There is such a long list of the BushCo depredations of our system of government, the checks and balances and basic rights that sometimes stuff just slips our memory. There is so much wreckage to be cleaned up I doubt a dedicated Congress and willing Administration could manage it in a year doing nothing else.
The NYT Editorial Board would like to remind us of one that was slipped through in October '06, and slipped through is exactly the words. The defense budget bill contained a little provision that might be really scary to anybody paying attention. Posse Commitatus bars the military and National Guard from acting in a law enforcement capacity and the Insurrection Act of 1807 which allows and exemption in cases of lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights. The nasty little provision allows the President to "use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.” The NYT thinks this needs a "public airing," I don't think any amount of airing is going to clear this smell.
I know that BushCo has killed irony and made satire pointless, but why exactly is he fighting a war in Iraq to spread democracy and fighting a war against it at home?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
George Washington Commits Post-mortum Hari-Kari
In Japan at one time, a person who found themselves responsible for a catastrophic outcome through personal involvement removed the stain from the State and Religion by excising their gut. I prefer my apologies a little less dramatic, but this is the decade of HIGH DRAMA and screeching patriotism so I'm afraid George W had little choice. You see 230 or so years ago he set in motion the Iraq war and a very second GeorgeII. Yes an invoked spirit has little choice but to deal with the consequences. He has been invoked.
GeorgeII: "Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life. And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."
"I feel right at home here. After all, this is the home of the first George W. I thank President Washington for welcoming us today."
Now here's the really scary bit: "In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable. After winning the war, Washington did what victorious leaders rarely did at the time. He voluntarily gave up power."
Does he think we'll wait that long for him to leave? He actually invoked the Commander of the Revolutionary War, opened with the Declaration of Independence - the foundational document of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as his predecessor in his war of profit and war on civil liberties - HIS AG stated that the Right of Habeas Corpus was not in the Constitution - he invoked a man who'd have had him shot as a traitor??? Now George W (I) has had to do the honorable thing.
My god it's true, the man has killed irony, satire is dead - you cannot make more fun of this than it makes of itself. Maybe I'll have to kill this Blog, what more can I say about anything?
GeorgeII: "Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life. And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."
"I feel right at home here. After all, this is the home of the first George W. I thank President Washington for welcoming us today."
Now here's the really scary bit: "In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable. After winning the war, Washington did what victorious leaders rarely did at the time. He voluntarily gave up power."
Does he think we'll wait that long for him to leave? He actually invoked the Commander of the Revolutionary War, opened with the Declaration of Independence - the foundational document of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as his predecessor in his war of profit and war on civil liberties - HIS AG stated that the Right of Habeas Corpus was not in the Constitution - he invoked a man who'd have had him shot as a traitor??? Now George W (I) has had to do the honorable thing.
My god it's true, the man has killed irony, satire is dead - you cannot make more fun of this than it makes of itself. Maybe I'll have to kill this Blog, what more can I say about anything?
Monday, February 19, 2007
Never MInd What I Said, Then
In February of 2007 I have no idea who I'd vote for in November 2008 for President of the United States, but I may have some strong ideas about who I'd never vote for - maybe not even for dog catcher. I can understand how somebody would vote for a bill that addresses a problem differently than a bill they voted against, what I cannot understand is how a previously taken position no longer counts, particularly if it's not at least apologized for.
Seven years ago John McCain was getting some traction with some Democrats, "I know he's a conservative, but he's a pretty reasonable one and he talks straight," was more or less the line. I didn't think he was all that reasonable, and I didn't know if he was straight talking or not, the media would have had us believe he was. Lately if there's straight talk it seems to be about approving of an escalation in Iraq, with quibbling on numbers. Donald Rumsfeld, on the other hand, has gone from November 2006, "While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service," to February 2007, "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," which sounds like neither respect nor gratitude. Apparently things like Rummy, torture, Roe v. Wade, gays seem to be a matter of political expediency v. straight talk.
I certainly would be remiss regarding other Republicans if I didn't note that Mitt Romney's and Sam Brownback's positions on abortion and gays were not unchanged. Apparently a principle is subject to the political considerations of winning in a state versus winning in Presidential Primaries. I haven't noticed Rudy backpedalling, yet. Maybe they can play this game with the Religious Right, they seem able to ignore their God's stances on poverty, killing, and assorted other Christ - ian admonitions, so maybe what's said doesn't count?
Democrats have a couple of their own to ask, "what counts now," of. Clinton and Edwards both voted for the Authorization of Force bill, Edwards says it was a mistake, Clinton essentially has said, "Stick it." I'm afraid even an apology leaves me dubious much less Hillary's "look what I'll do now," stance. I'm afraid I see one of two things or a combination of two things going on, a gullibility and incuriosity or a poll driven political exigency. None of that adds up to Presidential. Is it really a big thing? Yes, absolutely, a huge thing, too many people figured out the BushCo game at that time for it to be falling victim to a carefully orchestrated flawless deception. It reeked of and virtually glowed with untruth. I've heard the "fooled even Colin," line; that might be impressive if you could demonstrate one time he hadn't toed the boss' line. It just flat out didn't matter how many of the citizens were on the war bandwagon, either the evidence was there or it was not. It was not.
Some of the Democrats have tried to make it sound as though labor was important to them, the answer to that particular canard lies in their stance regarding illegal hiring/illegal immigration and amnesty. I'm sorry, if you support making a living with your hands you do not support flooding the labor market and encouraging further flooding. That is a plutocratic stance, it is not sympathy for the downtrodden - it simply adds to their numbers. (I know, Chuck's a nice guy except when he's being a butthead about immigration) A controlled immigration is great for this country, it provides needed labor and a wider cultural pool, what we've got is chaos and injustice. There are fairer ways to deal with the current illegal population than jailing them or just letting them stay. I proposed some when I was running in the Primary, none includes - you just get to stay.
We're going to find out what these candidates have to say, there are some really qualified people out there, but where they've already stood speaks volumes as well. Pay close attention, we don't need another "compassionate conservative" GeorgeII.
Seven years ago John McCain was getting some traction with some Democrats, "I know he's a conservative, but he's a pretty reasonable one and he talks straight," was more or less the line. I didn't think he was all that reasonable, and I didn't know if he was straight talking or not, the media would have had us believe he was. Lately if there's straight talk it seems to be about approving of an escalation in Iraq, with quibbling on numbers. Donald Rumsfeld, on the other hand, has gone from November 2006, "While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service," to February 2007, "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," which sounds like neither respect nor gratitude. Apparently things like Rummy, torture, Roe v. Wade, gays seem to be a matter of political expediency v. straight talk.
I certainly would be remiss regarding other Republicans if I didn't note that Mitt Romney's and Sam Brownback's positions on abortion and gays were not unchanged. Apparently a principle is subject to the political considerations of winning in a state versus winning in Presidential Primaries. I haven't noticed Rudy backpedalling, yet. Maybe they can play this game with the Religious Right, they seem able to ignore their God's stances on poverty, killing, and assorted other Christ - ian admonitions, so maybe what's said doesn't count?
Democrats have a couple of their own to ask, "what counts now," of. Clinton and Edwards both voted for the Authorization of Force bill, Edwards says it was a mistake, Clinton essentially has said, "Stick it." I'm afraid even an apology leaves me dubious much less Hillary's "look what I'll do now," stance. I'm afraid I see one of two things or a combination of two things going on, a gullibility and incuriosity or a poll driven political exigency. None of that adds up to Presidential. Is it really a big thing? Yes, absolutely, a huge thing, too many people figured out the BushCo game at that time for it to be falling victim to a carefully orchestrated flawless deception. It reeked of and virtually glowed with untruth. I've heard the "fooled even Colin," line; that might be impressive if you could demonstrate one time he hadn't toed the boss' line. It just flat out didn't matter how many of the citizens were on the war bandwagon, either the evidence was there or it was not. It was not.
Some of the Democrats have tried to make it sound as though labor was important to them, the answer to that particular canard lies in their stance regarding illegal hiring/illegal immigration and amnesty. I'm sorry, if you support making a living with your hands you do not support flooding the labor market and encouraging further flooding. That is a plutocratic stance, it is not sympathy for the downtrodden - it simply adds to their numbers. (I know, Chuck's a nice guy except when he's being a butthead about immigration) A controlled immigration is great for this country, it provides needed labor and a wider cultural pool, what we've got is chaos and injustice. There are fairer ways to deal with the current illegal population than jailing them or just letting them stay. I proposed some when I was running in the Primary, none includes - you just get to stay.
We're going to find out what these candidates have to say, there are some really qualified people out there, but where they've already stood speaks volumes as well. Pay close attention, we don't need another "compassionate conservative" GeorgeII.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Jon Swift
There was a guy around 1600 AD who liked to poke important and influential people, he used essays and novels to make himself dangerous to authority. His literary efforts were of superior quality and have influenced writings to this day, Jonathan Swift was a prelate, writer, and an advocate for the plight of the Irish people, also sufficiently obnoxious to be in danger of having his ears slit for insulting the monarchy - slander. Imagine my surprise to find him reincarnated and serving the Internet. He's shortened his name, Jon Swift , but his wit is as dangerous as it ever was.
If you get along with satire, you'll like him. He also is a proponent of "liberal blog rolling," in that if you let him know and link him, he will link you. For those of you unfamiliar with the world of blog publishing, your links are your rating in pecking order. I'm seriously unconcerned about that part of it, but I provided a link because I believe my readers will enjoy him. Be careful there, here's his profile:
"I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues."
If you get along with satire, you'll like him. He also is a proponent of "liberal blog rolling," in that if you let him know and link him, he will link you. For those of you unfamiliar with the world of blog publishing, your links are your rating in pecking order. I'm seriously unconcerned about that part of it, but I provided a link because I believe my readers will enjoy him. Be careful there, here's his profile:
"I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues."
Playing the God Card Risks
There's been a lot of God politics over the last 6 years and some pretty fair amount the preceding 6 years. The Republicans have used and abused the Religious Right extensively and Democrats are starting to hope aboard the Faith bandwagon. There really isn't a problem with people and politicians having Faith, the problem starts when the pandering starts. The real lightning rod issues seem to be abortion and gays; the prevailing Religion Test seems to be the removal of freedom for segments of our society on the basis of religious tenets.
Now catering to that particular brand of political thought carries with it certain political and religious realities. First you better not look like a flip-flopper on the issues, a great problem for candidates who've faced races in states with more moderate outlooks. (That leaves the matter of principles entirely out of the picture) The really big part of this is that the majority of General Election voters don't hold those views, so if you run to the religious right to win the Primary, you'll have to run away from them for the General and if you've already got problems in that area you'll have flip-flopped-flipped and that looks bad.
The second problem is the suit of the God card you've played. If you're appealing to folks on the basis of their religious beliefs and intolerance it would be a good idea not to offend their variety of church. For a long time there was bad blood between the more Fundamentalist Protestants and Catholics and despite a lot common ground Mormonism doesn't play well with that crowd. It's not that Mormons aren't big on anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism, and aren't at least fundamentally racist, it's that cult aspect, well, and polygamy. You can count on polygamy making it back into the news again, there's some serious trouble brewing down in that country. Intolerance and varieties of God don't mix well, trying to get a broad point of view from a selected narrow view group is asking a lot.
When Democrats try to deal themselves into this game they face a real perception problem, the Republicans have painted them as the anti-god party and an effort to overcome that view with people that have actually taken it seriously opens candidates to pandering charges. Bear in mind, the Democrats have taken no anti-religion stances, ever, so anyone that has actually bought that charge is someone who doesn't pay attention to facts anyhow. The question occurs, who is it you're trying to impress?
If the electorate is sick and tired of BushCo politics and the results of them, it might be reasonable to remember just how often that particular Texas oaf has invoked God, depended on God, and listened to God. Maybe the electorate would like to hear about Universal Health Care, not being in a civil war, lifting the bottom half of the economic scale, a respect for Rights, c'mon, the whole litany of items that BushCo has screwed for 6 years. But hey, stopping gay marriages is a big deal.
Now catering to that particular brand of political thought carries with it certain political and religious realities. First you better not look like a flip-flopper on the issues, a great problem for candidates who've faced races in states with more moderate outlooks. (That leaves the matter of principles entirely out of the picture) The really big part of this is that the majority of General Election voters don't hold those views, so if you run to the religious right to win the Primary, you'll have to run away from them for the General and if you've already got problems in that area you'll have flip-flopped-flipped and that looks bad.
The second problem is the suit of the God card you've played. If you're appealing to folks on the basis of their religious beliefs and intolerance it would be a good idea not to offend their variety of church. For a long time there was bad blood between the more Fundamentalist Protestants and Catholics and despite a lot common ground Mormonism doesn't play well with that crowd. It's not that Mormons aren't big on anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism, and aren't at least fundamentally racist, it's that cult aspect, well, and polygamy. You can count on polygamy making it back into the news again, there's some serious trouble brewing down in that country. Intolerance and varieties of God don't mix well, trying to get a broad point of view from a selected narrow view group is asking a lot.
When Democrats try to deal themselves into this game they face a real perception problem, the Republicans have painted them as the anti-god party and an effort to overcome that view with people that have actually taken it seriously opens candidates to pandering charges. Bear in mind, the Democrats have taken no anti-religion stances, ever, so anyone that has actually bought that charge is someone who doesn't pay attention to facts anyhow. The question occurs, who is it you're trying to impress?
If the electorate is sick and tired of BushCo politics and the results of them, it might be reasonable to remember just how often that particular Texas oaf has invoked God, depended on God, and listened to God. Maybe the electorate would like to hear about Universal Health Care, not being in a civil war, lifting the bottom half of the economic scale, a respect for Rights, c'mon, the whole litany of items that BushCo has screwed for 6 years. But hey, stopping gay marriages is a big deal.
Bush Lite
I don't like Hillary Clinton, not since she became a Senator. I've watched her poll driven politics and her triangulation until I'm ready to puke. Her stance on Iraq has tracked the polls steadily excepting one feature, she has no intention of admitting a mistake on the 2002 Authorization Bill. “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton said in Dover, New Hampshire. Now she'd have you believe everybody bought the BushCo line, oddly some other Democratic Senators didn't and voted 'no.' Some, like Russ Feingold have demonstrated repeatedly that principles count for more than political points scored (and now they're scoring points-odd how that works). What she wants you to hear, now, is that she intends to concentrate on ending the war.
There is another aspect to all this, power. The NYT notes: "Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief. " So she wants a deferential Congress, isn't that what got us into this Iraq mess?
So, here's how the Corporate Darling Media Queen wants this to go, pay no attention to what I've done, just what I'll do for you as the next Imperial Presidency. We've had 6 years and counting of the GeorgeII Imperium, we're supposed to be happy with Clinton2 imperium? No, I don't like Hillary, Democrats can do much better than that old tired stuff and I definitely see no sense in Bushlite.
There is another aspect to all this, power. The NYT notes: "Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief. " So she wants a deferential Congress, isn't that what got us into this Iraq mess?
So, here's how the Corporate Darling Media Queen wants this to go, pay no attention to what I've done, just what I'll do for you as the next Imperial Presidency. We've had 6 years and counting of the GeorgeII Imperium, we're supposed to be happy with Clinton2 imperium? No, I don't like Hillary, Democrats can do much better than that old tired stuff and I definitely see no sense in Bushlite.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Well, Kiss My *** and Call Me Blue
Some of you may know that I tend to peruse my hit meter. I like to know something about where readers come from and what piques their interest. Word searches offer up amusement, I used "Did You Pass Fourth Grade" as a title to signify the simplicity of my analysis, having no idea that large numbers of people are worried about passing 4th grade - they are surely disappointed. Sometimes the IP is what's interesting, like one today - 207.197.157, Washington DC.
May 28, 2006 I wrote an article, "Are You A Democrat?" with the premise that you should be able to say so and why in a few sentences. Blue Oregon picked it up and linked to it and quite a few people had something to say, not all positive, either. My hitmeter listed the referring URL for DC as Blue Oregon - Why Are You A Democrat? linked to my article. None of this would be all that interesting other than the owner of 207.197.157 which is Republican National Senatorial Committee. My guess is that they weren't particularly interested in signing up. I don't know how they got to Blue Oregon, but that article makes it real clear that I'm a Democrat and that I'm an Oregonian who ran for OR 02 CD.
Maybe these people really have no idea what makes Oregon or other Democrats tick or how to reach us. They certainly know how to oppose us and what snarky little tricks they can bring to bear. I find it laughable that the RNSC is visiting my little blog, this isn't good information for them, the Blogosphere left is notoriously left left, rowdy, and unobtainable to Repubs. There is virtually no mainstream Democratic thought going on out here, this is the rabble-rousing BushCo kicking Democratic left. Well, much luck to them with what they've learned, they can take it and kiss my blue something...
Senator Floppy Smith - did you catch that?
May 28, 2006 I wrote an article, "Are You A Democrat?" with the premise that you should be able to say so and why in a few sentences. Blue Oregon picked it up and linked to it and quite a few people had something to say, not all positive, either. My hitmeter listed the referring URL for DC as Blue Oregon - Why Are You A Democrat? linked to my article. None of this would be all that interesting other than the owner of 207.197.157 which is Republican National Senatorial Committee. My guess is that they weren't particularly interested in signing up. I don't know how they got to Blue Oregon, but that article makes it real clear that I'm a Democrat and that I'm an Oregonian who ran for OR 02 CD.
Maybe these people really have no idea what makes Oregon or other Democrats tick or how to reach us. They certainly know how to oppose us and what snarky little tricks they can bring to bear. I find it laughable that the RNSC is visiting my little blog, this isn't good information for them, the Blogosphere left is notoriously left left, rowdy, and unobtainable to Repubs. There is virtually no mainstream Democratic thought going on out here, this is the rabble-rousing BushCo kicking Democratic left. Well, much luck to them with what they've learned, they can take it and kiss my blue something...
Senator Floppy Smith - did you catch that?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Catch 22 All Over Again
Yossarian might have not believed this one and I really do not kid you, a Republican Representative said this (paraphrased-memory),
'If you do not support the mission you do not support the troops' or it may have been, 'You do not support the troops if you do not support the mission.'
That is truly 'out there' as a statement. No matter what is going on, if there are troops there you are not allowed to criticize why they are there. Ummm, Bosnia, Somalia???
If you're reading this and are under the illusion that I support GW Bush & Co. you've wandered in from someplace odd and will leave pretty quickly, BUT, dammit I play fair. I do not make stuff up, I do not pose impossibilities for the opposition. I can't remember the last time I gave them credit for something, but I also can't remember the last time they deserved credit. I use their words in context, I use multiple source news reports, and I use logic and the English language as it is constructed.
On the odd occasion that I've "booted it" I've apologized and corrected. These people don't ever correct their mistakes, they just change the game. They make up words, they pose impossible conditions, they flat out mangle clear meanings in order to justify their actions or wishes. Then they turn around and insult the opposition for not being on their page as they state they'll just ignore them anyhow. People ask where civility in politics has gone, I'm not sure it was ever all that civil, but how are you supposed to deal with people like this?
The President of the US held a news conference today, he said he doesn't care whether the Iranian government knows about weapons going to Iraq, 'what's worse, them knowing or them not knowing?' (paraphrased) Well then George, who knew about tens of millions of illegal hires in the US? What's worse, knowing or not knowing? Who knew about WMDs in Iraq, which is worse? Who benefits? You want to ask us rhetorical questions while you're telling us to sit down and shut the f*** up? You don't answer questions that have a lot more to do with the security of the US.
You and your ilk want to play Catch 22 with us?
'If you do not support the mission you do not support the troops' or it may have been, 'You do not support the troops if you do not support the mission.'
That is truly 'out there' as a statement. No matter what is going on, if there are troops there you are not allowed to criticize why they are there. Ummm, Bosnia, Somalia???
If you're reading this and are under the illusion that I support GW Bush & Co. you've wandered in from someplace odd and will leave pretty quickly, BUT, dammit I play fair. I do not make stuff up, I do not pose impossibilities for the opposition. I can't remember the last time I gave them credit for something, but I also can't remember the last time they deserved credit. I use their words in context, I use multiple source news reports, and I use logic and the English language as it is constructed.
On the odd occasion that I've "booted it" I've apologized and corrected. These people don't ever correct their mistakes, they just change the game. They make up words, they pose impossible conditions, they flat out mangle clear meanings in order to justify their actions or wishes. Then they turn around and insult the opposition for not being on their page as they state they'll just ignore them anyhow. People ask where civility in politics has gone, I'm not sure it was ever all that civil, but how are you supposed to deal with people like this?
The President of the US held a news conference today, he said he doesn't care whether the Iranian government knows about weapons going to Iraq, 'what's worse, them knowing or them not knowing?' (paraphrased) Well then George, who knew about tens of millions of illegal hires in the US? What's worse, knowing or not knowing? Who knew about WMDs in Iraq, which is worse? Who benefits? You want to ask us rhetorical questions while you're telling us to sit down and shut the f*** up? You don't answer questions that have a lot more to do with the security of the US.
You and your ilk want to play Catch 22 with us?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Stray Cat Terrorists ?
Rep John Boehner said that the war in Iraq is "the most visible part of a global war on terrorists," today in the House debate on the Resolution opposing BushCo's escalation. Hmmm, I had an idea it was about WMDs, then I had an idea it was about a rat bastard Saddam, then I heard Democracy was it, I've heard and heard stuff. Here's the real scoop, though, there are stray cat terrorists in Iraq,
"If we leave, they will follow us home. It's that simple."
So evidently we're encouraging them to stay home by being there, odd since the al Qaeda seem to be mostly from elsewhere. I'm real unsure why we'd be worried about Shiite militias since their quarrel seems to be with Sunnis. It seems to me that making our troops target practice for people who've already left home doesn't say much for Republican "support our troops." We don't seem to be killing them as fast as we're making them.
"If we leave, they will follow us home. It's that simple."
So evidently we're encouraging them to stay home by being there, odd since the al Qaeda seem to be mostly from elsewhere. I'm real unsure why we'd be worried about Shiite militias since their quarrel seems to be with Sunnis. It seems to me that making our troops target practice for people who've already left home doesn't say much for Republican "support our troops." We don't seem to be killing them as fast as we're making them.
McCain's Tet
You've got to admire their capacity for double talk and butt covering. The neocons and wannabes like John McCain have gone to great lengths to persuade the American people that talking bad about Iraq is the same as helping those 'terriss.' If you say the Admin lied us into a war, that the war sucks, that those running the war suck at it, the we shouldn't put more people in it, that we should leave, that we should leave right now, or any other thing that isn't on the BushCo agenda, you might as well be a 'terriss' yourself. You certainly don't don't talk about anything having the potential to go south.
Unless, of course, you happen to be John McCain and running for the Republican Primary, then you can be as stupid as you like. It appears that what John is afraid of isn't the screwed up war, it's that the Iraqi bad guys might remember Tet. The Tet Offensive was a tactical disaster for the North Vietnamese, they engaged in force against emplaced troops and were finally slaughtered. They also proved that they were not anything like too beaten launch a major offensive that scared the snot out of the military and worse the home-folks.
"By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, 'Tet Offensive.' You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did," McCain said to influence his 'terriss' buddies to do just that. You certainly can't talk about timetables or anything like that because, "I think that it should be publicly open-ended because I think that if you set a date, that there's every possibility that the insurgents would just lay back and wait until we leave." So...
I know, we should elect this idiot President - of something obscure and far away.
Unless, of course, you happen to be John McCain and running for the Republican Primary, then you can be as stupid as you like. It appears that what John is afraid of isn't the screwed up war, it's that the Iraqi bad guys might remember Tet. The Tet Offensive was a tactical disaster for the North Vietnamese, they engaged in force against emplaced troops and were finally slaughtered. They also proved that they were not anything like too beaten launch a major offensive that scared the snot out of the military and worse the home-folks.
"By the way, a lot of us are also very concerned about the possibility of a, quote, 'Tet Offensive.' You know, some large-scale tact that could then switch American public opinion the way that the Tet Offensive did," McCain said to influence his 'terriss' buddies to do just that. You certainly can't talk about timetables or anything like that because, "I think that it should be publicly open-ended because I think that if you set a date, that there's every possibility that the insurgents would just lay back and wait until we leave." So...
I know, we should elect this idiot President - of something obscure and far away.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Marriage and All That
Blue Oregon has spun my hit meter real good, and a little article has gotten a lot of play, so I thought I ought to explain some of my reasoning in case anybody stops back.
Marriage is an institution of civic order, I know churches get very involved and god and all kinds of things get rung in but marriage doesn't mean commitment, that's a thing in itself separate but involved. If you love someone enough to stay with them through all life's variables, that's commitment, getting married in these days of common law property and etc doesn't necessarily increase the financial risk but does increase some legal standing. Government needs orderly transfer of property, assets, and child responsibilities, these ordinarily involve the civil contract called marriage. Because governments and religions were so entwined in the past the god business got charge of the civil contract and enforced it with religious oaths and consequences - good for government, by taking enforcement out of their hands. In secular government churches still perform the ceremonies alongside government entities like Justices of the Peace, tradition is preserved for those who wish it and another avenue for those who do not. All good. With an exception; marriage has become, in the popular consciousness, a religious institution usurping the governmental civil role it plays. With that comes religious interference in the civil law regarding spousal relationships.
It is in the interest of civic order for property and other responsibilities and benefits to be transferred in an orderly fashion. If spouses (life partners if you prefer) do not have a civil law relationship things get messy. Inheritance gets complicated, particularly in absence of a will - or even in the face of a will - and property winds up in the hands of lawyers, the tax man, or people the deceased never intended. Child custody no longer is the prerogative of "parents." Hospital visitation, life support options, and a myriad of benefits and responsibilities married couples take for granted become nonexistent or legally complicated. Common law relationships are not recognized if the spousal relationship is not recognized. When the State of Oregon refuses to recognize the life commitment of some of its own citizens it creates a second-class status, both in benefits and in responsibilities and it does so in regard to religious interests.
I neither commend nor condemn religious outlooks on gay life, gay marriage, or any other aspect of gayness, it is entirely the business of religion to relate to it as it sees fit. Belonging to a religion is entirely a voluntary affair, not so with existing as a gay in the State of Oregon in relation to its laws. There now exists a theological bar within civil law. Philosophically I do not like the religious co-option of the civil contract of marriage, it is wrong, it is un-Constitutional, and it is blatantly unfair. Then there is the "BUT."
If this situation is to be addressed within a realistic time frame and without tremendous political difficulties a work around becomes necessary. The creation of a "civil contract" is probably the only remedy. The difficulty presented is that it is a de-facto recognition of the religious interference in civil law. While it may satisfy the legal needs of gay couples it does not address the second-class issue. The all or nothing conundrum presents itself, I have no answer to that.
Gayness is not an issue for me, one way or the other, what is an issue is equal treatment of our citizens, in rights and responsibilities. I have no tolerance for special treatment of members of our citizenry, in either their interest or their detriment. I volunteered to be a "Voice" for Basic Rights Oregon not out of sympathy for the gay lifestyle, but out of the interest of our citizenry, all of them. Institutionalized discrimination is bad for all of us. Last I knew, BRO was still looking for "Voices," if it's something you could help with, maybe you should.
Marriage is an institution of civic order, I know churches get very involved and god and all kinds of things get rung in but marriage doesn't mean commitment, that's a thing in itself separate but involved. If you love someone enough to stay with them through all life's variables, that's commitment, getting married in these days of common law property and etc doesn't necessarily increase the financial risk but does increase some legal standing. Government needs orderly transfer of property, assets, and child responsibilities, these ordinarily involve the civil contract called marriage. Because governments and religions were so entwined in the past the god business got charge of the civil contract and enforced it with religious oaths and consequences - good for government, by taking enforcement out of their hands. In secular government churches still perform the ceremonies alongside government entities like Justices of the Peace, tradition is preserved for those who wish it and another avenue for those who do not. All good. With an exception; marriage has become, in the popular consciousness, a religious institution usurping the governmental civil role it plays. With that comes religious interference in the civil law regarding spousal relationships.
It is in the interest of civic order for property and other responsibilities and benefits to be transferred in an orderly fashion. If spouses (life partners if you prefer) do not have a civil law relationship things get messy. Inheritance gets complicated, particularly in absence of a will - or even in the face of a will - and property winds up in the hands of lawyers, the tax man, or people the deceased never intended. Child custody no longer is the prerogative of "parents." Hospital visitation, life support options, and a myriad of benefits and responsibilities married couples take for granted become nonexistent or legally complicated. Common law relationships are not recognized if the spousal relationship is not recognized. When the State of Oregon refuses to recognize the life commitment of some of its own citizens it creates a second-class status, both in benefits and in responsibilities and it does so in regard to religious interests.
I neither commend nor condemn religious outlooks on gay life, gay marriage, or any other aspect of gayness, it is entirely the business of religion to relate to it as it sees fit. Belonging to a religion is entirely a voluntary affair, not so with existing as a gay in the State of Oregon in relation to its laws. There now exists a theological bar within civil law. Philosophically I do not like the religious co-option of the civil contract of marriage, it is wrong, it is un-Constitutional, and it is blatantly unfair. Then there is the "BUT."
If this situation is to be addressed within a realistic time frame and without tremendous political difficulties a work around becomes necessary. The creation of a "civil contract" is probably the only remedy. The difficulty presented is that it is a de-facto recognition of the religious interference in civil law. While it may satisfy the legal needs of gay couples it does not address the second-class issue. The all or nothing conundrum presents itself, I have no answer to that.
Gayness is not an issue for me, one way or the other, what is an issue is equal treatment of our citizens, in rights and responsibilities. I have no tolerance for special treatment of members of our citizenry, in either their interest or their detriment. I volunteered to be a "Voice" for Basic Rights Oregon not out of sympathy for the gay lifestyle, but out of the interest of our citizenry, all of them. Institutionalized discrimination is bad for all of us. Last I knew, BRO was still looking for "Voices," if it's something you could help with, maybe you should.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Mort Sez We Can't Leave Iraq
US News and World Reports editor in chief Mort Zuckerman lays out his case for why we can't leave Iraq in the 2/12/07 issue. He starts off by noting that the President is losing support everywhere and that the not enough followed by more not enough and capped by a perceived not enough "surge" is bad for morale. The President, he says has bet his future and the future of the Republican Party on it, and if they lose, they'll lose their standing on national security for a generation. So far he's making some sense.
Then he starts running into deeper water, the place will get worse, much, much worse. If we're not there putting on the brakes, they'll go nuts. He offers no particulars, it will just get worse.
A Sunni al-Qaeda victory looms with those nutcases having a safe haven to launch attacks on us.
These are, of course, the same Sunnis who are the minority and regularly get their heads handed to them by the Shiites. Somehow they're going to snatch victory out of extermination. Then, there's Iran being dominant in the area. Not that they're detested by all the Sunni governments except possibly Syria and considering the fundamentalism of al-Qaeda and Iran they're about as likely to co-exist as wolves and rabbits. Ok, here's how this breaks down, al-Qaeda is going to win and Iran is going to win and they're all going to engage in a bloodbath of horror movie proportions and come to America and kill us.
After this exercise he tells us about the stupidly run war, the unlikeliness of democracy without security and operating institutions, the fundamentalism poisoning everything, and finally Malaki's incompetence. This caps off why we have to stay.
Excuse the hell out of me. Saudi Arabia and others are not going to stand by and watch Iraq on their border turn into an Iranian fiefdom, the al-Qaeda are going to get slaughtered, the Iraqis and Iranians are both racist by nature and of opposing races, the Kurds have a pretty good thing going and Iran and other Arabs are not their friends. Mort, you mentioned Oz in relation to the President, you need to come back from there yourself. Yep, they'll probably kill a few more of each other if we're not there distracting them, but the end result will not be affected by our presence, except in the number of our own body bags and cripples. Oh, your worst reason stands first - anybody who trusts the Republicans with our national security is a fool.
Then he starts running into deeper water, the place will get worse, much, much worse. If we're not there putting on the brakes, they'll go nuts. He offers no particulars, it will just get worse.
A Sunni al-Qaeda victory looms with those nutcases having a safe haven to launch attacks on us.
These are, of course, the same Sunnis who are the minority and regularly get their heads handed to them by the Shiites. Somehow they're going to snatch victory out of extermination. Then, there's Iran being dominant in the area. Not that they're detested by all the Sunni governments except possibly Syria and considering the fundamentalism of al-Qaeda and Iran they're about as likely to co-exist as wolves and rabbits. Ok, here's how this breaks down, al-Qaeda is going to win and Iran is going to win and they're all going to engage in a bloodbath of horror movie proportions and come to America and kill us.
After this exercise he tells us about the stupidly run war, the unlikeliness of democracy without security and operating institutions, the fundamentalism poisoning everything, and finally Malaki's incompetence. This caps off why we have to stay.
Excuse the hell out of me. Saudi Arabia and others are not going to stand by and watch Iraq on their border turn into an Iranian fiefdom, the al-Qaeda are going to get slaughtered, the Iraqis and Iranians are both racist by nature and of opposing races, the Kurds have a pretty good thing going and Iran and other Arabs are not their friends. Mort, you mentioned Oz in relation to the President, you need to come back from there yourself. Yep, they'll probably kill a few more of each other if we're not there distracting them, but the end result will not be affected by our presence, except in the number of our own body bags and cripples. Oh, your worst reason stands first - anybody who trusts the Republicans with our national security is a fool.
How Could I Agree With National Review Online ??
You don't suppose aliens abducted me and replaced me with another bearded one? I tell you, I am chagrined. But then, here's a Rove quote (attributed to an un-named Republican Congressman's wife) that you've got mull over:
Regarding BushCo amnesty/worker nonsense, "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."
Mark Krikorian poses this conclusion "This is why the president's "willing worker/willing employer" immigration extravaganza is morally wrong — it's not just that it will cost taxpayers untold billions, or that it will beggar our own blue-collar workers, or that it will compromise security, or that it will further dissolve our sovereignty. It would do all that, of course, but most importantly it would change the very nature of our society for the worse, creating whole occupations deemed to be unfit for respectable Americans, for which little brown people have to be imported from abroad."
Am I going to find fault with this? Maybe the security thing is a bit overblown, I don't have a real serious opinion on that, we've had a real hit from people who used visas to get in... How the left cannot get this through their heads is beyond me. There is nothing progressive in crushing blue collar wages. The "progressives" will talk about wealth disparity, they'll note that this "wonderful" economy isn't for the bottom end, and then they'll advocate cutting the throats of the workers because illegals are....special? they're picked on? they're what? They'll parrot the Free Marketers "it's not a zero sum game," when it is just exactly that, in fact it's a negative sum game. The damn jobs are being exported and insourced and there are a decreasing number of them and increasing competition for them.
Sure, right this minute the jobs with health hazards that include eye strain, carpal tunnel, and paper cuts are fairly safe. But if you think your wages aren't going into the toilet when the bottom falls out, you don't realize what your wage/salary is based on. A growing blue collar wage pushes up salaries and drags up low wage earnings. The numbers are all there, what you haven't seen in recent history is the bottom falling out, until the last dozen years, and now lower middle income is starting to slide. The plutocrats are doing well, this is all in their benefit. If BushCo is in favor of an economic model and you're not a plutocrat you'd better object. They're cutting your throats and getting you to smile about it.
What is particularly infuriating is for my stance to be lumped into racism, the major losers in this scenario are minorities! My industry, construction, was the gateway into decent paying work for minorities for decades. Now it's to be avoided unless all else fails. The largest concentration of illegal hirings is in construction. I don't give a damn if they pay taxes or not, the labor glut is killing this work. That's right, Americans won't come out, it's hard dangerous work and it doesn't PAY anything anymore. If you want to do a wage search by job descriptions you will find the same is true of just about anything that is comparably hard dangerous work.
I'm real sorry, there is no feel good solution. It's way past that time. Maybe after Ronnie Reagan's amnesty slamming the jobs shut would've mitigated itself, but that's not what was done, the flood gates were opened and now somebody is going to take a real beating. I feel rotten about this, I understand the plight of people fleeing crap countries, I admire a work ethic, and I don't care the least about ethnicity, but I do care about American workers more.
Regarding BushCo amnesty/worker nonsense, "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."
Mark Krikorian poses this conclusion "This is why the president's "willing worker/willing employer" immigration extravaganza is morally wrong — it's not just that it will cost taxpayers untold billions, or that it will beggar our own blue-collar workers, or that it will compromise security, or that it will further dissolve our sovereignty. It would do all that, of course, but most importantly it would change the very nature of our society for the worse, creating whole occupations deemed to be unfit for respectable Americans, for which little brown people have to be imported from abroad."
Am I going to find fault with this? Maybe the security thing is a bit overblown, I don't have a real serious opinion on that, we've had a real hit from people who used visas to get in... How the left cannot get this through their heads is beyond me. There is nothing progressive in crushing blue collar wages. The "progressives" will talk about wealth disparity, they'll note that this "wonderful" economy isn't for the bottom end, and then they'll advocate cutting the throats of the workers because illegals are....special? they're picked on? they're what? They'll parrot the Free Marketers "it's not a zero sum game," when it is just exactly that, in fact it's a negative sum game. The damn jobs are being exported and insourced and there are a decreasing number of them and increasing competition for them.
Sure, right this minute the jobs with health hazards that include eye strain, carpal tunnel, and paper cuts are fairly safe. But if you think your wages aren't going into the toilet when the bottom falls out, you don't realize what your wage/salary is based on. A growing blue collar wage pushes up salaries and drags up low wage earnings. The numbers are all there, what you haven't seen in recent history is the bottom falling out, until the last dozen years, and now lower middle income is starting to slide. The plutocrats are doing well, this is all in their benefit. If BushCo is in favor of an economic model and you're not a plutocrat you'd better object. They're cutting your throats and getting you to smile about it.
What is particularly infuriating is for my stance to be lumped into racism, the major losers in this scenario are minorities! My industry, construction, was the gateway into decent paying work for minorities for decades. Now it's to be avoided unless all else fails. The largest concentration of illegal hirings is in construction. I don't give a damn if they pay taxes or not, the labor glut is killing this work. That's right, Americans won't come out, it's hard dangerous work and it doesn't PAY anything anymore. If you want to do a wage search by job descriptions you will find the same is true of just about anything that is comparably hard dangerous work.
I'm real sorry, there is no feel good solution. It's way past that time. Maybe after Ronnie Reagan's amnesty slamming the jobs shut would've mitigated itself, but that's not what was done, the flood gates were opened and now somebody is going to take a real beating. I feel rotten about this, I understand the plight of people fleeing crap countries, I admire a work ethic, and I don't care the least about ethnicity, but I do care about American workers more.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Basic Rights Oregon Called
Basic Rights Oregon called on the phone today, a person I know from political activity told them I might be a contact person. Andrew Hogan, of Communications Dept, wanted to know if I could think of anyone who might be willing to be a "Voice" in Eastern Oregon. As he explained to me what they were looking for I ran through the list of people in my head that might do. This person would be a heterosexual with some community reputation and recognition who could speak on their behalf in Op Ed or related instances. I won't say I was coming up dry, but as I ran through the names I realized that I was ignoring something.
That something was kind of like a dinosaur in the living room.
The people I know who would do this are Democrats, I'm County Vice-Chair, SCC Delegate, and a former candidate for higher office, and an opinionated Blogger - opinions that have a lot to do with fair play, economic and social justice - and I'm standing next to my work truck trying to think who'd be good? I'm thinking (sorta) this isn't my fight, (maybe a little) this has potential to cause me embarrassment. That's about the time I probably persuaded Andrew that I'm crack brained because I started laughing, and told him (paraphrased), 'well, why not me.'
Yes, some of my friends and associates are going to poke at me over this, well, geeze, I live in Baker County and ran as a Democrat against (other Democrats) Greg Walden. What do I have to lose, everybody that knows me knows I'm a gun totin', drag racing left wing nail banger with a wild beard and a huge white dog. Is there anybody that doesn't think I'm goofy? My wife tells everybody I'm goofy. Damn, I'll lose my reputation?
Yes, absolutely. If I don't do this I lose my reputation. I lose it where it counts, with me. I've never cared about odds, I care about doing right, I care that I see me doing what I believe. I'll tell you straight up, I'm heterosexual, I have no understanding of a homosexual relationship and I find the idea of me engaging in such an act utterly unappealing. SO WHAT? I don't care what color or gender or religion people are, I care about who they are. Any fellow citizen of Oregon who is law abiding should have exactly the same rights AND responsibilities as any other law abiding citizen. I care about people. I don't get to rant about money grubbing sonsabitches with their foot on the workers' necks and shrug off somebody else's neck under a foot.
So I'm going to be a Voice for Basic Rights Oregon, it's a thing worth doing. I sincerely hope it does some good. They're looking for people, maybe you can help out.
That something was kind of like a dinosaur in the living room.
The people I know who would do this are Democrats, I'm County Vice-Chair, SCC Delegate, and a former candidate for higher office, and an opinionated Blogger - opinions that have a lot to do with fair play, economic and social justice - and I'm standing next to my work truck trying to think who'd be good? I'm thinking (sorta) this isn't my fight, (maybe a little) this has potential to cause me embarrassment. That's about the time I probably persuaded Andrew that I'm crack brained because I started laughing, and told him (paraphrased), 'well, why not me.'
Yes, some of my friends and associates are going to poke at me over this, well, geeze, I live in Baker County and ran as a Democrat against (other Democrats) Greg Walden. What do I have to lose, everybody that knows me knows I'm a gun totin', drag racing left wing nail banger with a wild beard and a huge white dog. Is there anybody that doesn't think I'm goofy? My wife tells everybody I'm goofy. Damn, I'll lose my reputation?
Yes, absolutely. If I don't do this I lose my reputation. I lose it where it counts, with me. I've never cared about odds, I care about doing right, I care that I see me doing what I believe. I'll tell you straight up, I'm heterosexual, I have no understanding of a homosexual relationship and I find the idea of me engaging in such an act utterly unappealing. SO WHAT? I don't care what color or gender or religion people are, I care about who they are. Any fellow citizen of Oregon who is law abiding should have exactly the same rights AND responsibilities as any other law abiding citizen. I care about people. I don't get to rant about money grubbing sonsabitches with their foot on the workers' necks and shrug off somebody else's neck under a foot.
So I'm going to be a Voice for Basic Rights Oregon, it's a thing worth doing. I sincerely hope it does some good. They're looking for people, maybe you can help out.
The Media Lies ?
Regarding "Scooter's" trial and testimony Mary Matalin on Don Imus:
Chris (Mathews) who purported to be on a nightly basis an objective analyst who would get on there and say things which we knew not to be true, as in Cheney saw this report. The Cheney we knew -Cheney didn't know Wilson, Cheney never sent Wilson, Cheney never saw the report, and the report that did exist corroborated the agency's belief that there was some effort by Saddam to procure yellowcake.
Once you start lying it gets really difficult to cover them all. She no longer "likes" Chris because the Admin pap isn't going over quite as well. You might remember that Matalin is also one of those who spread the "inaccuracy" that everyone knew Wilson's wife was CIA because he blabbed it. (oh hell, LIE) In fact is was quite a big deal. Lets stop and actually think about her job in relation to today's world conditions.
Plame was a specialist in WMDs. Her operation was counter WMDs, and it was secret and the cover company was covert and anybody associated with that company is now blown. WMDs, um, war in Iraq, N Korea, Iran, and various other not as newsworthy. The Dick and the Scooter obsessed over Wilson, they talked and schemed and finally had their retribution at the sake of the security of the United States of America, that's exactly correct, the Vice-President spent an ungodly amount of time working on payback involving screwing security when he was supposed to and claimed to be working hard on our security. Make no mistake, he was busy scaring people half to death while he was busy making them less safe and both were about political advantage, not the good of America.
At about this time the media was starting to shake off its BushCo doggy leash and ask and look, in that sheepish caught being a bad dog half-hearted manner, so they became the enemy. Now the people who'd said, no really, what WMDs and Iraq is secular, those traitors, started to have press for company. Now it's 2007, Scooter's on trial, they look just exactly like what they were, and the same noise machine has started over Iran. (just as much evidence, as well)
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but if you aren't scared and mad as hell, you aren't paying attention. And when the Democrats that want your vote pussy foot around and qualify qualifiers over this mess, you should be demanding something clear, unequivocal, and active.
Chris (Mathews) who purported to be on a nightly basis an objective analyst who would get on there and say things which we knew not to be true, as in Cheney saw this report. The Cheney we knew -Cheney didn't know Wilson, Cheney never sent Wilson, Cheney never saw the report, and the report that did exist corroborated the agency's belief that there was some effort by Saddam to procure yellowcake.
Once you start lying it gets really difficult to cover them all. She no longer "likes" Chris because the Admin pap isn't going over quite as well. You might remember that Matalin is also one of those who spread the "inaccuracy" that everyone knew Wilson's wife was CIA because he blabbed it. (oh hell, LIE) In fact is was quite a big deal. Lets stop and actually think about her job in relation to today's world conditions.
Plame was a specialist in WMDs. Her operation was counter WMDs, and it was secret and the cover company was covert and anybody associated with that company is now blown. WMDs, um, war in Iraq, N Korea, Iran, and various other not as newsworthy. The Dick and the Scooter obsessed over Wilson, they talked and schemed and finally had their retribution at the sake of the security of the United States of America, that's exactly correct, the Vice-President spent an ungodly amount of time working on payback involving screwing security when he was supposed to and claimed to be working hard on our security. Make no mistake, he was busy scaring people half to death while he was busy making them less safe and both were about political advantage, not the good of America.
At about this time the media was starting to shake off its BushCo doggy leash and ask and look, in that sheepish caught being a bad dog half-hearted manner, so they became the enemy. Now the people who'd said, no really, what WMDs and Iraq is secular, those traitors, started to have press for company. Now it's 2007, Scooter's on trial, they look just exactly like what they were, and the same noise machine has started over Iran. (just as much evidence, as well)
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but if you aren't scared and mad as hell, you aren't paying attention. And when the Democrats that want your vote pussy foot around and qualify qualifiers over this mess, you should be demanding something clear, unequivocal, and active.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Lying Is An Exercise in Alterative Thinking
If you pay any attention you will find that BushCo has odd adjectives to use in place of existing and common ones. A surge versus escalation, and now a new one, alternative thinking. To get to the root of such an adjective you have to go back aways, well, quite a ways. Pre-Iraq war the CIA wasn't producing the kind of evidence that pleased the powers that be, the CIA kept coming up short on saying Al Qaida was linked to Saddam. The Pentagon wanted that. Douglas Feith of the Office of Special Plans provided just that and Congress seems to feel it was mislead. In that vein Congress heard from the Pentagon's acting Inspector General Thomas Gimble who called Feith's report "inappropriate" though not criminal nor unauthorized.
Feith found the whole thing bizarre - not that he did it - but that he was unpopular for doing it.
His successor Eric Edelman said this was "an exercise in alternative thinking" conducted at Wolfowitz's direction. Lemme see now, a liar commissions lies and it's alternative thinking, not even inappropriate. Thank you, BushCo, language is elevated.
Feith found the whole thing bizarre - not that he did it - but that he was unpopular for doing it.
His successor Eric Edelman said this was "an exercise in alternative thinking" conducted at Wolfowitz's direction. Lemme see now, a liar commissions lies and it's alternative thinking, not even inappropriate. Thank you, BushCo, language is elevated.
Nepotism & Patronage Is BushCo
It's really nice to be validated by the real world when you've stuck something up into the cyberspace. William Bush, GeorgeII's uncle, has gotten himself mixed up in an SEC probe of backdated options in a defense contractor corporation, ESSI. The board of directors gave themselves stocks worth $6million in an unapproved stock issue.
Now defense contractor means working for the government, Reuters reports that ESSI was acquired by DRS for about $2billion last year. DRS sells engineering services to the government, ESSI sells cargo loaders, trailers, and generators to the Pentagon. Here's a real surprise, the board of directors is described as politically connected including several retired generals - maybe Bucky Bush is connected. ESSI's stock rose 900% between 1995 and 2005. Now if Bucky had been on the board for a long time, it might be coincidental, but somehow he became that asset in 2000. He served on the audit commission, oddly enough.
By the way, Cheney's son-in-law Philip Perry is the same DHS counsel who wrote up security laws for chemical firms that are non-existent enough to scare the pants off you. Any of those guys happen to be Bush/Cheney pals? Just since we're beating the Bushes we wouldn't want to leave Dick out.
Now defense contractor means working for the government, Reuters reports that ESSI was acquired by DRS for about $2billion last year. DRS sells engineering services to the government, ESSI sells cargo loaders, trailers, and generators to the Pentagon. Here's a real surprise, the board of directors is described as politically connected including several retired generals - maybe Bucky Bush is connected. ESSI's stock rose 900% between 1995 and 2005. Now if Bucky had been on the board for a long time, it might be coincidental, but somehow he became that asset in 2000. He served on the audit commission, oddly enough.
By the way, Cheney's son-in-law Philip Perry is the same DHS counsel who wrote up security laws for chemical firms that are non-existent enough to scare the pants off you. Any of those guys happen to be Bush/Cheney pals? Just since we're beating the Bushes we wouldn't want to leave Dick out.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Nepotism
Maybe it has something to do with winning Daddy's job, or maybe a nation of 300 million is seriously lacking in talent, but what are the chances the the best qualified head of the FCC would be a Supreme Court appointee's son? Or maybe the best assistant undersecretary for blah blah would be the VP's daughter? Suppose you needed a Chief Counsel for Homeland Security, I'd look no farther than Dick Cheney's daughter Liz's husband (she has one), Liz being the State Dept. hack as well.
Knowing how the outfit that runs the Executive branch acts would you be surprised to find out that Homeland Security is at or near the bottom in job satisfaction, leadership, and job performance and that the GAO Comptroller General Walker and Homeland Security Inspector General Skinner can't get documents past Cheney's son-in-law, or manage interviews without interference? What do you suppose the Fatherland...er ooops...Homeland Security bunch has to worry about, other than say, sex for visas, airport screeners stealing from passengers, air marshals smuggling drugs, and various other employee sex crimes? I certainly wouldn't want anything leaking out to Comptrollers or IGs, you know, Security and all. Maybe Philip Perry is a really nice extremely competent fellow with a poor choice of relatives - somehow I doubt it.
Here's the mind numbing part of all this, BushCo wants your rights and is competent and capable of taking care of them for your security but government is not important enough to take the time and energy to look farther than your daughter's bedroom to find expertise, or what ever other relative or party hack is at hand with their hand out. Go get out a serious history book and see what dysfunctional failing governments have in common - just to check me out:
Severe restrictions of civil liberties, particularly relating to trials
Wide disparity of income
Patronage
Nepotism
You will find these failings in a wide variety of truly sickening states, Nazism/Fascism, Communism, Theocracy, Despotism, Imperialism...
I am not calling BushCo any of these names, they've hit on something new entirely, Reaganism taken to its illogical extreme. They're not drowning government, they're selling it or stupefying it. After Caesar Augustus the Roman Empire doddered on for a long time through capable and imbecilic Emperors because the bureaucracy kept things going despite the "leadership," I don't like the looks of this...
Knowing how the outfit that runs the Executive branch acts would you be surprised to find out that Homeland Security is at or near the bottom in job satisfaction, leadership, and job performance and that the GAO Comptroller General Walker and Homeland Security Inspector General Skinner can't get documents past Cheney's son-in-law, or manage interviews without interference? What do you suppose the Fatherland...er ooops...Homeland Security bunch has to worry about, other than say, sex for visas, airport screeners stealing from passengers, air marshals smuggling drugs, and various other employee sex crimes? I certainly wouldn't want anything leaking out to Comptrollers or IGs, you know, Security and all. Maybe Philip Perry is a really nice extremely competent fellow with a poor choice of relatives - somehow I doubt it.
Here's the mind numbing part of all this, BushCo wants your rights and is competent and capable of taking care of them for your security but government is not important enough to take the time and energy to look farther than your daughter's bedroom to find expertise, or what ever other relative or party hack is at hand with their hand out. Go get out a serious history book and see what dysfunctional failing governments have in common - just to check me out:
Severe restrictions of civil liberties, particularly relating to trials
Wide disparity of income
Patronage
Nepotism
You will find these failings in a wide variety of truly sickening states, Nazism/Fascism, Communism, Theocracy, Despotism, Imperialism...
I am not calling BushCo any of these names, they've hit on something new entirely, Reaganism taken to its illogical extreme. They're not drowning government, they're selling it or stupefying it. After Caesar Augustus the Roman Empire doddered on for a long time through capable and imbecilic Emperors because the bureaucracy kept things going despite the "leadership," I don't like the looks of this...
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Bipartisan Politics Redux Senate Style
I've mentioned before that when the Democrats reach across the aisle, if they get their hands back they'd better count their fingers. On the Iraq Surge Resolution they Dems reached across to John Warner (R) VA to put together a milder version of their opposition resolution. All the Republicans (including Lieberman) except Coleman of Minnesota and Collins of Maine joined together to block that Resolution from the Floor.
I would say that the Senate Floor may not see many bills that BushCo doesn't like if the Democrats maintain anything remotely like principles. The Republicans don't have much fear of playing hardball, so the Democrats might want to know what game is being played.
I would say that the Senate Floor may not see many bills that BushCo doesn't like if the Democrats maintain anything remotely like principles. The Republicans don't have much fear of playing hardball, so the Democrats might want to know what game is being played.
Monday, February 05, 2007
The Patronage Plan
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate has this to say about patronage: 5 a: the power to make appointments to government jobs esp. for political advantage.
Through the centuries patronage has been one of the banes of governmental efficiency, people got jobs they weren't up to or ran the jobs to benefit their benefactor rather than the citizenry. It is a practice that stretches back to time immemorial though some examples are fairly recent and instructive. The Boss Tweed administration of New York stands out on the scale of corruption, though Chicago and St Louis were right in the running. The institution of Civil Service Boards and Administrations was designed to relegate patronage to the dust bin of history, though it left plenty of nooks and crannies for political rewards in Agency heads, Ambassadorships, and other appointments. One of the great achievements of civil service was that the "troops" were competent enough and merit responsible enough to keep egregious failures as chief from doing great harm. Things have changed.
The The NY Times has an article about contractors which you may find frightening in the extent and breath of US governmental contracting outsourcing. The GSA hired a contractor to process claims of ...(wait for it)... government contractor fraud and abuse. The GSA had to do the hiring because allegations of abuse outstripped its ability to process claims, that means - a lot of claims. From 2000 through 2006 the federal spending on contractors went from $207 billion to $400 billion, yes that's billion with a "B." If there are 300 million Americans, that's $1,000 per man, woman, and child in the country for contractors. Do you feel like you've gotten your money's worth?
Now Republican philosophy of government (less) and free market (for the rich folk) is supposed to accomplish a few things through certain means. Competition is supposed to reduce cost and improve service - 48% of contracts are competitive. Supervision of contracts has gone down, the number of supervisors has remained static while spending has skyrocketed. With reduced supervision getting contracts has less to do with competence and pricing and more to do with contacts and ability to game the contracting process. You cannot have competition in an arena where actions are hidden, companies are not subject to the FOIA and can bury their actions under layers and layers of subcontractors.
To understand the level of contractor spending, Lockheed Martin gets more money than the Dept of Justice or Energy while spending $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations. The top 20 service contractors since 2000 spent $300 million on lobbying and $23 million on political campaigns. Some of these businesses get 90-95% of their income from government contracting, they are no longer businesses but pseudo agencies.
I may be just a small time construction contractor from NE OR, but I can see a lot of money and a lot of opportunities for corruption. Not just in contract failures but throughout the entire system, through the agencies, their political appointees, and their elected "masters" in the White House. It bears remembering that Cheney's actions as CEO of Halliburton took it from one of the most profitable companies in its industry to one facing bankruptcy. BushCo indeed.
Through the centuries patronage has been one of the banes of governmental efficiency, people got jobs they weren't up to or ran the jobs to benefit their benefactor rather than the citizenry. It is a practice that stretches back to time immemorial though some examples are fairly recent and instructive. The Boss Tweed administration of New York stands out on the scale of corruption, though Chicago and St Louis were right in the running. The institution of Civil Service Boards and Administrations was designed to relegate patronage to the dust bin of history, though it left plenty of nooks and crannies for political rewards in Agency heads, Ambassadorships, and other appointments. One of the great achievements of civil service was that the "troops" were competent enough and merit responsible enough to keep egregious failures as chief from doing great harm. Things have changed.
The The NY Times has an article about contractors which you may find frightening in the extent and breath of US governmental contracting outsourcing. The GSA hired a contractor to process claims of ...(wait for it)... government contractor fraud and abuse. The GSA had to do the hiring because allegations of abuse outstripped its ability to process claims, that means - a lot of claims. From 2000 through 2006 the federal spending on contractors went from $207 billion to $400 billion, yes that's billion with a "B." If there are 300 million Americans, that's $1,000 per man, woman, and child in the country for contractors. Do you feel like you've gotten your money's worth?
Now Republican philosophy of government (less) and free market (for the rich folk) is supposed to accomplish a few things through certain means. Competition is supposed to reduce cost and improve service - 48% of contracts are competitive. Supervision of contracts has gone down, the number of supervisors has remained static while spending has skyrocketed. With reduced supervision getting contracts has less to do with competence and pricing and more to do with contacts and ability to game the contracting process. You cannot have competition in an arena where actions are hidden, companies are not subject to the FOIA and can bury their actions under layers and layers of subcontractors.
To understand the level of contractor spending, Lockheed Martin gets more money than the Dept of Justice or Energy while spending $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations. The top 20 service contractors since 2000 spent $300 million on lobbying and $23 million on political campaigns. Some of these businesses get 90-95% of their income from government contracting, they are no longer businesses but pseudo agencies.
I may be just a small time construction contractor from NE OR, but I can see a lot of money and a lot of opportunities for corruption. Not just in contract failures but throughout the entire system, through the agencies, their political appointees, and their elected "masters" in the White House. It bears remembering that Cheney's actions as CEO of Halliburton took it from one of the most profitable companies in its industry to one facing bankruptcy. BushCo indeed.
Ruger Vaquero .45 Colt
The Vaquero is a single action revolver utilizing a transfer bar between the hammer and firing pin, enabling safe carry with the hammer down on a loaded chamber. As with any single action cocking is accomplished by bringing the hammer to the full back position. The hammer has only two positions, cocked and hammer down. Loading and unloading is done with the hammer down, the loading gate cannot be opened with the hammer back nor the hammer drawn back with the loading gate open.
This model has fixed sights, blade front and a groove in the upper frame for the rear and a six inch barrel. The gun is strong, well balanced, and the fit and finish is excellent. The barrel and cylinder are blued, the frame is case hardened finish. Case hardened finish is not as durable as bluing so more care in cleaning is required.
Dry firing will not harm the mechanism, though when purchasing this gun I dry fired with my thumb on the hammer to avoid "snapping" it. Until I actually fired the gun I was impressed with the trigger pull. At the range firing single handed I found myself pulling to the left, the trigger pull was not overly heavy but there seemed to be a hitch in the middle of the pull. Firing with a two handed grip cured the pulling but left me dissatisfied. In later conversations with the clerk I learned that Brownell makes a spring kit for the Vaquero which eases the trigger pull and hammer draw which he indicated frequently solved this issue. At around $20 for the spring kit and a revolver that had not been back out of its box for nearly a year it seemed worth the chance.
Re-springing this revolver requires near total dis-assembly and a great deal of care not to mar the gun or lose parts that are involved with springs which can toss them quite aways. The springs involved are XR00400 mainspring and XR03700 trigger spring which can be seen in the exploded drawing. The process of dis-assembly and reassembly should not be undertaken without the manual, which is available from Ruger if you do not have one.
I was quite prepared to be disappointed and have to take a trip to a gunsmith so you can imagine my delight to find that the kit had cured all the ills. The revolver went from a gun I was disinclined to shoot at all to one of my favorites. It does not match my Uberti SAAs for point with my hands but it is a great gun to shoot. The recoil with 250gr loads is quite manageable, with 300gr P+P it is just tolerable, but at that level you are reaching 1200fps muzzle velocity with a quite heavy round. That round at a reasonable range is suitable for deer, elk, or black bear. The round is unsuitable for SAA Colts and replicas and S&Ws, Rugers and TCs only.
Because this revolver uses an old cartridge, the .45 Colt is well into its second century of use, and it is a single action it is suitable for cowboy action shooting. I only use it for general shooting and hunting but in its current configuration I would recommend it to any shooter. Although I have included an exploded drawing, right click on either and follow link, I strongly discourage re-springing without a manual.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
An Ideal Candidate
I've already noted in the article below that the current crop of Democratic Primary candidates and I don't see eye to eye on illegal immigration. That is not to say that no major player Democrats don't, Sen. Jim Webb of VA seems to have an understanding of the issue, but there's little chance this will get traction. No Democrat can expect to see eye to eye with candidates on all issues, we're much too diverse a group for such a thing to happen. There are some things we should be able to expect given the last dozen years of Republican domination.
We should have candidates with an absolute commitment to our civil liberties, it should be easy enough to see the damage that is wrought by ignoring them. The body of the Constitution sets out some pretty serious limits on government and the Bill of Rights followed by the rest of the Amendments amp up the limits. If you do not see this as a primary focus of a candidate's campaign issues - you've got a loser. An absolute disaster in the making, that candidate is a replay of BushCo. It is imperative to understand that no major player is ignorant of the thrust of GeorgeII's infringements, and that silence is approval. The Administration of the last 6 years deserves a full frontal attack on this issue.
Economic and social justice are part and parcel of the Democratic Party agenda and if these messages are missing, assume that you are listening to a corporate tool and plutocrat. You had better believe such exist within the Democratic Party, money and power are large motivators in co-opting the opposition. Social justice is virtually meaningless without economic justice in the forefront, while they travel hand in hand recognition of social conditions is useless without addressing the prime social condition which is inequity in the economy and rigged poverty. The market driven capitalists will howl at this notion, even though they know better. (excluding the ignorant yea sayers) You cannot study capitalism with an outlook to improving your position in the system without finding how to do so and thus recognizing the barriers implicit in the system. There are barriers which are inherent and there are barriers which are manufactured, obviously the manufactured barriers are most addressable. The corporate control of media and wealth financing of politics creates both ignorance and indebtedness in politicians and citizenry. A huge warning sign should be posted in your mind to find that a Democratic candidate is campaign wealthy and a media favorite. In a skewed and imbalanced economic model you will not find social justice, you will find further repression and injustice.
The Iraq war gets huge attention, what seems to be forgotten is that it is a symptom of the above issues, it is a direct outgrowth of the arrogance of power and economic advantage seeking. It is both a symptom of shrinking civil liberties and a cause of that shrinkage. Finding a candidate who is pure on this issue will be difficult. Those in a position to have effect were under different constraints than those who were not and I have yet to see public statements that were to the point on the issue from those outside a position of power. By to the point I mean specific statements that the intelligence was cherry picked, that another agenda was in play, and that the security of the US was at risk by pursuing such a course.
Any candidate for any office means that there will be compromises on positions for voters, that is the nature of the game, but it does not mean that straight talk is out, it does not mean that the principles I set out above are not clear and compelling and qualifiers for high office. There is no compromise on rights, you have them, they are not the government's to issue or deny, when the government does so it acts outside its purview and is subject to forcible correction, no Democratic candidate should hold a position which encourages such reaction. In a nation of the wealth of the US and the diversity of population there is no excuse for a lack of economic and social justice, any candidate outside that range is an outcast and pariah to our Party. Find out who these people running are, what they stand for, and use critical thinking in evaluating the compromises you inevitably must make.
We should have candidates with an absolute commitment to our civil liberties, it should be easy enough to see the damage that is wrought by ignoring them. The body of the Constitution sets out some pretty serious limits on government and the Bill of Rights followed by the rest of the Amendments amp up the limits. If you do not see this as a primary focus of a candidate's campaign issues - you've got a loser. An absolute disaster in the making, that candidate is a replay of BushCo. It is imperative to understand that no major player is ignorant of the thrust of GeorgeII's infringements, and that silence is approval. The Administration of the last 6 years deserves a full frontal attack on this issue.
Economic and social justice are part and parcel of the Democratic Party agenda and if these messages are missing, assume that you are listening to a corporate tool and plutocrat. You had better believe such exist within the Democratic Party, money and power are large motivators in co-opting the opposition. Social justice is virtually meaningless without economic justice in the forefront, while they travel hand in hand recognition of social conditions is useless without addressing the prime social condition which is inequity in the economy and rigged poverty. The market driven capitalists will howl at this notion, even though they know better. (excluding the ignorant yea sayers) You cannot study capitalism with an outlook to improving your position in the system without finding how to do so and thus recognizing the barriers implicit in the system. There are barriers which are inherent and there are barriers which are manufactured, obviously the manufactured barriers are most addressable. The corporate control of media and wealth financing of politics creates both ignorance and indebtedness in politicians and citizenry. A huge warning sign should be posted in your mind to find that a Democratic candidate is campaign wealthy and a media favorite. In a skewed and imbalanced economic model you will not find social justice, you will find further repression and injustice.
The Iraq war gets huge attention, what seems to be forgotten is that it is a symptom of the above issues, it is a direct outgrowth of the arrogance of power and economic advantage seeking. It is both a symptom of shrinking civil liberties and a cause of that shrinkage. Finding a candidate who is pure on this issue will be difficult. Those in a position to have effect were under different constraints than those who were not and I have yet to see public statements that were to the point on the issue from those outside a position of power. By to the point I mean specific statements that the intelligence was cherry picked, that another agenda was in play, and that the security of the US was at risk by pursuing such a course.
Any candidate for any office means that there will be compromises on positions for voters, that is the nature of the game, but it does not mean that straight talk is out, it does not mean that the principles I set out above are not clear and compelling and qualifiers for high office. There is no compromise on rights, you have them, they are not the government's to issue or deny, when the government does so it acts outside its purview and is subject to forcible correction, no Democratic candidate should hold a position which encourages such reaction. In a nation of the wealth of the US and the diversity of population there is no excuse for a lack of economic and social justice, any candidate outside that range is an outcast and pariah to our Party. Find out who these people running are, what they stand for, and use critical thinking in evaluating the compromises you inevitably must make.
Democratic Primary and Illegal Immigration
Apparently not a single Democratic candidate gives a damn about the wage depression caused by labor surplus in blue collar work. I say this because all of them except Hillary & Biden have web statement about providing a path to citizenship for those illegally here. Labor is a commodity and a surplus of a commodity results in downward pressure on its pricing. A lot is said about how Americans won't do jobs that are filled by illegals, and since when is construction one of those? How about since illegal labor surplus has driven wages so low? (Biden's goes no place & Hillary's is typical Hillary fluff and no more)
It's really sad as a progressive to have to chose between people who all dismiss the plight of law-abiding hard working labor. If you haven't figured it out, people who just get by also get to be sacrificed to the interests of foreign law breakers and past governmental policy.
Before you start on me about racism, I'm talking about poor people of every race who just happen to have done everything right and get to be screwed once again. Yep, laid out on the alter of political correctness and plutocratic advantage, one of the few sad moments in history when they coincide.
There's little point in railing against this, the alternative is the thugs from the Republican persuasion and on balance the Democrats are better. But while you're busy patting yourselves on the back for your niceness and realism, you might stop to consider the lives that you're smashing. Or, just deny it to yourselves, the politicos do.
With enough push back on this basis some of the more thoughtful ones would have a re-think going on, there are better ways to do it. I've pushed back, intelligently. I can guess how much company I'll have.
Just to be on the record once again, illegal employers belong in jail.
It's really sad as a progressive to have to chose between people who all dismiss the plight of law-abiding hard working labor. If you haven't figured it out, people who just get by also get to be sacrificed to the interests of foreign law breakers and past governmental policy.
Before you start on me about racism, I'm talking about poor people of every race who just happen to have done everything right and get to be screwed once again. Yep, laid out on the alter of political correctness and plutocratic advantage, one of the few sad moments in history when they coincide.
There's little point in railing against this, the alternative is the thugs from the Republican persuasion and on balance the Democrats are better. But while you're busy patting yourselves on the back for your niceness and realism, you might stop to consider the lives that you're smashing. Or, just deny it to yourselves, the politicos do.
With enough push back on this basis some of the more thoughtful ones would have a re-think going on, there are better ways to do it. I've pushed back, intelligently. I can guess how much company I'll have.
Just to be on the record once again, illegal employers belong in jail.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
A Paraochial Snot
Sure I am, and it'll do you no good to expect an apology. My family is up first with me, followed by my friends, my townsfolk, my region, my State, and my Nation and then the World. I manage to keep my humanity and see the rest when I'm looking at any one but my loyalties are pretty clear. My family has pretty simple needs so what is good for it is not harmful. Neither my town nor region have inflated ideas of success and their good tends to be good for everybody else. Sometimes I wonder about my State's ideas, sometimes they get the idea that a lot of us can just go hang, I don't much care for that. My nation has the capacity to be a huge force for good, but when it gets its head up its rear it can make quite a mess for its people and the world.
Here's the deal, I can see capabilities in people and organizations and I'm offended when they act less than, when they pick narrow favored interests, especially the elites and stomp on those who have little to resist with. I admire hard work, courage, and intelligence but none of those in their own right trumps compassion or general humanity. I absolutely loath politicians who seek office for any reason other than the good of their fellow citizens and those who attack and denigrate the citizenry for being of a different mind.
The idea of free speech, press, and religion is for us to make something out of all these differences that is larger than any one point of view. A something that composes my family, friends, townsfolk, etc. I have some very conservative religious Republican friends, I wouldn't help them get elected to high office, but I am more for having them as friends, this is where we should be, a wider world than ourselves.
Yep, I get pretty snotty when something this simple gets screwed up.
Here's the deal, I can see capabilities in people and organizations and I'm offended when they act less than, when they pick narrow favored interests, especially the elites and stomp on those who have little to resist with. I admire hard work, courage, and intelligence but none of those in their own right trumps compassion or general humanity. I absolutely loath politicians who seek office for any reason other than the good of their fellow citizens and those who attack and denigrate the citizenry for being of a different mind.
The idea of free speech, press, and religion is for us to make something out of all these differences that is larger than any one point of view. A something that composes my family, friends, townsfolk, etc. I have some very conservative religious Republican friends, I wouldn't help them get elected to high office, but I am more for having them as friends, this is where we should be, a wider world than ourselves.
Yep, I get pretty snotty when something this simple gets screwed up.
There Must've Been Some Polls
Senator Clinton has had something to say about Iraq, "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will." Oddly enough, up until the CT Primary Joe Lieberman was her bud on this topic. Yes, I do fault those who voted for this war, there were questions that could have been asked, and they didn't. Some of our elected representatives got it right, some of the press got it right, and I got it right. Now, if those people and particularly I could've gotten it right, what exactly was going on with the Yea voters?
I can think of lots of possibilities: incuriosity, blind allegiance, political expediency, poll driven response, stupidity, credulity, oh etc. Any of these sound like Presidential references? Of that bunch, at least John Edwards (out of Senate) said I'm sorry I was wrong.
As for Hillary's bold statement, to track her attitudes on Iraq just check the polls each week for the last 4 years. In case you haven't caught the idea, I wouldn't like Hillary for Oregon Dogcatcher, so NY, please keep her. I keep hoping that some of Dennis Kucinich will rub off on these hacks. That's right starting with Hillary and working your way down the polling scale, hacks. If I can't have a populist like Dennis, then at least give me a resume' like Richardson's. Don't get your Obama knickers in a wad, yes he's a hack, for all his charisma. Go back a ways and see how carefully he parses his stands.
I can think of lots of possibilities: incuriosity, blind allegiance, political expediency, poll driven response, stupidity, credulity, oh etc. Any of these sound like Presidential references? Of that bunch, at least John Edwards (out of Senate) said I'm sorry I was wrong.
As for Hillary's bold statement, to track her attitudes on Iraq just check the polls each week for the last 4 years. In case you haven't caught the idea, I wouldn't like Hillary for Oregon Dogcatcher, so NY, please keep her. I keep hoping that some of Dennis Kucinich will rub off on these hacks. That's right starting with Hillary and working your way down the polling scale, hacks. If I can't have a populist like Dennis, then at least give me a resume' like Richardson's. Don't get your Obama knickers in a wad, yes he's a hack, for all his charisma. Go back a ways and see how carefully he parses his stands.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Google Says Not
George Bush is no longer the Google equivilant of miserable failure, whatever you and I may think about it. Google defused the Googlebombs, mostly. If you use a Googlebomb search term it will now send you to an explanation link.
Since I am entries 6 & 7 for "stagecoach shotgun" and 1 & 2 for "Remington stagecoach shotgun," Remington Stagecoach Shotgun . I don't think Google numbers are exactly a value determiner. I get nearly a dozen hits a day from those terms and I don't think readers are getting what they think those numbers indicate.
I haven't done a search on George W Bush to see what comes up most often, I don't have time or interest, I think Google had it right before they fixed it. I could also think of more apt terms, but they're not suitable for mixed company.
Since I am entries 6 & 7 for "stagecoach shotgun" and 1 & 2 for "Remington stagecoach shotgun," Remington Stagecoach Shotgun . I don't think Google numbers are exactly a value determiner. I get nearly a dozen hits a day from those terms and I don't think readers are getting what they think those numbers indicate.
I haven't done a search on George W Bush to see what comes up most often, I don't have time or interest, I think Google had it right before they fixed it. I could also think of more apt terms, but they're not suitable for mixed company.
Well That Fixes That
Back at the start of the school year at Kearny High School in New Jersey American History teacher David Paszkiewicz told students that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark and that only Christians had a place in heaven. A student, Matthew LaClaire who was 16 secretly recorded the instructor because he didn't think his complaints would be believed otherwise. That was September, it went public in November, so the school board got around to dealing with it in mid-January. No more taping without permission.
Apparently some students complained that their voices had been broadcast without their permission. Oh, teachers will have to take a course on Constitutional separation of state and church. Since Paszkiewicz latest comments that global warming is akin to Hitler's approach of tell enough lies enough times weren't religious no action was taken.
So, problem solved.
Apparently some students complained that their voices had been broadcast without their permission. Oh, teachers will have to take a course on Constitutional separation of state and church. Since Paszkiewicz latest comments that global warming is akin to Hitler's approach of tell enough lies enough times weren't religious no action was taken.
So, problem solved.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Growling and Snarling
The United States of America. For over two centuries if you were else where and said you were from there, people were jealous. And they were admiring. Even geopolitical foes couldn't get past that. Today?
This is not to say that we have not meddled in other countries' affairs, ask a lot of South America about it. This is not to say that we didn't keep slaves for nearly a century or that we didn't abuse American Indians or crush labor. We did all of that and some more. Excluding slavery, most of it was the international norm and we were actually somewhat better behaved in our misbehavior.
Acknowledging that stuff doesn't change the regard we were held in. The world saw many things to aspire to in the US, starting with a successful revolution. Here we do not see just how extraordinary that is, in the other ones they slaughtered each other and usually wound up with a tyranny as bad as what they overthrew - or worse. We took the best of English Common Law and fixed it up into one of the best models of governance ever seen. New to the face of governing was the concept of inherent rights, rights that predate government and that government is precluded from interfering in. Even in our seesaw economic model of capitalism for most of two centuries good thinking, hard work, and risk would move you up the economic scale. Our press was a rowdy lot, they quarreled with the governing, poked and rooted and were generally rude to the elites or fawned on their favorites while others kicked them. When we came to the aid of our friends and allies, that's what we did, aided them. We did not seek to set up a hegemony, we did not create colonies.
Today there is envy, third worlders want some work and to evade our laws all the while being just what they were. Most of the world sees a bully. Most of the world sees legal hypocrisy. Most of the world sees torture. Most of the world sees a government run for the elite, for the benefit of wealth and power. Most of the world sees a nation hocking itself for cheap junk and skill and work are for monkeys. Most of the world sees wealth disparity matched only in some totalitarianisms and health care that could be mocked by the third world. Yes, we're seen as the powerhouse of the world when it comes to weaponry and soldiers, but we can't seem to make anything else. Once our vehicles were symbols of power and quality and affordability, today we fall all over ourselves to buy foreigner's cars, built on a market of government tolerance of dumping and market subsidy. We negotiate "free trade treaties" that amount to US subsidy of child labor, slave labor, environmental destruction, and totalitarianism - sending our skilled labor into the toilet while we bring in serfs. The world sees us behaving in this manner. They see us more interested in stupid TV competitions than our own governance.
What do we say? What do we do? What do we tolerate from those we elect? What do we tolerate from those who use OUR airwaves? A giant in the world is reduced to this? Stop to think, that's only one paragraph, not a catalogue of what we've let happen to us. If you're not growling and snarling, what are you doing?
This is not to say that we have not meddled in other countries' affairs, ask a lot of South America about it. This is not to say that we didn't keep slaves for nearly a century or that we didn't abuse American Indians or crush labor. We did all of that and some more. Excluding slavery, most of it was the international norm and we were actually somewhat better behaved in our misbehavior.
Acknowledging that stuff doesn't change the regard we were held in. The world saw many things to aspire to in the US, starting with a successful revolution. Here we do not see just how extraordinary that is, in the other ones they slaughtered each other and usually wound up with a tyranny as bad as what they overthrew - or worse. We took the best of English Common Law and fixed it up into one of the best models of governance ever seen. New to the face of governing was the concept of inherent rights, rights that predate government and that government is precluded from interfering in. Even in our seesaw economic model of capitalism for most of two centuries good thinking, hard work, and risk would move you up the economic scale. Our press was a rowdy lot, they quarreled with the governing, poked and rooted and were generally rude to the elites or fawned on their favorites while others kicked them. When we came to the aid of our friends and allies, that's what we did, aided them. We did not seek to set up a hegemony, we did not create colonies.
Today there is envy, third worlders want some work and to evade our laws all the while being just what they were. Most of the world sees a bully. Most of the world sees legal hypocrisy. Most of the world sees torture. Most of the world sees a government run for the elite, for the benefit of wealth and power. Most of the world sees a nation hocking itself for cheap junk and skill and work are for monkeys. Most of the world sees wealth disparity matched only in some totalitarianisms and health care that could be mocked by the third world. Yes, we're seen as the powerhouse of the world when it comes to weaponry and soldiers, but we can't seem to make anything else. Once our vehicles were symbols of power and quality and affordability, today we fall all over ourselves to buy foreigner's cars, built on a market of government tolerance of dumping and market subsidy. We negotiate "free trade treaties" that amount to US subsidy of child labor, slave labor, environmental destruction, and totalitarianism - sending our skilled labor into the toilet while we bring in serfs. The world sees us behaving in this manner. They see us more interested in stupid TV competitions than our own governance.
What do we say? What do we do? What do we tolerate from those we elect? What do we tolerate from those who use OUR airwaves? A giant in the world is reduced to this? Stop to think, that's only one paragraph, not a catalogue of what we've let happen to us. If you're not growling and snarling, what are you doing?
Political Pussies
So the hardy souls over at the US Senate are going to approve a minimum wage bill with *gasp* tax breaks. Small business tax breaks, BushCo tax breaks and the Democrats think it's a good thing because it will pass. Did anybody bother to see who it is that BushCo calls small business? Not a damn chance, it sounds sooooo nice. Most of BushCo's beneficiaries are rich people running S-Corp tax dodges that have not squat to do with Mom & Pop businesses. Do you really think that 41 Republicans give a fat rat's ass about Mom & Pop? In this life time?
There is such a thing as compromise and there is such a thing as rolling over, giving tax breaks to those who've benefited from the Republican agenda of screw the worker is ROLLING OVER. If you can't pass it clean, make sure everybody knows why. Then run it again. And again. Take a stick and poke it in their eye very publicly and do it over and over. Why pass a "gee George, we don't think we quite like a surge thingy," Resolution? Bring forward a Resolution that says exactly what you're getting paid to say and when the Republicans pull a filibuster, stick it in their eye. You can either show the American Public that you GET IT or you can be pussies.
Americans want us out of Iraq, they don't seem to want to do it any more. Write THAT Bill and when it gets stopped kick the snot out of the stoppers. You've got over 1/2 of Americans that want THAT and you've got 2/3 of Americans that are at least real unhappy, what kind of a mandate do you want? Listen you pussies, you're a 250 pound 6 foot 4 incher in a street fight with a one legged half-wit and you need more on your side? Do you think you need a cannon to swat gnats? You take your play to the public and they'll back you - they're your weight and reach in this fight and what? The press will ignore it? They'll eat it up. Fox will yowl and what could be better than for them to come out swinging for the rich and the hawks? You couldn't ask for better political capital and freeeeeee advertising, namby pamby ninnies.
How about putting a capital D in democratic, or are you happy being the democrat party? You happy letting them define you into a corner again? I know, you're too important to pay any attention to a nail bender from NE OR, that's your loss.
There is such a thing as compromise and there is such a thing as rolling over, giving tax breaks to those who've benefited from the Republican agenda of screw the worker is ROLLING OVER. If you can't pass it clean, make sure everybody knows why. Then run it again. And again. Take a stick and poke it in their eye very publicly and do it over and over. Why pass a "gee George, we don't think we quite like a surge thingy," Resolution? Bring forward a Resolution that says exactly what you're getting paid to say and when the Republicans pull a filibuster, stick it in their eye. You can either show the American Public that you GET IT or you can be pussies.
Americans want us out of Iraq, they don't seem to want to do it any more. Write THAT Bill and when it gets stopped kick the snot out of the stoppers. You've got over 1/2 of Americans that want THAT and you've got 2/3 of Americans that are at least real unhappy, what kind of a mandate do you want? Listen you pussies, you're a 250 pound 6 foot 4 incher in a street fight with a one legged half-wit and you need more on your side? Do you think you need a cannon to swat gnats? You take your play to the public and they'll back you - they're your weight and reach in this fight and what? The press will ignore it? They'll eat it up. Fox will yowl and what could be better than for them to come out swinging for the rich and the hawks? You couldn't ask for better political capital and freeeeeee advertising, namby pamby ninnies.
How about putting a capital D in democratic, or are you happy being the democrat party? You happy letting them define you into a corner again? I know, you're too important to pay any attention to a nail bender from NE OR, that's your loss.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
You Proabably Know This,
since you're here you must be some form of political junkie, but I'm going to remind you or rather, I'm going to let Larry Beinhart over at HuffPo do it. Regarding Habeas Corpus:
"Under Habeas Corpus, you have the right to say, I want to be brought into the court to determine if I am the right person charged, if there's an actual law prohibiting what I'm charged with, if the people who are holding me have the jurisdiction to do so, and I want that publicly known and I want the right to dispute all of that and the right to be tried too."
I was going to write my own version, but his is too succinct to mess with. Alberto Gonzalez actually told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Constitution didn't explicitly "grant" a right to Habeas Corpus only a prohibition against taking it away. I cannot think of a reasoning process that states something does not exist and still has its removal prohibited. Mr Beinhart reasons that the government is trying to set a precedent for ignoring Habeas Corpus so they can just "disappear" people (Padilla ?) or to set up a defense that AG A. Gonzales put forth the opinion and they just acted out of good faith.
I don't think it's that deep, they want to, so it's OK to do it. No, I don't believe the President is surrounded by simpletons, but having an intellect does not mean it is put to good use. Gonzalez is a lawyer, that particular job involves the making of arguments and rebutting the other side. This does not always involve reason or truth, but it does demand at least the appearance of such. The statement made to the Committee does not even make that attempt. What carpenter is going to buy it when I tell him that I'm not allowed to take away the nails he doesn't have? It is on its face stupidity, the kind of stupidity that is uttered by a man with no place to go from where he's stuck.
These people are going to do stupid things because they're stuck. They have no place to go from where they're stuck at. (Jail would be one, but I don't think they're striving for it) The question that we need to fear is just how stupidly they will act. A large percentage of this nation are stressed: a war they don't like, an economy that's not working for them, being an illness away from catastrophe, and a President that doesn't hear them. This really shrinks the wiggle room for BushCo and some more awareness of the closing grip of government intrusion and corporate favoritism may turn it into a vise, that's when stupid can really get going. Watching very carefully is not paranoia.
"Under Habeas Corpus, you have the right to say, I want to be brought into the court to determine if I am the right person charged, if there's an actual law prohibiting what I'm charged with, if the people who are holding me have the jurisdiction to do so, and I want that publicly known and I want the right to dispute all of that and the right to be tried too."
I was going to write my own version, but his is too succinct to mess with. Alberto Gonzalez actually told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Constitution didn't explicitly "grant" a right to Habeas Corpus only a prohibition against taking it away. I cannot think of a reasoning process that states something does not exist and still has its removal prohibited. Mr Beinhart reasons that the government is trying to set a precedent for ignoring Habeas Corpus so they can just "disappear" people (Padilla ?) or to set up a defense that AG A. Gonzales put forth the opinion and they just acted out of good faith.
I don't think it's that deep, they want to, so it's OK to do it. No, I don't believe the President is surrounded by simpletons, but having an intellect does not mean it is put to good use. Gonzalez is a lawyer, that particular job involves the making of arguments and rebutting the other side. This does not always involve reason or truth, but it does demand at least the appearance of such. The statement made to the Committee does not even make that attempt. What carpenter is going to buy it when I tell him that I'm not allowed to take away the nails he doesn't have? It is on its face stupidity, the kind of stupidity that is uttered by a man with no place to go from where he's stuck.
These people are going to do stupid things because they're stuck. They have no place to go from where they're stuck at. (Jail would be one, but I don't think they're striving for it) The question that we need to fear is just how stupidly they will act. A large percentage of this nation are stressed: a war they don't like, an economy that's not working for them, being an illness away from catastrophe, and a President that doesn't hear them. This really shrinks the wiggle room for BushCo and some more awareness of the closing grip of government intrusion and corporate favoritism may turn it into a vise, that's when stupid can really get going. Watching very carefully is not paranoia.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
DPO Elections
Jim Edmunson has decided it's time for someone else to be Chair of DPO, he's had a long run, and can point to great achievements. This Party was in drastic shape when he started out, today Democrats hold control of both Houses, the Governorship, and most other high offices. The DPO is financially secure, urban and rural interests are considered, and infighting is minimal. I have no idea how the man managed to tolerate herding cats for as long as he did, but he's done the job admirably and deserves thanks.
I have no public stand on the race for Chair, the candidates are declaring and I've had no chance to consult with my County on the issue of Chair or male Vice-Chair. I have consulted with the County on Female Vice-Chair, Jill Thorn has my unqualified support. I've worked with Jill on Platform and Resolutions Committee, possibly one of the most controversy engendering Committees, and her management and concensus building skills made it a pleasure and success. She will be an invaluable asset in that position.
We are fortunate in the quality of the candidates, it is hard to see how we can less than well served, whomever wins. It is important to remember what a challenge it is to be the public face of the Party and still manage this bunch without losing your sense of humor, much less your mind.
I have no public stand on the race for Chair, the candidates are declaring and I've had no chance to consult with my County on the issue of Chair or male Vice-Chair. I have consulted with the County on Female Vice-Chair, Jill Thorn has my unqualified support. I've worked with Jill on Platform and Resolutions Committee, possibly one of the most controversy engendering Committees, and her management and concensus building skills made it a pleasure and success. She will be an invaluable asset in that position.
We are fortunate in the quality of the candidates, it is hard to see how we can less than well served, whomever wins. It is important to remember what a challenge it is to be the public face of the Party and still manage this bunch without losing your sense of humor, much less your mind.
Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell and ...
I don't have the quote at hand but The Dick (Vice Decider) said that we shouldn't measure past performance when evaluating present allegations regarding Iran's threat to...oh...The World.
No, Dick, we shouldn't measure you against past performance, like a couple days ago telling us about our great achievements in Iraq. We absolutely should pay no attention to the Scooter Trial and your evident obsession with smearing someone who uncovered your BS regarding Iraq nukes - you know, smoking gun nuke cloud over NY and all?
Hey Dick, in my business - of considerable less import than running the US - one lie will finish you. Maybe that's because this is a small town, word gets around and maybe it's because this is the "Heartland" you pukes are all the time going on about. You know, your word's your bond sorta place? You keep bringing up Your God, at your age with a bad ticker don't you lose some sleep about being such a liar and having to stand before Him? Nah, you don't see it, you don't get it, so you just keep on, and keep on being surprised that the public detests you. Oh, and about that bridge you want to sell, fall off it.
No, Dick, we shouldn't measure you against past performance, like a couple days ago telling us about our great achievements in Iraq. We absolutely should pay no attention to the Scooter Trial and your evident obsession with smearing someone who uncovered your BS regarding Iraq nukes - you know, smoking gun nuke cloud over NY and all?
Hey Dick, in my business - of considerable less import than running the US - one lie will finish you. Maybe that's because this is a small town, word gets around and maybe it's because this is the "Heartland" you pukes are all the time going on about. You know, your word's your bond sorta place? You keep bringing up Your God, at your age with a bad ticker don't you lose some sleep about being such a liar and having to stand before Him? Nah, you don't see it, you don't get it, so you just keep on, and keep on being surprised that the public detests you. Oh, and about that bridge you want to sell, fall off it.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Minimum Sense
The House lived up to its promise and passed a nice clean minimum wage bill, raise the minimum wage, period. The Senate put one together, same idea. Well, not gonna happen that way, no siree, not in our Senate. This is the responsible outfit, the six year guys, they know better than to go off half-cocked, you gotta look it over real careful like and make some changes.
Now just exactly who has suffered from the minimum wage being stagnant for over a decade? Who is it that has benefitted from the minimum wage being stagnant for over a decade? There is a case for saying there is membership in these classes. This ought to be a part of the consideration given this matter by the Senate. Workers suffered and business gained. So the Republicans in the Senate will make sure this doesn't move forward unless business gains. Even in labor intensive agriculture, labor is the smallest single component in the cost picture. Labor costs do not become significant until you get to high cost labor which is a completely different scenario than minimum wage labor.
The Republicans want a tax credit for small business. This is laughable on two issues, the government is going broke from tax breaks and the outfits they call small business are anything but the mom and pop concerns they want you folks to think of when they say it. Tell your Senators no. Tell your Representatives no. They'll send this back to the House to reconcile the two bills, the House needs to send the clean one back, that's it, period. If the Republicans want to play stupid games, there is less than year until the Senate election games start up, they can damn well be made responsible for their crap.
Now just exactly who has suffered from the minimum wage being stagnant for over a decade? Who is it that has benefitted from the minimum wage being stagnant for over a decade? There is a case for saying there is membership in these classes. This ought to be a part of the consideration given this matter by the Senate. Workers suffered and business gained. So the Republicans in the Senate will make sure this doesn't move forward unless business gains. Even in labor intensive agriculture, labor is the smallest single component in the cost picture. Labor costs do not become significant until you get to high cost labor which is a completely different scenario than minimum wage labor.
The Republicans want a tax credit for small business. This is laughable on two issues, the government is going broke from tax breaks and the outfits they call small business are anything but the mom and pop concerns they want you folks to think of when they say it. Tell your Senators no. Tell your Representatives no. They'll send this back to the House to reconcile the two bills, the House needs to send the clean one back, that's it, period. If the Republicans want to play stupid games, there is less than year until the Senate election games start up, they can damn well be made responsible for their crap.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
You Could Make This Up
If you were to try to write a novel about it, you'd have to look no farther than Kafka's The Trial. The NYT tells about two cases, one in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals with the ACLU challenging wiretaps outside FISA and the other in Portland, OR a civil case before Federal District Judge Garr King asking for damages for the charity al Haramain Islamic Foundation for wiretapping.
Justice Dept has asked that the Cincinnati case be ruled moot since the Dept is now 'operating' under FISA (oh sure, but we don't get to know how), that hasn't been ruled on yet. The odd part, is how the Justice Dept is operating, they are filing their court papers, in their own building, filing with themselves. The court isn't very happy.
The Oregon case is weirder still. The FBI accidentally sent the charity's lawyers a copy of the wiretap authorization, copies of that then went to several people in the US and some in foreign countries. The case resulted from that document. The FBI demanded the copies back and got them from the US but made no attempt to get back those out of country. The government even "scrubbed" the computer of a lawyer. Somehow a copy was filed with the court by plaintiffs, the FBI went to the judge and demanded it back, he refused, they insisted, it's filed in a Bureau safe room. The plaintiffs are not allowed to use the document in court. In fact, the government took the position that their memories belonged to the government. The Judge finally ruled that the document was out, memories in. One of the government's lawyers refused to disclose to the judge whether he had a certain security clearance saying that was classified, the judge invoked Alice in Wonderland. When Judge King wanted to know who the document was secret from considering how it had gotten around, Justice said, "form anybody who hasn't seen it." I kid you not.
In BushCo-land life is a strange thing, things the Constitution says the government can't take away get taken away because the Constitution didn't say specifically you have them, secrecy is the order of the day unless it's your own privacy that's bothered, no words mean what dictionaries say they mean, only what the Decider says they mean, and the Cheshire Cat is a terrorist. I'd just about bet that if you had an internet pal in Saudi Arabia you could get a copy of this super secret document, the one the lawyers can't look at, but you could never sell a novel based on it, everyone would say the premise is stupid. Life in these United States...
Justice Dept has asked that the Cincinnati case be ruled moot since the Dept is now 'operating' under FISA (oh sure, but we don't get to know how), that hasn't been ruled on yet. The odd part, is how the Justice Dept is operating, they are filing their court papers, in their own building, filing with themselves. The court isn't very happy.
The Oregon case is weirder still. The FBI accidentally sent the charity's lawyers a copy of the wiretap authorization, copies of that then went to several people in the US and some in foreign countries. The case resulted from that document. The FBI demanded the copies back and got them from the US but made no attempt to get back those out of country. The government even "scrubbed" the computer of a lawyer. Somehow a copy was filed with the court by plaintiffs, the FBI went to the judge and demanded it back, he refused, they insisted, it's filed in a Bureau safe room. The plaintiffs are not allowed to use the document in court. In fact, the government took the position that their memories belonged to the government. The Judge finally ruled that the document was out, memories in. One of the government's lawyers refused to disclose to the judge whether he had a certain security clearance saying that was classified, the judge invoked Alice in Wonderland. When Judge King wanted to know who the document was secret from considering how it had gotten around, Justice said, "form anybody who hasn't seen it." I kid you not.
In BushCo-land life is a strange thing, things the Constitution says the government can't take away get taken away because the Constitution didn't say specifically you have them, secrecy is the order of the day unless it's your own privacy that's bothered, no words mean what dictionaries say they mean, only what the Decider says they mean, and the Cheshire Cat is a terrorist. I'd just about bet that if you had an internet pal in Saudi Arabia you could get a copy of this super secret document, the one the lawyers can't look at, but you could never sell a novel based on it, everyone would say the premise is stupid. Life in these United States...
Did You Pass 4th Grade ?
I'm not cherry picking the intelligence (or lack), this was in the Baker City Herald Ed Page. "The Way Forward In Iraq" by James Phillips of The Heritage Foundation. I won't even screw with the quotes to make it seem dumb, I (compared to some important Deciders) will play it straight. He opens thus:
"Critics of the war in Iraq call it a diversion from the broader war against terrorism. But as President Bush emphasized in his 'SOTU' address, this view is 180 degrees off. *** A defeat there would allow al-Queda and other hostile forces to establish a dangerous base in the heart of the Arab world." There are a whole bunch of other words re-stating this premise.
There are essentially 2 forces of nasties in Iraq, al-Queda and assorted Sunni murderers and Shiite militia murderers, the Kurds just want to get on with life and business. Let's deal with nasty Shiites, they want to kill Sunnis and for Americans to get out, otherwise they don't much care about America. The Shiites are the majority ethnic group. The Sunnis used to be the big dogs, now they're not, so they don't like Americans. Then there is al-Queda and its associates, they are Sunni, they hate America and want to hurt us, they are some Iraqis and a lot of foreigners.
Now, do some simple math, the Kurds want to get on with life, they don't want to play the terrorist game and pretty much like America. The Shiites don't like Sunnis who are the minority and especially don't like al-Queda - et al who are a minority of Sunnis. So guess what? al-Queda is not going to win in Iraq no matter what. The Shiites are going to kill them, the Kurds might help with that, depending on how much they screw with their agenda. Iranian Hammas only gains in oppressed Shia communities, that is not going to be Iraq. Iran may be theologically Shia, but Iran is also Persian and you have to be as stupid as BushCo to confuse Persians and Arabs, Iraq is Arab.
BushCo just cannot seem to get the idea that Arabs have long memories. They're still hot about the Crusades, well now since GeorgeII doesn't like to read maybe he's never heard that Persia has been an Empire more than once and was rude to Arabs every time. Last time around was the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs didn't much like that, either. Religion doesn't trump everything with that bunch, Jews should be evidence enough that they're racist bastards to the core, Persians ain't Arabs, Jews are closer to being Arabs.
So if you managed to get out of 4th grade (public school) you can add and subtract and you get - no al-Queda in Iraq if it's left to its own devices. You also don't get Hammas (who have never threatened the US).. You also don't get to own the oil. Neat, ain't it.
This guy Phillips has a bunch of titles and probably gets paid pretty well to write stuff this easy to debunk. But it's not about reaching those who think, it's about repeating the BushCo dogma for the true-believers.
Just so it's clear, the Herald is pretty darn balanced on its Op Ed page.
"Critics of the war in Iraq call it a diversion from the broader war against terrorism. But as President Bush emphasized in his 'SOTU' address, this view is 180 degrees off. *** A defeat there would allow al-Queda and other hostile forces to establish a dangerous base in the heart of the Arab world." There are a whole bunch of other words re-stating this premise.
There are essentially 2 forces of nasties in Iraq, al-Queda and assorted Sunni murderers and Shiite militia murderers, the Kurds just want to get on with life and business. Let's deal with nasty Shiites, they want to kill Sunnis and for Americans to get out, otherwise they don't much care about America. The Shiites are the majority ethnic group. The Sunnis used to be the big dogs, now they're not, so they don't like Americans. Then there is al-Queda and its associates, they are Sunni, they hate America and want to hurt us, they are some Iraqis and a lot of foreigners.
Now, do some simple math, the Kurds want to get on with life, they don't want to play the terrorist game and pretty much like America. The Shiites don't like Sunnis who are the minority and especially don't like al-Queda - et al who are a minority of Sunnis. So guess what? al-Queda is not going to win in Iraq no matter what. The Shiites are going to kill them, the Kurds might help with that, depending on how much they screw with their agenda. Iranian Hammas only gains in oppressed Shia communities, that is not going to be Iraq. Iran may be theologically Shia, but Iran is also Persian and you have to be as stupid as BushCo to confuse Persians and Arabs, Iraq is Arab.
BushCo just cannot seem to get the idea that Arabs have long memories. They're still hot about the Crusades, well now since GeorgeII doesn't like to read maybe he's never heard that Persia has been an Empire more than once and was rude to Arabs every time. Last time around was the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs didn't much like that, either. Religion doesn't trump everything with that bunch, Jews should be evidence enough that they're racist bastards to the core, Persians ain't Arabs, Jews are closer to being Arabs.
So if you managed to get out of 4th grade (public school) you can add and subtract and you get - no al-Queda in Iraq if it's left to its own devices. You also don't get Hammas (who have never threatened the US).. You also don't get to own the oil. Neat, ain't it.
This guy Phillips has a bunch of titles and probably gets paid pretty well to write stuff this easy to debunk. But it's not about reaching those who think, it's about repeating the BushCo dogma for the true-believers.
Just so it's clear, the Herald is pretty darn balanced on its Op Ed page.
Have Some Fun Tonight
I've been sick with the flu and then horridly busy and still sick trying to catch work up, so no posts. I fell a little better and wanted some fun.
Libby trial.
How's this for fun. - Libby Trial. Ahahahahahaha!
When there are too many rats, they practice cannibalism - rodent rats that is. Makes you think.
Libby trial.
How's this for fun. - Libby Trial. Ahahahahahaha!
When there are too many rats, they practice cannibalism - rodent rats that is. Makes you think.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
And I Give A Rat's Patoot?
I sit at a keyboard and have my little say, it's opinion, sometimes it's the relation of facts, but nobody asks me to write for WaPo. I'm not real confused about why, my really big political achievements amount to getting a gun rights related resolution passed by DPO and a not real well received run for the OR 02 CD Dem Primary. Now that's not related particularly to my intelligence or political acumen, it's just not a real impressive resume for a national audience.
So why is that the WaPo is carrying Liz Cheny's little screed "Retreat Isn't an Option?" Maybe it's the part where you're impressed by who her father is. Hey, my daddy's an important guy, I got a job with the State Dept, you know I got it because I'm really qualified. I suppose the next thing is we get to hear how Barney feels about Iraq... We now know Liz can parrot Dick. You can find her Bio and see if it contains anything that nepotism didn't confer on her...
Can you think of a good reason to give a rat's patoot what her opinion is? Jeeze, I hope Hillary pays attention to it, I don't like her, either.
So why is that the WaPo is carrying Liz Cheny's little screed "Retreat Isn't an Option?" Maybe it's the part where you're impressed by who her father is. Hey, my daddy's an important guy, I got a job with the State Dept, you know I got it because I'm really qualified. I suppose the next thing is we get to hear how Barney feels about Iraq... We now know Liz can parrot Dick. You can find her Bio and see if it contains anything that nepotism didn't confer on her...
Can you think of a good reason to give a rat's patoot what her opinion is? Jeeze, I hope Hillary pays attention to it, I don't like her, either.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Non-SOTU
I got home from work after the thing had started and I tried to watch it. No, really I did try. It didn't work, he didn't pay any attention when I yelled at him and those people kept clapping while I fumed. I kept thinking, 'I've spent perfectly good money for a big screen, HD, and good sound for this??' until finally I lost my mind and went out in the 20F weather and brushed Gus the Pyrennes. He needed it and there was long white hair flying everywhere - I needed it too.
So if you're looking for succinct commentary on George W Bush's State of the Union 2007 speech here it is:
He pissed me off.
there's a surprise
So if you're looking for succinct commentary on George W Bush's State of the Union 2007 speech here it is:
He pissed me off.
there's a surprise
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Jan 18, 2006 Sen. Judiciary Committee
GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
Is there something I can add?
SPECTER: When did you last read the case?
GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.
SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.
GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —
SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?
GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —
Is there something I can add?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)