kids, the world doesn't care about tax cuts, the patriot act, that's all domestic, they care about international.

Issue #1- Iraq

Iraq is a polarizing issue in the world, very few nations supported the invasion, and even of those few truly remain. The chaos on the ground has been getting progressively worse, and every day it seems, we hear about a new humanitarian NGO pulling out, and a new terrorist NGO moving in. It's a bad situation, and it's bound to get worse. I am not advocating cutting and running, but we need a transition. We need to put Iraq behind us. We need to train up the Iraqi Army and Police, and then get out. Leave military advisers, help rebuild the country, but do it from a distance, not with American boots on the ground. The American's antagonize the situation, and every day, the news of more kidnappings, beheadings, etc. drive world opinion further against us.

Issue #2- Israel

With Arafat dead, or damn near close to it, the US is running out of reasons not to get involved. There needs be a solution, Israeli and Palestinian children need to stop living in a state of abject terror. It does need to be a fair solution though, you can't bow to the world pressure of trying to make Israel do whatever the palestinians ask, be the moderator, use some stick, but more carrot. Most of all, make an effort, condemn some Israeli actions, especially settlement activity. Make the palestinians try to make an effort at security.

Issue #3 - The World

By the world I mean everything else, the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court. We are participating in a global economy, we can't avoid global politics. We also must remember, that we have a huge national trade deficit, and that is a high priority to fix. We cannot fix it, or do anything to it, unless we are willing to be part of the world, and make some sacrifices. America's interests first, should not be our rallying cry. In the end more participation in the world stage, benefits us far more then what is seen as isolatonism.

We need to address these issues, and raise our standing in the world. Otherwise, the next 9/11, which will happen, especially if we try to isolate ourselves, will be blamed not on the terrorists, but on us.

An apology

2004-11-04T08:24:00.000-08:00

I know that nothing has been posted for two weeks, and I apologize for it, more posts are coming tonight. On another note, if you are having troubles posting comments annonymously, here is a brief guide. When you click on post a comment right below the Sign On button, in little little letters is a link that says or post Annonymously, click that and you are golden!

The story of a switcher

2004-10-18T01:32:00.000-07:00

Not from PC to Apple... but from Republican to Democrat. He makes some excellent points in his piece although one I would like to see addressed is the one of race.

http://faculty.deanza.fhda.edu/jocalo/2004/10/17

Vote!

2004-10-13T21:39:00.000-07:00

Look... I'm not Puff Daddy, P-Diddy, Washed Out Singer, whatever the hell he is calling himself nowadays. I have a message for you voters in the swing states, vote!

Sorry California, and New York, and Texas, your vote does not matter. Wish it did, but it's a lock. Go and vote for your local policys, but your vote will, because of the debacle that is electoral votes. Won't really matter.

Now Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, get the hell out there and vote. The last election was decided by less then 600 votes in Florida. 800 more democrats getting to the polls would have gotten Gore in office. 2000 more people voting for Bush would have stopped that whole recall debacle. You have been hearing this diatribe on MTV, on Comedy Central, hell even on Nickelodeon(look I have a secret fetish for Spongebob Squarepants... oh god now you all know!). I hate sounding like everyone else, so I'll make this interesting.

Get your friends to vote... seriously, go to them, and get them to vote. I don't care what you do. Do their laundry, drive them to the polls, although trading votes for sex or underwear is discouraged. Apathy? Don't think you can change things? 600 votes in Florida could have swung the election. So what if I swing this? Neither of these guys will listen to me. They sure won't, but they will have to listen if there is a growing youth vote. We got out of vietnam because of youths, and we can fight a smarter war on terror, take care of social security, take care of healthcare, because these are important issues to us. It's time for us to get out there and make a difference, 18-30 year olds should not be a smaller voting block then 55+ females with cats.

Russia.... of Terrorism and Autocracy

2004-10-13T00:22:00.000-07:00

This will not be a particularly long piece or anything, but I just wanted to comment on my fear of what is going on in Russia.

Having been born there, and having a great grandfather thrown up against a wall and shot by Stalin may muddle my thinking a bit here but we are seeing a scary trend. We see a former KGB man, trying to firm up an autocracy. Supression of free speech, the removal of participation in political process. The scariest thing though, is the peoples response. They like the autocracy because of all the problems that a quick move to democracy brought. We are seeing people talking about the good old days under Stalin. Young kids that gloss over the mass murder thing.

It's a scary situation, and it only is getting worse.

An intelligent front on the war on terror

2004-10-12T23:33:00.000-07:00

Are we safer now then we were on September 11th, 2001.

Our president and leaders say that we are, I tend to disagree. I am not alone in this, top counter-terrorism experts with, what I consider no real political agenda, seem to feel the same way. See Kerry had it right, if not properly explained, in the Sunday NYT Magazine interview. Terrorism, is not a war, it cannot be won, it can be controlled, it can be reduced, but in this case the enemies are not well defined. The enemies in fact, are NGO's, they are not goverments, attacking goverments may be the number one way to breed terrorism against the US.

We see this fallacy on many levels. 75% of Al-Queda leaders captured.... not really. Sure we got 75% of the leaders we were targeting, but what happened in the meantime? Al-Queda has in fact experienced a large membership growth based on latest intelligence estimates. In part due to our own stupidity. Troops still in Saudi Arabia, no solution to the palestinian crisis in sight, the invasion for spurious reasons of a foreign nation. Jesus, the only way we can help Al-Queda recruit any more, is by printing their posters ourselves.

So we see Al-Queda membership growing, and worldwide terrorism on the increase, but we are safe? I highly doubt it. America was never asked to make a real sacrifice for security. In fact after 9/11 we were told to shop, and given a tax cut to help us. Yet our chemical plants and ports are left unguarded, while silly and ineffective airport security measures are completely messing with ordinary flyers, slowly driving airlines out of business.

Let's talk solutions. First of all no invasions without not just a "global test" but an arab world test. Can we sell this to, not just leaders, but the everyman on the street? Is that tough, hell yes, will it prevent us from carpetbombing Syria? Probably. Will that garner good will? Duh! Here's another solution, 80 billion dollars... 80 billion dollars... a year on the war... 20 billion dollars we just gave as a tax cut to wealthy corporations. God knows how much more from our tax cut for the rich. Split that in half. Focus half of it on our security, on preventing another devastating terrorism attack. Focus the other half on the arab world. Pour it into secular schools that preach tolerance. Pour it into humanitarian aid, hospitals, infrastructure. Offer a better rhetoric then that of terrorist organizations.

Will this happen? No. We need a leader like Reagan, like JFK, like Johnson. Someone that can tell Congress we need this to help secure us, and the world from a threat we have not seen since communism. If you don't help me, I'll make sure nobody votes for you ever again.

Will it happen? No... but it is a nice thought!

The fear of intelligence, on a presidential campaign

2004-10-12T11:40:00.000-07:00

There is something that greatly bothers me about this campaign. Whenever one side says something intelligent, something that is not a 5 second soundbyte, but intelligent and meaningful. The other side has a field day, taking quotes out of context, and plain bashing the guy for not being resolute.

Resolute in this case being really stupid.

Let's take for example this "global test" thing they have trotted out. They repeatedly say that John Kerry will not go to war without passing this global test. Let us goooo to the quote

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

That makes much sense, after all in a global war on terrorism, it's good to get say... the globe involved. It's smart to get allies together, to share the burden of war. It's smart politics, smart diplomacy, but taken out of context and beaten to death with talking points, it come out the opposite of what he actually said.

Another example of this is Kerry saying he wants to reduce terrorism to a nuisance. Which actually makes sense, it's a war on something that can never be fully defeated. There are no armys of terrorism, no militias. Bush himself said, and was criticized for, the fact that you cannot win a war on terror. Yet it's time to run after Kerry when he agrees.

Talking points, Talking points, Talking points.

Reminds me of a little song.

Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies! Lies!

More debate stuff

2004-09-30T21:43:00.000-07:00

What.... slow news night

Foxnews seems to be the only website lacking a poll for the debate. I suppose they didn't want anything that might possibly negatively reflect on bush. Their fact check section was a big laughable, barely touching on Bush and really going after kerry. NPR's seemed similarly biased (no link yet, sorry.)

Consensus....

2004-09-30T21:36:00.000-07:00

Well call me wrong, or at least not with the current blog+TV Network consensus.

Kerry, it seems, is being declared the victor. It seems I may have simply... in the words of our president misunderstimated something. I think it's the fact that I got so sick with the debates so fast. I may have missed some of the nuance, but it still felt blow for blow. The important thing will be the polling data, and as long as it's not from Gallup(more on that later) it may more clearly show the real impacts of the debates.

Brief Debate Summary

2004-09-30T19:52:00.000-07:00

Wonkette put it best yet again. It is tough to see who won this debate. Both canidates threw their punches. Bush was strong at first and weak at the end. Kerry the opposite. Neither canidate said anything particuarly interesting or new. It was a draw.

I look forward to the upcoming debates. Where I think Kerry has an edge. He is polling weak on national security and this debate doesn't help or hurt. The next debate may help him pull up in national issues. As long as he tries to avoid the tax debate as much as possible.

Well that's all for now, more later after I watch all the 24/7 networks and can sarcastically comment on them.

Ann Coulter goes wild!

2004-09-27T13:42:00.000-07:00

*insert girls gone wild music here*

Yes, Ann Coulter goes wild. But finally in a work of fiction this time around.

You can find this exclusive, over at Wonkette.

More on Elections

2004-09-26T16:13:00.000-07:00

This election is going to royally, royally suck.

It's not because I fear one canidate will win by a landslide, but that one will win on a technicality.

Look at Florida. Gore wasn't robbed, Bush didn't win, it was a tie. Oh sure there were a thousand votes one way or the other, but it was a tie, a statistical tie. Yet the conversation drags on for four years. Like I said earlier in the day, guys named Chad had to change their name to John.

So if we do go within half a million votes nationwide, which is well within a margin of error. When 5-10 million Americans cannot properly figure out the ballot, 500 thousand is just 10% of those at best. As a result we will have another unclear election. A statistical tie, something meaningless.

What's the solution to all this? I honestly couldn't tell you. All I know is this election will suck... big time.

Oops

2004-09-26T15:59:00.000-07:00

I usually try to go for long intelligent entries but this must be mentioned.

Bush puts it all in perspective: "I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. It's pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future."

Electronic Voting

2004-09-26T15:43:00.000-07:00

So now that throwing elections is really quite monkey business(monkey, chimp, ape, whatever... sometimes you have to sacrifice for the good of the pun). What the hell is going on with electronic voting?

Now after chads, and dimpled chads. and pregnant chads, and guys named Chad that were sick of hearing the jokes. We felt we had to move on to a better voting system, one where every vote counted, and mistakes would be minimized. We have not managed to do so.

What we have managed to create is a little black box, which we trust with all of our election results. This little black box has just created doubts and fears over it's misuse. Now look, I am as skeptical of conspiracy theories as the next guy, but the problem is even imagined impropriety, god forbid the real thing.

When there is no paper trail, no real possibility for a recount, it creates many issues. If, for example, results don't reflect polling (which can happen, just look at some of my previous posts) neither party has a recourse. If there is fraud or ballot tampering it is harder to trace. Not to mention the fact that the security level of the voting machines is laughable.

Can electronic voting be a good idea or is it doomed to failure?

Well it can be a great idea, as long as there are measures taken. For one, the laughable security needs to be greatly stepped up. Purging voter rolls should be a dirty and messy process, not a couple of SQL commands. Vote changing by anyone besides the voter should be in no way possible. Yet even the best of security can break down, that's why we need a paper trail. We need to make sure that we have a paper trail, to discourage those that would try to take advantage of the opaque nature of the current system.

This election year, this could be the talked about issue. Unfortunately I fear if it will be talked about, it will be entirely too late.

I for one am voting absentee.

It's hurricane season Y'all!

2004-09-19T23:30:00.000-07:00

From the beat overtalked about topics with large sticks department.

So it is hurricane season in the Gulf states, and soon they may be running out of names. Look out for a hurricane Wecantcomeupwithanymorebloodynamesthissoon coming your way this October. Yet with New Orleans thankfully still around, and Florida having to deal with the largest amount of damage since... oh I don't know two weeks ago. The question has to be, what is the goverment doing about it?

Bush, quick to learn the lessons of his father, made haste in Air Force One today, and spoke to the masses in Pensacola, in what's become a key swing state. In every article I have read that seemed to be the critical talking point. Yet what real impact will this have on the way people vote.

Well it all depends on how well the goverment manages the disaster. With the problems of 1992 still fresh in peoples minds, Bush has to handle this properly. Give money, give aid, help people rebuild, all that fun caring goverment stuff. Make compassioante conservatism more then a buzz word.

I feel there are other critical things to do. Discourage people from building in such areas, force them to actually insure their homes so FEMA doesn't have to bankrupt the treasury. It is a world of short term solutions, but we have to look at the big picture. Hey we can even use the metaphor that we so love to use.

A war on hurricanes.

If we don't vote for Bush... the hurricanes win.

It's The Gays, They are in it With The Martians

2004-09-19T13:46:00.000-07:00

Ah, gay marriage, currently the web's #3 topic to get horribly horribly flamed for.

I think there is a real issue, and I don't think it's with Americans. I think it is with the people in power, with lunatics like Falwell and the CC. It's Pat Robertson and the 700 club. I mean look at the polls, 60% may oppose gay marriage but the same amount oppose constitutional ammendments banning it. When you look for support for civil unions the numbers are even more clear. Americans want gay couples to have the same protections as married couples, because we are on the most part tolerant.

Things are just not that simple though. The political pressure groups are pushing like there is no tommorow. They see themselves as fighting to save peoples souls, I see them as lunatics trying to tear up the constitution. Equal rights are guaranteed in our law and constitution, but since Jesus hates fags, they shouldn't get those rights? It's a slippery slope... the other way, what makes you think they will stop with gay marriage. You think they will not move on to attack some other part of our freedom? So give them hell, be liberatarian.

Congress, stand up to these groups. Legalize polygamy, gay marriage, all drug use, and let them yell about the moral decay of society. Then watch as our prisons get uncrowded, our crime rate does not go up, and there are more happy loving homes.

Too bad the jesus freaks and the DOJ couldn't let that happen.

Sprinting in a Marathon

2004-09-18T22:15:00.000-07:00

So this should be the opening of political season. 45 days to the election, a month and a half, the debates, the kissing of the babies, this is it right?

No, that's been the case since March. For 6 months already, we have been bombarded to death with political ads. For 6 long, tedious months, we have heard the issues covered so many times that I feel like Fred Astaire is doing a number on my head.

Looking back, what have we achieved in those 6 months? Nothing! That's right, poll numbers are the same, there's still a war, the tax cuts are the same, both canidates policies have not changed (although their tactics might have). So what is the end result of this? Well it is a bit like sprinting in a marathon, you get tired, you get fatigued, you get sick of the thing you are focusing on.

I think the longer this drags on, the fewer people are going to want to vote. After 8 months of both sides harrassing them to vote, how many are going to step into the voting booth? After 6 months I do not feel much better informed, just... mildly annoyed.

So that's politics this year for you, exhausting, repetetive, and with no reward. Hell with a marathon, at least you get a shirt.

Winning The Battle, But Losing The War

2004-09-18T21:59:00.000-07:00

Being as guilty of this as the next F-List through A-List weblogger, I am going to prostrate myself before the court. I have not been paying attention to something that just might be more important then the presidential election.

No not the hurricanes.

No not the NHL strike.

No, the OC is overrated.

The important thing that we have all lost focus on, is that crazy little thing called Congress. You know... from the constitution. The ones that actually make laws, not just legally dubious executive orders. While the leanings of the Senate and House were closely monitored under the Clinton administration, this whole Bush-Kerry hatefest has seemingly put it on the back burner. With 50 house races up for grabs, there can be a whole shift of power to the Democrats, or a consolidation of the base for the Republicans.

The Senate is even closer, especially with the Illinois seat in Obama's hands (more on that ridiculous race later in the program, much later, when the staff here is done laughing hysterically). A 2 seat swing could completely shut down the Republican agenda for at least the next two years. A 2 seat swing in the GOP's favor, and they have a solid lock on the debate.

So people, pay attention! The congressional elections might be far more interesting, especially if Kerry manages to get his entire head in a rather anatomically incorrect position.

Interesting changes in the electoral votes

2004-09-11T01:01:00.000-07:00

We are seeing very very interesting trends in the polling data. Before I go any further, I do as a general rule not like poll data, but poll data for states tends to be a bit more accurate, and there is more room for Error Correction (50 States, but 1 Nation). Nationwide Bush is supposedly up by many a point, but in the electoral breakdown, it is a dead heat. While many key states like Florida and Pennsylvania seem to be forming on the middle, in a down to the finish line race, there are some huge suprises. Ohio went from being a ten point race, to being a one point race in a single poll. North Carolina is slowly becoming competitive for Kerry.

His biggest losses in poll numbers are in the blue states, which may be dangerous. There is only a focus on battleground states, but if a major state slips through their hands as a result, Bush has himself an election. Republicans may be smart to put an increased focus on Oregon. Although this year, as four years ago, Florida may be the key state. All I know is polling returns will sure be exciting come November 2nd.

All polling data courtesy of the Current Electoral Vote Predictor

In this post 9/11 world...

2004-09-10T23:19:00.000-07:00

Goddamn, if I hear the talking heads mention that phrase one more time I will snap. Look people, it was a big event, but that does not mean we have to beat it to meaningless drivel. In this world of media hype, and everything down to a 30 second sound byte, there are some things we should hold holy.

Nearly 3000 people dead, is one of those things that should not be trivialized. It is a thing that should not be used and abused by every politician and talking head there.

Have some goddamn respect, can we please leave some things sacred?

Time to Change

2004-09-10T22:29:00.000-07:00

Watching the politicians talk back and forth, one thing becomes very clear, the Republicans are very good, and Kerry is at best mediocre. He has a strong campaign, an incumbent that is weak on domestic policy and very vulnerable on foreign policy in a smart attack. Kerry, however, manages to pussyfoot around, and never make a dent in the polls. In this article I want to talk about why, and how he can shift this around.

The Republican attack machine is very good, and it never involves the president. The Democrats on the other hand, have many disparate groups, that have a leaning that appears far too much to the left. MoveOn may in fact be doing more harm then good. Republicans go on the attack, and the liberal groups overreact. The person that needs to respond, and not just respond but go on the offensive. How dare these groups attack my war record, when I was serving, and getting injured, Mr Bush was pussyfooting around the National Guard. Get out there and respond, it's what Clinton did.

Not only is Kerry on the defensive and not on the offensive, but he has not laid out a clear strategy in the media. Talking points, everybody knows Bush stands for National Defense, what does kerry stand for? Jobs? Education? Defense? What! He talks like a senator, and he needs to talk in sound bites, something that will get repeated over and over.

So while this is shorter then I expected, I can tell you that Kerry is slipping for a reason. He looks like a wimp, a weak, horrible leader. He needs to shift this, or Bush will have four more years.

Bush vs Kerry National Security... Round 2

2004-09-07T18:16:00.000-07:00

Today was truly a sad day in Iraq, unfortunately we now stop counting death by the hundreds, and start counting by the thousands. While Kerry has moderately managed to distance himself from being right in line with the Bush policy. He still has managed not to have a real solid view on Iraq. The senator seems to be satisfied with having the President tell him how he views the war, and has never come out strongly with a real opinion, and a real critical view of the war. He is acting too politically, and that will cost him big.

The entire time, while Kerry is getting destroyed for his Vietnam record, especially his admirable speaking out against the war, Bush keeps coasting by. More records released show that Bush served even less admirably in the least admirable branch to serve in the Vietnam War. Kerry will keep quiet about this too.

Mr. Kerry is polling down 20 points on National Security, and with his kiddy gloves approach to a 12 round boxing match with Muhammad AlRove, he will be down even further.

On Zell Miller and other such Liars

2004-09-07T08:25:00.000-07:00

So I was going to write an absolutely marvelous piece here, talking about the complexity inherent in Kerry's voting record and deeply deconstructing Miller's speech. Then I realized I really am too lazy to write something like that.

Thankfully Fred Kaplan wrote something just like this for Slate.

Israel and The Current Political Standing

2004-09-06T22:35:00.000-07:00

I say this as a citizen of the great nation of Israel. This is really getting damn ridiculous. I just recieved a letter from AIPAC, asking for money, using their latest scandal for fundraising purposes. Yet it seems nobody in the administration is the least bit concerned, least of all Wolfowitz, who's deputy is alleged to be involved in the leak. This is not an isolated incident, if it was, I would not be so concerned, but I do fear a growing schism in the Middle East.

In the last administration under Clinton, it felt as if there was real progress. Oslo, the 2000 Camp David talks, there was at least a feeling of moving forward. Yet with the current administration, that has appeared to come to a complete and utter standstill. This is in fact a dangerous trap.

You simply cannot invade Iraq and ignore Israel, the only think that would lead to, is even further terrorism. We cannot simply sit by, and let Israel settle what should be Palestinian soil. We cannot simply look away, while Yasser Arafat all but pats the bombers on the back. We are breeding more terrorism and hate by the day.

What we need from the current and any future administration is a real commitment to a roadmap. To bring in people, kicking and screaming, to the negotiation table. If it takes threatening to cut off aid, fine. I know AIPAC is powerful, but it's counterproductive. We will not have a lasting peace in Israel, as long as the administration blissfully ignores it. Seemingly ignoring the problem, and turning a blind eye.

Yet is this all due to AIPAC? I do not think so, the Israeli lobby only recently became as powerful as it did, and previous Presidents still fully supported it. We do have a leaning towards Israel, and for good reason. They are like us, a nation founded on a War of Independence. They are the most stable, succesful country in the entire region. We naturally lean towards them. Yet it seems more and more, that we are writing them a blank check.

I do not pretend to have the solution to the Palestinian Israeli conflict, but I know it will begin with them sitting down at a negotiating table. I do not care how the US does it, but they need to get both parties there. No more kiddy gloves, if you want to stop terrorism, you need to fix it.

Lies and Truths

2004-09-06T17:38:00.000-07:00

republished through permission of Dan Appleman, original link

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me… well, so says the quote. But honestly, with so many conflicting claims and lies, I’ve become increasingly frustrated by my own inability to figure out what’s actually true. Whether it’s lying through omission, lying through misdirection, or outright lies, it’s awfully hard to extract nuggets of truth from the noise.

So, being a civic minded individual, I did some extensive research, and am pleased to offer this guide to detecting who is lying during this joyful campaign season:

Anyone who explicitly claims to be telling the truth – is lying. Groups with “truth” in their name, lie. “Swift Boats for Truth” – dead giveaway. If they weren’t lying, they wouldn’t need to convince you otherwise.
Every political advertisement lies (by omission- obviously).
All issues ads lie (you know, the kind that aren’t sponsored by the candidate, but rather by their best friend, leading contributor, ex college roommate, etc.)
All news broadcasts lie. The one exception: Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, which claims to lie, has a higher degree of truth than any news broadcast. This is not surprising because all comedy is ultimately based on truth.
Anyone claiming the other side is lying, is lying (Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, you know the type).
All the candidates and their spokespersons lie. You see, if they actually said anything truthful the media would squeeze it of any ounce of subtlety and portray it as a mistake or gaff. So the campaigns must stick with carefully polished and scripted sound bites - lies.
Anyone who mentions 9/11 in a political context more than once in a speech or conversation is lying (it’s the ultimate misdirection). Oh, except for Rudolph Giuliani, who’s the only guy who’s earned the right to say it twice in a speech before it’s a lie.
Anyone who talks extensively about how great America is, is lying. Real patriots know America is great – we don’t need politicians going on about it. We’d rather hear them explain HOW they’re going to keep America great. And how we’ll pay for it. Specifics please?
There are probably more – comments are welcome.

Finding the truth is clearly a greater challenge than I ever imagined. And it poses some fundamental challenges when it comes to voting this November. But since it is clear that lies far outnumber the truth, the following axiom, stripped of spin and manipulation, must be fundamentally true:

Since all politicians and media are lying (either through omission, misdirection, or outright), you cannot predict their future actions based on what they say. This implies that you can only anticipate their future actions based on past actions of themselves and their supporters.

Ok, we’re making progress. Having written off the media, the candidates, the ads, the campaigns, and statistics (which are also subject to manipulation and later correction), it becomes remarkably easy to choose a candidate. Let’s consider the major topics:

Iraq & Terrorism:
Both sides now agree that the arguments for going into Iraq were either outright lies, or the results of gross incompetence. Frankly, I supported going into Iraq because I could not imagine our government either lying about WMD, or being so grossly incompetent as to go to war without an incredibly high degree of certainty on the issue. Spin aside, the buck stops there: It was either a lie or gross incompetence.
If you believe the current administration has learned from their mistakes, and has become highly competent at intelligence and foreign policy, you should stick with Bush. If you’re one of those people who, if you had an employee who lied or was grossly incompetent, would fire them, you should choose Kerry.
Taxes:
This one is simple. You either choose a Tax and Spend Democrat. Or a Borrow and Spend Republican. Sorry, you can’t have a true responsible economic conservative (control spending and balance the budget) – that was Clinton and he can’t run again.
Economy:
If you’re making more money, have better job security, and your friends and family are happily employed, the economy is good. If your economic status is uncertain, and you know people who are out of work, the economy is bad. Since the media and statistics lie, all you can base it on is what you see around you.
Social Issues:
If aborting fetuses and gays getting married is more important to you than security, taxes or the economy, you know who to choose.
Health Insurance:
If you don’t have health insurance or can’t afford it, and want it, choose Kerry. It’s virtually certain the Democrats will do more than the Republicans on that score.
Civil Liberties:
If you’re willing to give up more privacy and civil rights in the hope of gaining more security, stick with Bush. If you’re willing to accept more risk in order to keep privacy and civil rights, choose Kerry.

Those are the big ones. There are lots of other issues, but it’s much harder to distill the truth out of lies on those, or to figure out which “experts” might be closer to the truth. But I’ll keep working on it.

Polls are liars

2004-09-06T16:56:00.000-07:00

This post in response to http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

I am sorry but I simply do not feel that for this election the polls will have as much effect as in previous ones. The major problem being that they determine results based on likely voters. One of the most common ways of doing so is through asking if they are likely to vote and whether they voted in the last election.

Often people must meet both criterias in order to be counted as likely voters.

This creates for me obvious issues, the main one being the youth vote. In this election, it is estimated that anywhere from 3-6 million more young people will vote, that's 3-6% of the average voting public. Which throws in an even larger margin of error. Let us use this for example. Margin of error is 4% which means that Bush can have anywhere from 48%-56% of the vote, and Kerry anywhere from 41%-49% which already makes the poll a statistical tie. Yet what if one percent more of the vote, because of the youth, goes to kerry. Now the margin of error is even closer. 47%-55% of the vote for Bush, 42-50% for Kerry, which already is showing a larger overlap. This questions is not limited to young people off course, if more people are politicized by either party, those "unlikely" voters may well be the deciding factor in this election. 100,000 more democrats voting in Florida, could easily throw the state to Kerry.

Another issue with these polls is they poorly reflect minorities. African-Americans for example are much less likely to answer those poll questions then White Americans. Arab americans, which are a growing population in key battleground states are also generally ignored by the polls.

I keep mentioning battleground states as they are very important, in fact the poll I find to be much more useful, is my homepage.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

There you can see the election play out better. For example we can see that 2-3 point gain in Florida for Kerry would swing the election his way, but even there, while a better sampling, it's still questionable. I don't think polls will predict this election day, because it is a unique and different time in our nations history.

2004-09-06T16:42:00.000-07:00

Kerry and Homeland Security

My support for Kerry is based off a simple idea, I want our nation to be more secure.

Yet Bush seems to be running on the same platform, too bad his version of it is a lie.

In the years since 9/11 we as a nation have become less secure. Terrorism worldwide is going up, our newly created "Department of Homeland Security" is a big beurocratic mess, and we have an administration that is not focusing on the terrorist threat.

Issue 1: The response post 9/11. We went after Afghanistan, but never got troops in, in time to capture critical Al Queda leadership. We then managed to leave less then 10,000 troops, to manage an entire country, and to provide 52$ per person in aid per year. To compare, Bosnia got close to a 1000$.

Issue 2: Iraq. In a war on terrorism, guns are often the worse weapons to use. We see this in chechnya, the longer the conflict goes, the more determined the other side gets. We did not beat Russia by fighting it, we out idealized Russia. In a sense, Iraq proves Al-Queda right, about invasion of arab countries by the US, and serves as a national recruiting poster. Sure, we cannot pull out now, but we should not have been there.

Issue 3: Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia. These are all countries that are very unstable, and are teaching intolerance and hate. Instead of using the goodwill post 9/11 with them, we squandered it on Iraq. That 80 billion dollars a year could have funded secular, open education, instead of our oil money going to fund madrasses.

Issue 4: Our homeland. Our homeland security is key. By homeland security I do not mean an Alert system, but proper funding, proper training. We are not prepared for a massive attack, especially with WMD on our soil, even 3 years afterwards.

When after 9/11 we should have partnered up and gone after the terrorists, militarily, and idea wise. We should have raised taxes and defended our people. In the end what happened? We invaded a country that did not commit what we said it did, a country with a wealth of oil, just as Bin-Laden predicted. We told our people the best thing we can do is shop, and lowered taxes, as well as laid off 4000 New York City cops.

I don't know how John Kerry can be worse, but I know how he can be better. He believes that we should not open up Firehouses in Baghdad while closing them here.

He understands the commitment to homeland security and that is why he has my vote.

Proof of Weakness

2004-08-19T01:34:00.000-07:00

They Knew...%3A Despite the whitewash%2C we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak -- In These Times

This is a fascinating, very well researched article. Top notch.

2004-06-22T10:10:00.000-07:00

You Say Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi, I Say Hikmat Shakir Ahmad -- Let's Invade Anyway

So the Al-Queda connection is a naming mistake.... well that makes me feel great about the goverment.

2004-06-20T22:14:00.000-07:00

Yahoo! News - German 'Samurai' on the Loose in Woods Near Berlin:
"BERLIN (Reuters) - A camouflage-clad German man wielding a samurai sword attacked at least seven hikers in forests west of Berlin, performing sword tricks before ordering them to leave the woods, police said Friday."

2004-06-20T18:44:00.000-07:00

As Moore said of those in Iraq, who were engaged in attacks and carrying out atrocities against Americans:

“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win.”
Do you believe that those responsible for the killing and beheading of Americans should be compared to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin? Thankfully, as movie theater owners are being exposed to the misleading content of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and Moore’s intentions, they are increasingly backing away from the film.

Allow me to comment on this.

As much as it pains me to say it, Moore is right, and whats more these right wing nuts are completely wrong. The people attacking Iraqi civilians, are terrorists, the ones attacking American soldiers are doing precisely what Americans did to the British. You know, raiding, and killing not pursuant to the usual laws of war up to that point. They were revolutionaries, and so are these people, and they are revolting for a reason. Now you may disagree about the reason but not the semantics.

I wouldn't necessarily compare them to Washington or Franklin, they never really fought. Neither has Moore compared them to any such things, he compared them to the fighters, the Minutemen, that is what they are.

2004-06-20T18:34:00.000-07:00

U.S. Army: Best in the World, Needs a Nap

2004-06-20T18:26:00.000-07:00

Al Qaeda and Saddam: Table for Two:

MR. McCLELLAN: Saddam Hussein supported and harbored terrorist groups --
Q:Why don't you just say the commission is wrong?
MR. McCLELLAN: All right.

It does seem like ignoring facts is the new tactic in the Bush administration. They can't seem to gather up the backbone to say, we we're wrong, sorry. If Kerry can show this to the American people... Bush is a goner... but Bush shouldn't break a sweat quite yet about that.

If Kerry ran even a mediocre campaign, Bush would be in trouble, but so far he has shown absolutely no competency. He let his opponent define the agenda, and I still don't know what he really stands for. What is the theme of his campaign? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?

If I was Senator Kerry, first of all I would spend my Botox money on a personality transplant. Most importantly, however, I would fire my entire campaign staff and start over from scratch.

2004-06-20T18:14:00.000-07:00

Yahoo! News - Private Rocket Plane to Launch from Mojave Desert

If there is anything that gives one hope, it's space. It's amazing that the private industry might be going there, and maybe give NASA notice. I sure hope that in ten years, I might pay to fly into space, a lifelong dream, finally realized.

2004-06-20T16:53:00.000-07:00

Politics News Article | Reuters.com

This Clinton book and all the... kindof revelations from it have been all over the news lately. With over a couple million copies sold, that 10 million dollar advance is well earned. So with all this press and hype, is there anything that can derail it?

Well how about the New York Times which called the huge book "sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull - the sound of one man prattling away." As if that wasn't enough the continued with, "In many ways, the book is a mirror of Mr. Clinton's presidency: lack of discipline leading to squandered opportunities; high expectations, undermined by self-indulgence and scattered concentration".

Well my copy is one of those pre-orders, so I suppose the reviews don't matter much. But if Hillarys book is anything to base it on, it will be long and dissapointing, with lots of things said but little accomplished. Much like the Clinton presidency.

2004-06-20T01:03:00.000-07:00

Bush/Zombie Reagan 2004

Bush and Zombie Reagan... I'm not sure who is the better public speaker.

2004-06-19T23:34:00.000-07:00

New England Republican: Tom Brokaw Interviews President Bush

Wow... an actual negative edit for Mr. Bush.

2004-06-19T19:26:00.000-07:00

The New Republic Online: Like It's 1999: "The real lesson of the last year is that the Bush administration's inept version of nation-building failed. The administration's strategists used Iraq as a laboratory to prove various deeply held prejudices: for example, that the Clinton administration's nation-building was fat and slow, that the United Nations was irrelevant, that the United States faced no problem of legitimacy in Iraq, that Ahmed Chalabi would become a Mesopotamian Charles de Gaulle. In almost every case, facts on the ground quickly disconfirmed these theories. But, so committed were these government officials to their ideology--and so powerful within the administration--that it took 14 months for policy to adjust to these failures. In the last month, the United States has finally reversed course, sending more troops, scaling back de-Baathification, dumping Chalabi, bringing in the United Nations, and listening to Iraqis on the ground. This shift in policy is already making a difference, easing the anti-Americanism and the sense of international isolation that has plagued the Iraq mission. If they keep up the reversals, Iraq still has a chance. "

2004-06-19T19:15:00.000-07:00

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Europe: hard sell begins:
"Afraid Europe is full of federalists hellbent on a superstate? Blair will use an appearance on the BBC's Breakfast with Frost programme today to argue that has changed: the arrival of the 10 new eastern European members, with more skeptical traditions - such as Poland - means we are no longer alone. "

While the guardian has seemingly taken a pro-EU stance, I heartily disagree with that view. The EU is a terrible idea, as it's intention, from it's very founding, was to build a United States of Europe. Starting with the economy and working forward until militarily, politically, and socially, every country in Europe is a state. Yet when someone tries to make a statement, he is called a conservative alarmist, a nutjob, such things would never happen!

All the while the British parliament has become little more then a rubber stamp for EU policies, the European Parliament is worse, having issues brought up to vote every 2 minutes. The British even managed to vote away the right to Habeas Corpus at one of these votes. It does appear to me as if the EU is simply the parasite, sitting on Europe, taking away sovereignty and putting it in the hands of the few bureaucrats that feel they deserve power.

Last time I was in the UK "The Sun" took a poll that found 97% of the respondents against the bureaucrats constitution, thankfully Tony Blair has an uphill fight.

2004-06-19T17:53:00.000-07:00

So the 9/11 commision report was released, and the partisan bickering has started and will not cease until the next "shocking revelation". The issue that are being so fussed about are with the nonexistent connection to 9/11 from Saddam, and the massive intelligence failure. This is all great to banter and argue about, except for we already knew all this, it's been argued and debated anywhere from the New York Times to that pit of journalism, Fox News.

So now it's a rehashing of old feuds, lot's of fingerpointing, and nothing getting solved. What are we doing to prove our intelligence agencys? Certainly not funding good HUMINT that's for sure, popping in more money to farsi speaking translators isn't going to solve our real problem. We have to infiltrate, we have to understand our enemy, we have to use covert ops to undermine them. Look at Israel... they know how to it right. Yet instead we bicker, and yell, and argue in committees. Nothing ever gets done.

2004-06-18T17:19:00.000-07:00

It rather is fascinating, watching the TV these days, watching the rush to Reagan. They barely let his body get cold before the "reverence" started flying. It seems only the Daily Show could keep out of the madness.

Was he a good president? Well he did have a great foreign policy, after all, no matter what many self important scholars think. He helped destroy the Soviet Union, sure there were cracks in the foundation, but he started throwing cherry bombs through the window. He did help re-create a dying party, a party of Nixon, into a party of honesty and vision. He made being a Republican good again. Now granted as a Democrat I do not like this fact, but I do tend to appreciate a good politician when I see him.

Yet despite all this, I do not think Reagan 24/7 is the solution. I do not feel putting his face on currency, or on mount Rushmore, or on the Pentagon does anything to honor his memory. Quick test who was Alexander Hamilton? If you answered the first secretary of the treasury, you looked on google or heard it on the news. Great men are not remembered through an orgy of media coverage, or having every building named after them, they are remembered by their deeds.

Yet this funeral does tend to reveal something, it tends to reveal the love and reverence America has for this man. Ford and Carter have NOTHING on him.