Saturday, December 29, 2007
Pakistan and America
The most disturbing thing about the US involvement in Pakistan is the failure to clamp down on al Qaeda within Pakistani borders. I understand that good relations with Musharraf have been important for US supply lines in Afghanistan, but we seem to have lost sight of who attacked us on September 11 - al Qaeda. It was not illegal immigrants, not muslims, not weak liberals, not anyone but al Qaeda. I think the US (led by the 'Bushies') is attacking them with all available means, but those means simply are not strong enough to get the job done. THAT is highly disturbing to this American.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
My favorite political quote of the year
"I have a wide stance when going to the bathroom." - Larry Craig explaining the cross-stall contact that brought his own party down on his head.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Rove lays out strategy for Repub win in '08
He laid it all out in an interview with Charlie Rose, and it is so false that I think the American people will surely buy it.
The Democrats who were in Congress in 2002 are responsible for all the problems in Iraq today because their vote authorizing the use of force pushed Bush to war before he was ready. They were gung ho, and Bush wanted to take his time and let diplomacy have a chance to address the issues we had with Saddaam.
I'm not joking. This isn't The Onion.
The Democrats who were in Congress in 2002 are responsible for all the problems in Iraq today because their vote authorizing the use of force pushed Bush to war before he was ready. They were gung ho, and Bush wanted to take his time and let diplomacy have a chance to address the issues we had with Saddaam.
I'm not joking. This isn't The Onion.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
checked out some of the Dem debate
I still prefer Biden or Edwards to the rest of the field. I think Hillary or Obama would get trounced in the general election. Neither one of the them is ready for a big-time, full out campaign against the evil empire (Republicans).
Chris Dodd said some very heartfelt sounding stuff about the mudslinging against Hillary. He said words to the effect that the American people aren't interested in this negative stuff and that they really want to hear differences on policy. I think he is completely wrong. Americans are bored shitless by policy debate. They need the mudslinging to make it interesting for their small minds.
Edwards' take on the Hillary bashing is astute. He noted that this is very gentle stuff compared to the storm of lies and nastiness that ANY Democrat faces when they run against the Republican Party for the presidency.
Chris Dodd said some very heartfelt sounding stuff about the mudslinging against Hillary. He said words to the effect that the American people aren't interested in this negative stuff and that they really want to hear differences on policy. I think he is completely wrong. Americans are bored shitless by policy debate. They need the mudslinging to make it interesting for their small minds.
Edwards' take on the Hillary bashing is astute. He noted that this is very gentle stuff compared to the storm of lies and nastiness that ANY Democrat faces when they run against the Republican Party for the presidency.
Monday, November 12, 2007
What do liberals, conservatives and moderates put into their brains?
http://www.learcenter.org/html/projects/?cm=zogby
This is interesting stuff. The poll was run for the purpose of aiding the advertising campaigns interpret the results in a political way. I'm one of those interpreters. I take this as further proof that people who swing to the political left are more open-minded than those on the right. This is natural, because liberalism = open-minded.
This is interesting stuff. The poll was run for the purpose of aiding the advertising campaigns interpret the results in a political way. I'm one of those interpreters. I take this as further proof that people who swing to the political left are more open-minded than those on the right. This is natural, because liberalism = open-minded.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
Obama slings mud at Hillary
From Newsweek.
"Q. How would you describe her response on the question of her First Lady papers?
A. Her response was certainly inadequate. When she suggested somehow she didn't have control over whether or not these papers were being released—what we're talking about here is her husband's presidential library. And when she is making a suggestion that part of the experience that she brings to this office is her experience as First Lady, people have a right to ask some tough questions. She can release these papers.
Q. So is she being honest?
A. I think she was being disingenuous.
Q. What's the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?
A. You'll have to ask her.
Q. Is she entitled to any credit for her years as First Lady as she argues her case to be president?
A. On those areas where there is a record of her having done work, she certainly deserves credit for it. What she can't do is have it both ways. She can't embrace every success of Bill Clinton's presidency and distance herself from every failure of Bill Clinton's presidency."
This is just not cool. I'm liking Obama less. Slinging poop at Hillary for this Presidential paper thing is stupid and wrong. Mostly because this just in not important, but also because the accusation is cheap and should be beneath any Democratic candidate for the nomination.
"Q. How would you describe her response on the question of her First Lady papers?
A. Her response was certainly inadequate. When she suggested somehow she didn't have control over whether or not these papers were being released—what we're talking about here is her husband's presidential library. And when she is making a suggestion that part of the experience that she brings to this office is her experience as First Lady, people have a right to ask some tough questions. She can release these papers.
Q. So is she being honest?
A. I think she was being disingenuous.
Q. What's the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?
A. You'll have to ask her.
Q. Is she entitled to any credit for her years as First Lady as she argues her case to be president?
A. On those areas where there is a record of her having done work, she certainly deserves credit for it. What she can't do is have it both ways. She can't embrace every success of Bill Clinton's presidency and distance herself from every failure of Bill Clinton's presidency."
This is just not cool. I'm liking Obama less. Slinging poop at Hillary for this Presidential paper thing is stupid and wrong. Mostly because this just in not important, but also because the accusation is cheap and should be beneath any Democratic candidate for the nomination.
Friday, November 02, 2007
W at The Heritage Foundation
Our President made another horrifyingly evil partisan speech this week. There's so much material in this turd, that I barely know where to begin. But I'll try:
"Together with a great President named Ronald Reagan, you championed a policy of rolling back communism oppression and bringing freedom to nations enslaved by communist tyranny. And by taking the side of dissidents, who [sic] helped millions across the world throw off the shackles of communism, you helped build the free and peaceful societies that are the true sources of stability and peace in the world.
And now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding -- this time regarding my policy in the Middle East. Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be "stability." And once again they're wrong. In Kabul, in Baghdad, in Beirut, and other cities across the broader Middle East, brave men and women are risking their lives every day for the same freedoms we enjoy. And like the citizens of Prague and Warsaw and Budapest in the century gone by, they are looking to the United States to stand up for them, speak out for them, and champion their cause. And we are doing just that. (Applause.) "
Here we have the wise analysis of the head of our government that we have elected twice to run the most powerful nation in the world. I can see where this message would be attractive the the fundamentalist audience at Heritage, which is pretty much the opposite of my world view. The problem is that the analysis is completely wrong. Radical Islam is NOTHING LIKE COMMUNISM!!!!! Nothing at all. Not even close.
Please vote these knuckleheads out of office. This just is not good for any of us.
"Together with a great President named Ronald Reagan, you championed a policy of rolling back communism oppression and bringing freedom to nations enslaved by communist tyranny. And by taking the side of dissidents, who [sic] helped millions across the world throw off the shackles of communism, you helped build the free and peaceful societies that are the true sources of stability and peace in the world.
And now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding -- this time regarding my policy in the Middle East. Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be "stability." And once again they're wrong. In Kabul, in Baghdad, in Beirut, and other cities across the broader Middle East, brave men and women are risking their lives every day for the same freedoms we enjoy. And like the citizens of Prague and Warsaw and Budapest in the century gone by, they are looking to the United States to stand up for them, speak out for them, and champion their cause. And we are doing just that. (Applause.) "
Here we have the wise analysis of the head of our government that we have elected twice to run the most powerful nation in the world. I can see where this message would be attractive the the fundamentalist audience at Heritage, which is pretty much the opposite of my world view. The problem is that the analysis is completely wrong. Radical Islam is NOTHING LIKE COMMUNISM!!!!! Nothing at all. Not even close.
Please vote these knuckleheads out of office. This just is not good for any of us.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Hillary vs the world
I didn't watch it, but I was just reading about last night's Dem debate. Now seems to be the time for all the hopefuls to take shots at Hillary. Again the idea of the lying, disingeuous, slick, double-talking Clinton is the message of her opponents on the left and the right.
I don't think she's a liar. I don't think she's a flip-flopper (a concept so stupid, I'm not even sure what it means). I don't think she is her husband.
I think she's doing much what John Kerry did in 04 when the questions about solutions in Iraq came up. She's taking a wise, moderate approach to complicated issues. The next President cannot possibly know what the final solution to many of these things will be. Political reality is that they will have to cut a deal with Congress, their own cabinet and staff AND things can change. Keeping some opitions in the future requires a candidate to be a bit vague on how a policy should look.
At the moment, I'm leaning toward Edwards but I could be comfortable with any of the Dem candidates as President.
Anyone who is elected President eventually will be accused of lying during the campaign. This is not because they are a liar, it is because things change and policies can't turn out to be exactly what was discussed on the campaign trail. The more specific the campaign proposals, the more likely that the end product will differ from the proposal.
I don't think she's a liar. I don't think she's a flip-flopper (a concept so stupid, I'm not even sure what it means). I don't think she is her husband.
I think she's doing much what John Kerry did in 04 when the questions about solutions in Iraq came up. She's taking a wise, moderate approach to complicated issues. The next President cannot possibly know what the final solution to many of these things will be. Political reality is that they will have to cut a deal with Congress, their own cabinet and staff AND things can change. Keeping some opitions in the future requires a candidate to be a bit vague on how a policy should look.
At the moment, I'm leaning toward Edwards but I could be comfortable with any of the Dem candidates as President.
Anyone who is elected President eventually will be accused of lying during the campaign. This is not because they are a liar, it is because things change and policies can't turn out to be exactly what was discussed on the campaign trail. The more specific the campaign proposals, the more likely that the end product will differ from the proposal.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Galbraith was right, and still is
John Kenneth Galbraith's "The New Industrial State" was published in 1967. He described the very high level political economics of the highly developed industrial world of the time. He coined the word Technostructure to show the convergence of industrial bureacaracies in both the communist and democratic worlds. He observed that technocrats were the people who were really controlling societies and governments. Technocrats being the corporate politicians who had mastered the organizations who control the production of goods.This is a highly evolved socialist worldview that conservatives hate.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Partisan in Chief
This week Congress passed a bill to authorize spending on health care subsidies for children. Bush vetoed the bill. He then blamed Congress for not passing any bills. His poll numbers immediately went up. See the logic?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Fred Deux
Ok, so maybe I was wrong about Fred Thompson. From all reports, his campaign is falling pretty flat. Republicans are really not like me. Independent and "Swing" voters mystify me. They're from a different planet than I am. That's a good thing because I'm cooler than they are.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Obama's experience
Some fun Democratic infighting last week. Bill Clinton acted the role of a Vice-Presidential candidate and took some shots at Obama's lack of experience. Robert Reich acted the role of an Obama spinner in defending him. I agree with Clinton that Obama's experience is a bit lacking compared to Hillary and Edwards, but I don't agree with his specific knocks. Obama has no experience at all in a national campaign. Regardless of how you spin it, that's not good in my eyes. I want the Dem candidate (whomever that may be) to thrash the Repub candidate (whomever that may be).
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Quote quiz
Who said the following of which President this week?
""the best Republican president we've had in a while."
Give up?
Alan Greenspan said it of Bill Clinton.
Yep, Greenspan loves Bill Clinton. He especially loves Clinton's conservative economic policies. Wide open borders for trade, and fiscal responsibility were Clinton hallmarks and he pulled them off better than any Republican President since Eisenhower.
Personally, I think those policies were perfect for the time Clinton was in office. Maybe not so much today. That either makes me practical or a hypocrite depending on your perspective.
""the best Republican president we've had in a while."
Give up?
Alan Greenspan said it of Bill Clinton.
Yep, Greenspan loves Bill Clinton. He especially loves Clinton's conservative economic policies. Wide open borders for trade, and fiscal responsibility were Clinton hallmarks and he pulled them off better than any Republican President since Eisenhower.
Personally, I think those policies were perfect for the time Clinton was in office. Maybe not so much today. That either makes me practical or a hypocrite depending on your perspective.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
September 12 - self-righteous ignorant assholes
Post September 11 America is a pretty lousy place to be. Yeah, we waved our flags for a few days, cried together a bit, watched the same stuff on TV, and partied at the Concert for NYC some. But all those feelings of community were very short-lived. Our true nature of ignorance, blaming each other and generally lousy human nature bubbled to the surface with great force.
Shortly after September 11, 2001 an internet asshole (who knew a bit about me personally) decided I was somewhat to blame for the attacks because I voted for Ted Kennedy. In his ignorant mind, he figured that since the planes departed from Logan Airport and Kennedy is a Massachusetts liberal, and all liberals (especially Ted) are 'soft on security and crime' then Kennedy and his supporters (like me) must be partly responsible for the deaths of the thousands in New York. I am not kidding. This asshole really did believe his argument. That moment was a revelation for me. I realized that as shocking as it was to find out how much some non-Americans hate us, we also hate each other. Mix a little self-righteousness together with the hate, and acts of cruelty are the likely result.
Last year ABC Television aired a mini-series on the 5th anniversary of the attacks. The gist of the 2 day commemorative event was to make the argument that the attacks were the fault of the Clinton Administration, and that the Bush Administration behaved with great heroism. I made a sarcastic joke about this movie on a chatboard, saying that we should always remember and never lose sight of the fact that 9-11 was Clinton's fault. Another internet asshole (also armed with some personal knowledge of me) took offense and wished me dead. He followed up his death wish with further expressions of his anger, taking swipes at me on several personal levels. Again, proving how self-righteous anger often makes Americans inflict cruelty on each other. This particular ignorant asshole was so angry and nasty toward me that I couldn't really understand why he was angry. His expressions sounded like a very young child having a tantrum. I can only guess that he thought I was making an offensive joke about him, and that it was somehow personal. If he was one of the dumbasses who really did hold Clinton primarily repsonsible (I can't know for sure), then I guess he had a good reason to be very angry at me. I was making fun of that ignorant line of reasoning, and expressing my disgust with my fellow Americans. He may have thought I was being cruel to him, but I'll probably never know that for sure.
The first major terrorist act in America (post cold war) happened in Oklahoma City. Americans killed Americans for the shear joy of expressing their hatred of each other. Joy to the world. Not.
Some lyrics from one of my favorite post-September 11 songs:
"I wil lay me down
in a bunker underground
I won't let this happen to my children
meet the real world coming out of your shell
With white elephants
sitting ducks
I will rise up
Little babies' eyes, eyes, eyes, eyes"
Shortly after September 11, 2001 an internet asshole (who knew a bit about me personally) decided I was somewhat to blame for the attacks because I voted for Ted Kennedy. In his ignorant mind, he figured that since the planes departed from Logan Airport and Kennedy is a Massachusetts liberal, and all liberals (especially Ted) are 'soft on security and crime' then Kennedy and his supporters (like me) must be partly responsible for the deaths of the thousands in New York. I am not kidding. This asshole really did believe his argument. That moment was a revelation for me. I realized that as shocking as it was to find out how much some non-Americans hate us, we also hate each other. Mix a little self-righteousness together with the hate, and acts of cruelty are the likely result.
Last year ABC Television aired a mini-series on the 5th anniversary of the attacks. The gist of the 2 day commemorative event was to make the argument that the attacks were the fault of the Clinton Administration, and that the Bush Administration behaved with great heroism. I made a sarcastic joke about this movie on a chatboard, saying that we should always remember and never lose sight of the fact that 9-11 was Clinton's fault. Another internet asshole (also armed with some personal knowledge of me) took offense and wished me dead. He followed up his death wish with further expressions of his anger, taking swipes at me on several personal levels. Again, proving how self-righteous anger often makes Americans inflict cruelty on each other. This particular ignorant asshole was so angry and nasty toward me that I couldn't really understand why he was angry. His expressions sounded like a very young child having a tantrum. I can only guess that he thought I was making an offensive joke about him, and that it was somehow personal. If he was one of the dumbasses who really did hold Clinton primarily repsonsible (I can't know for sure), then I guess he had a good reason to be very angry at me. I was making fun of that ignorant line of reasoning, and expressing my disgust with my fellow Americans. He may have thought I was being cruel to him, but I'll probably never know that for sure.
The first major terrorist act in America (post cold war) happened in Oklahoma City. Americans killed Americans for the shear joy of expressing their hatred of each other. Joy to the world. Not.
Some lyrics from one of my favorite post-September 11 songs:
"I wil lay me down
in a bunker underground
I won't let this happen to my children
meet the real world coming out of your shell
With white elephants
sitting ducks
I will rise up
Little babies' eyes, eyes, eyes, eyes"
Monday, September 10, 2007
Patriot Day - September 11
How to mark tomorrow????
The events are still fresh, the tradition of marking it are not yet set. What will become the traditions of this day? I don't want to fly my flag, that doesn't feel right. I'm sure someone will find that offensive. I'm not even comfortable with the notion that several thousand civillians dying without any warning could be 'patriots'. To me, a patriot is someone who exhibits some form of nationalism. I don't see how it relates to that day.
Patriot's Day is a Massachusetts and Maine holiday. It happens in April to mark the first battles of our war for independence against the British Empire. Today it is primarily marked by the running of The Boston Marathon, a Red Sox game and some guys marching around dressed up in costumes to elicit images of the partisan revolutionary radicals who fought for American independence.
Veterans Day is offically for honoring current members of the military. It was put into place by Woodrow Wilson on Armistice Day (the end of WWI). Today it is just another optional day off of work for most Americans.
Memorial Day's current offical purpose is honoring our war dead. It was originally put into place to honor those who died defending the Union during the US Civil War, and expanded to honor all military deaths after WWI. Currently, pop culture knows it as the first day of the summer season and the running of the Indianapolis 500. Many Americans also mark the day by honoring loved ones who have died irregardless of whether they served in the military.
What will become of September 11 in US culture? I've no idea, but the way these rememberances have morphed in the past might give some idea of how much the collective memory can change. Personally, I kind of wish it would just go away. It feels a bit to me like our national Good Friday. The day we got our ass whupped. Not very patriotic, I suppose.
The events are still fresh, the tradition of marking it are not yet set. What will become the traditions of this day? I don't want to fly my flag, that doesn't feel right. I'm sure someone will find that offensive. I'm not even comfortable with the notion that several thousand civillians dying without any warning could be 'patriots'. To me, a patriot is someone who exhibits some form of nationalism. I don't see how it relates to that day.
Patriot's Day is a Massachusetts and Maine holiday. It happens in April to mark the first battles of our war for independence against the British Empire. Today it is primarily marked by the running of The Boston Marathon, a Red Sox game and some guys marching around dressed up in costumes to elicit images of the partisan revolutionary radicals who fought for American independence.
Veterans Day is offically for honoring current members of the military. It was put into place by Woodrow Wilson on Armistice Day (the end of WWI). Today it is just another optional day off of work for most Americans.
Memorial Day's current offical purpose is honoring our war dead. It was originally put into place to honor those who died defending the Union during the US Civil War, and expanded to honor all military deaths after WWI. Currently, pop culture knows it as the first day of the summer season and the running of the Indianapolis 500. Many Americans also mark the day by honoring loved ones who have died irregardless of whether they served in the military.
What will become of September 11 in US culture? I've no idea, but the way these rememberances have morphed in the past might give some idea of how much the collective memory can change. Personally, I kind of wish it would just go away. It feels a bit to me like our national Good Friday. The day we got our ass whupped. Not very patriotic, I suppose.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Fred Thompson
This guy seems to have the stuff that many unthinking voters love: Deep voice, acting ability, tall, macho image, proven ability to lie and shovel manure, drives a pickup truck for the cameras... Therefore I think he has a real good chance to be the next President. He's Reaganesque, which is the gold standard for Republicans an many 'independent' voters. Of course, it isn't clear at all what policies he would want to pursue but no matter. He has what Americans have proven they want in a President - an image.
Friday, August 31, 2007
I am NOT gay
I've tried to find something horribly wrong with Senator Craig's toilet encounter. I think Republicans are evil people who should not have the keys to my country, so I'm a partisan who wants to 'dirty and good man's reputation' in this case. However, I don't understand what he did wrong. Shoe-to-shoe contact under the stall partition with a disputed reach-under doesn't seem so bad to me. From what I can tell, the cop was in the wrong and the Senator was in the right.
The entertaining angle on this is (aside from the mental images of these two guys in stalls) is the way the Republicans are denouncing his actions in the nastiest possible terms. Without the slightest hint of specificity on why, they want this guy gone. Not now, but yesterday. I hope it is further evidence of the Republican Party falling apart.
Now, for anyone who might have the misfortune of sitting next to me in a public toilet I have the following soundbites ready for anything you might find 'disgusting':
- It is not supposed to smell good, it is shit.
- I don't find anything about this situation to be sexually stimulating. Poop is nasty. There's no wood in this stall.
- If you feel I've crossed over into your space, I'm sorry. That is the last thing I want to do. I would prefer to do this in my own home or in an empty space of my own. I'm doing my best to avoid any social interaction at this time.
The entertaining angle on this is (aside from the mental images of these two guys in stalls) is the way the Republicans are denouncing his actions in the nastiest possible terms. Without the slightest hint of specificity on why, they want this guy gone. Not now, but yesterday. I hope it is further evidence of the Republican Party falling apart.
Now, for anyone who might have the misfortune of sitting next to me in a public toilet I have the following soundbites ready for anything you might find 'disgusting':
- It is not supposed to smell good, it is shit.
- I don't find anything about this situation to be sexually stimulating. Poop is nasty. There's no wood in this stall.
- If you feel I've crossed over into your space, I'm sorry. That is the last thing I want to do. I would prefer to do this in my own home or in an empty space of my own. I'm doing my best to avoid any social interaction at this time.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
My favorite Presidental canditates
The most recent poll I've seen puts the Democratic contenders in order. My current preference number is to the left (natch), % in poll to right.
2-Hillary Clinton 36
4-Barack Obama 21
8-Al Gore 15
Unsure 10
3-John Edwards 9
6-Bill Richardson 3
1-Joe Biden 2
7-Dennis Kucinich 1
5-Chris Dodd -
9-Mike Gravel -
Other 1
2-Hillary Clinton 36
4-Barack Obama 21
8-Al Gore 15
Unsure 10
3-John Edwards 9
6-Bill Richardson 3
1-Joe Biden 2
7-Dennis Kucinich 1
5-Chris Dodd -
9-Mike Gravel -
Other 1
Turd Blossom
Regarding Karl Rove's observations about GW Bush critcs: "What they don't like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America." No. That's wrong. "They" dislike many things about him, none of which has anything to do with loathing his common sense or middleness (whatever the hell that means). I dislike him because he has done harm to my country. I loathe him because of things he has done, not because of the image he projects. I don't give a damn about his image.
And good ol' middle American Karl has something right about me. I am elitist. I think smarts, education, wisdom, intellectualism and open-mindedness are good things. I believe all humans are elitist in some way.
And good ol' middle American Karl has something right about me. I am elitist. I think smarts, education, wisdom, intellectualism and open-mindedness are good things. I believe all humans are elitist in some way.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Dem hopefuls II
I dig the fact that Clinton and Obama are sparring over an issue of substance, how to engage unfriendlies in diplopamatically (cool word I fat-fingered there). I'm digging Clinton and Edwards more lately. Obama just does not seem ready for the big time to me. Richardson's proposal to completely pull out of Iraq before the end of this year is just unrealistic.
I hope I'm not alone in my perception that all the Republican candidates seem like boobs. I realize most 'swing' voters don't pay attention to anything until the general campaign (and the Republican slimeball advertising kicks in), so there's plenty of time for the filthy party machinery to tar any Dem who receives the nomination. Dammit, I'm getting pessimistic again.
I hope I'm not alone in my perception that all the Republican candidates seem like boobs. I realize most 'swing' voters don't pay attention to anything until the general campaign (and the Republican slimeball advertising kicks in), so there's plenty of time for the filthy party machinery to tar any Dem who receives the nomination. Dammit, I'm getting pessimistic again.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Dem hopefuls
I'm not one to handicap the horses, but I do like to check them out and see which one I prefer to win. I'm not sure about this race at the moment. They've barely made it out of the gate, but at the moment...
Obama seems just too damned young and inexperienced for my taste. He's got some very good stances on matters of policy, and great stage presence but I think he's not ready for the big leagues yet given that there are so many other candidates with much more federal and executive experience.
I'm digging Hillary more as time goes on. I very much like the confrontation she's having with the Pentagon at the moment. In 2000, when her name was first tossed about as a potential Pres candidate, I didn't think she had the skills and experience to do a great job as President. But, I think she's learned a great deal during her time in the Senate and her skills in negotiating have improved greatly.
John Edwards is still cool by me. Always was, still is.
Joe Biden has the best solution on Iraq in his pocket. That also makes him cool by me.
Bill Richardson has some GREAT credentials as far as experience goes.
All in all, this group would make a great cabinet regardless of which one of the is the nominee.
Obama seems just too damned young and inexperienced for my taste. He's got some very good stances on matters of policy, and great stage presence but I think he's not ready for the big leagues yet given that there are so many other candidates with much more federal and executive experience.
I'm digging Hillary more as time goes on. I very much like the confrontation she's having with the Pentagon at the moment. In 2000, when her name was first tossed about as a potential Pres candidate, I didn't think she had the skills and experience to do a great job as President. But, I think she's learned a great deal during her time in the Senate and her skills in negotiating have improved greatly.
John Edwards is still cool by me. Always was, still is.
Joe Biden has the best solution on Iraq in his pocket. That also makes him cool by me.
Bill Richardson has some GREAT credentials as far as experience goes.
All in all, this group would make a great cabinet regardless of which one of the is the nominee.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Response to an ass
Thoughts on Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe column today.
"There are only a finite number of broadcast frequencies, the statists say. If the government didn't own and license them, the result would be chaos....Well, the supply of land is finite, too . Yet no one argues that real estate should be nationalized and licensed by the feds."
That's because land is not public airwaves. They are different. And I suppose 'statists' are supposed to be the bad people who believe in government action. Isn't a statist like an 'airist'? People who believe air should act? Duh uh uh uhhh uh uhhhh.
"These are the same Democrats, of course, who refuse to debate on the Fox News Channel because they object to its political agenda. So be it. But what does it say about their priorities that they gladly court Logo's niche viewers, yet snub the far larger mainstream audience that watches Fox?"
It says that they are open-minded and that the Dem party swings to the left. Logo Network swings to the left, Fox to the right. Duh...dumbass.
"Bilingual ballots, mandated by federal law in 1992, are incompatible with the American tradition of E Pluribus Unum."
Not really. Inclusion is also form of "shared identity". I say yahoo, yippee and whoopee to increasing participation in voting. That's what democracy is all about. Exclusion is what anti-statists like you are about.
"In Britain last November, a national survey measuring the trustworthiness of 19 professions found that journalists ranked dead last. Even politicians managed to edge them out....The more the press proclaims itself accurate and unbiased, the less the public seems to agree."
This survey a direct result of parcipation of Rupert Murdoch, the right wing extremist behind Fox and the tabloid crap that is so prevalent in Britain. The "press" doesn't "proclaim itself" anything. There is no spokesperson or centralized entity speaking on its behalf. Again, Jacoby is cute but wrong.
"There are only a finite number of broadcast frequencies, the statists say. If the government didn't own and license them, the result would be chaos....Well, the supply of land is finite, too . Yet no one argues that real estate should be nationalized and licensed by the feds."
That's because land is not public airwaves. They are different. And I suppose 'statists' are supposed to be the bad people who believe in government action. Isn't a statist like an 'airist'? People who believe air should act? Duh uh uh uhhh uh uhhhh.
"These are the same Democrats, of course, who refuse to debate on the Fox News Channel because they object to its political agenda. So be it. But what does it say about their priorities that they gladly court Logo's niche viewers, yet snub the far larger mainstream audience that watches Fox?"
It says that they are open-minded and that the Dem party swings to the left. Logo Network swings to the left, Fox to the right. Duh...dumbass.
"Bilingual ballots, mandated by federal law in 1992, are incompatible with the American tradition of E Pluribus Unum."
Not really. Inclusion is also form of "shared identity". I say yahoo, yippee and whoopee to increasing participation in voting. That's what democracy is all about. Exclusion is what anti-statists like you are about.
"In Britain last November, a national survey measuring the trustworthiness of 19 professions found that journalists ranked dead last. Even politicians managed to edge them out....The more the press proclaims itself accurate and unbiased, the less the public seems to agree."
This survey a direct result of parcipation of Rupert Murdoch, the right wing extremist behind Fox and the tabloid crap that is so prevalent in Britain. The "press" doesn't "proclaim itself" anything. There is no spokesperson or centralized entity speaking on its behalf. Again, Jacoby is cute but wrong.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Scooter commutation vs. Clinton pardons
Republican apologists (like W spokeshole Tony Snow) are wrong in comparing Clinton's pardons to Bush's Scooter commutation. Al Gore stated the differences best on The Today Show as quoted in the NY Times:
***
“I thought it was improper,” Mr. Gore said of the decision. “He was charged with knowledge that could incriminate his bosses in the White House, which included the vice president and the president. I thought it was very disappointing.”
Mr. Gore said the Libby pardon differed from the Clinton administration’s pardons “because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involve knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did.”
***
In other words, pardoning someone for political payback (as Clinton did) is different than commuting or pardoning someone who could point a finger of criminal or political blame at the President or VP (as W did). I do see the difference and I think Gore is right about it, but I think both actions were politically wise, but morally wrong.
Naturally, the Republican sin is worse here. Republicans are less moral than Democrats.
***
“I thought it was improper,” Mr. Gore said of the decision. “He was charged with knowledge that could incriminate his bosses in the White House, which included the vice president and the president. I thought it was very disappointing.”
Mr. Gore said the Libby pardon differed from the Clinton administration’s pardons “because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involve knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did.”
***
In other words, pardoning someone for political payback (as Clinton did) is different than commuting or pardoning someone who could point a finger of criminal or political blame at the President or VP (as W did). I do see the difference and I think Gore is right about it, but I think both actions were politically wise, but morally wrong.
Naturally, the Republican sin is worse here. Republicans are less moral than Democrats.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
America the Beautiful
...but seriously. This is Cheez-it brand cracker's homage to the original American big cheeses, or something like that. Coming to a city near you this summer, a 600-pound cheese replica of Mount Rushmore. My parents took us to see Mt. Rushmore when I was a kid. We must have spent a week in that god-awful station wagon to see it. I've been putting some effort into learning more about America's founding fathers. It's gratifying to learn that they were humans subject to much the same weakenesses as more modern politicians.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Politics of Globalism
I've just finished a thoughtful book on Globalism by Joseph Stiglitz. I love this type of progressive, economic/political stuff. It is a brain massage that tickles me in the places my brain likes.
The world is getting smaller. Democrats are progressive, which means they wish to make the world (as it is progressing) work for the many. Republicans are conservative and reactionary, meaning they wish to make the world (as it is progressing) work for the few in their constituency. Progressives want to see stronger international governance (UN, World Bank, World Trade Organization, etc.). Conservatives (of the US variety) wish to see weaker international governance, so that industialized and militarized powers can have free reign to extend their power.
This is an interesting juxtaposition to the political philosophies of America's founding fathers. The early USofA was a federation of independent states and political schools of thought were divided along the lines of those who wanted stronger national governance vs those who wished it to be weaker. What's interesting to me is that *politically* the Democrat-Republican school of thought (against centralisation) defeated the Federalist (pro-centralisation) school. But that effectively, history trumped the political struggle and put a strong central government into place by necessity as the states became more and more interdependent.
I hope the same thing happens in today's emerging global political economy. In the US, the Conservative (anti global governance) forces are winning the policitcal struggle for power. That's a drag, but hopefully the march of history will sweep these short-run gains away in a progression toward global governance.
The world is getting smaller. Democrats are progressive, which means they wish to make the world (as it is progressing) work for the many. Republicans are conservative and reactionary, meaning they wish to make the world (as it is progressing) work for the few in their constituency. Progressives want to see stronger international governance (UN, World Bank, World Trade Organization, etc.). Conservatives (of the US variety) wish to see weaker international governance, so that industialized and militarized powers can have free reign to extend their power.
This is an interesting juxtaposition to the political philosophies of America's founding fathers. The early USofA was a federation of independent states and political schools of thought were divided along the lines of those who wanted stronger national governance vs those who wished it to be weaker. What's interesting to me is that *politically* the Democrat-Republican school of thought (against centralisation) defeated the Federalist (pro-centralisation) school. But that effectively, history trumped the political struggle and put a strong central government into place by necessity as the states became more and more interdependent.
I hope the same thing happens in today's emerging global political economy. In the US, the Conservative (anti global governance) forces are winning the policitcal struggle for power. That's a drag, but hopefully the march of history will sweep these short-run gains away in a progression toward global governance.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Protection of Marriage in Massachusetts
From The Boston Globe: "In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," Governor Deval Patrick told a cheering crowd of gay-marriage advocates after the results of the Constitutional Convention were announced. "Today's vote is not just a vote for marriage equality. It was a vote for equality itself."
With Therese Murray (of the great District of fomrerly puritan Plymouth) at the gavel.
Bravo! The good guys won one! Gay people will continue to have the right to marry each other through at least 2012. Freedom, liberty and fairness have won again. Hopefully, other states will be just a morally correct as Massachusetts in the near future. Hooray for "activist judges" and the wise legistlators of this great state!
With Therese Murray (of the great District of fomrerly puritan Plymouth) at the gavel.
Bravo! The good guys won one! Gay people will continue to have the right to marry each other through at least 2012. Freedom, liberty and fairness have won again. Hopefully, other states will be just a morally correct as Massachusetts in the near future. Hooray for "activist judges" and the wise legistlators of this great state!
Friday, June 08, 2007
Dems looking to fix Alternative Minimum Tax problems
re: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702146_pf.html
Democratic legislators are trying to do something sensible - eliminate the huge tax increase placed on some middle class taxpayers and make up the revenue loss by a small tax increase on the very rich. The Republican spin machine has not gotten into gear to squash this in the news media yet, but it will. To no one's surprise, the right spinning catchphrase will be something along the lines of "Democrats want to raise taxes/there they go again" or some such poop.
Unfortunately, the Dems don't have such a spin machine and don't have enough power in the legislature to get past the 'obstructionist' 'partisan' 'political theatre' that the Repubs will employ. The bill will die.
Democratic legislators are trying to do something sensible - eliminate the huge tax increase placed on some middle class taxpayers and make up the revenue loss by a small tax increase on the very rich. The Republican spin machine has not gotten into gear to squash this in the news media yet, but it will. To no one's surprise, the right spinning catchphrase will be something along the lines of "Democrats want to raise taxes/there they go again" or some such poop.
Unfortunately, the Dems don't have such a spin machine and don't have enough power in the legislature to get past the 'obstructionist' 'partisan' 'political theatre' that the Repubs will employ. The bill will die.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Conservative media bias and Mitt
From the last Republican Presidential Debate:
Wolf: "Knowing what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq?"
Romney: "If Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction...we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in."
Wolf rephrased.
Romney - "You can go back and say, if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the U.N. resolutions, we wouldn't be having this -- this discussion."
Um...Mitt...Saddam Hussein DID LET THE INSPECTORS IN!!!! Were you too busy lying to the people of Massachusetts then to pay attention to the run up to war!?!?!?!?!?
Grrrr...Mitt Romney is a clueless liar with good hair and a pretty smile. The media gave him a pass on this one. Not one word about it after the debate.
Wolf: "Knowing what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq?"
Romney: "If Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction...we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in."
Wolf rephrased.
Romney - "You can go back and say, if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the U.N. resolutions, we wouldn't be having this -- this discussion."
Um...Mitt...Saddam Hussein DID LET THE INSPECTORS IN!!!! Were you too busy lying to the people of Massachusetts then to pay attention to the run up to war!?!?!?!?!?
Grrrr...Mitt Romney is a clueless liar with good hair and a pretty smile. The media gave him a pass on this one. Not one word about it after the debate.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Politicians are People
A theory on swing voters: A large portion of them choose their candidate based soley on the attractiveness of the image they project. These voters care little or nothing for issues of policy. They want a candidate that looks good to them on TV and in print, and that they expect will continue to look good when they hold office. Two quotes from this type of voter sticks in my mind: 1) "I vote for the man not the party" 2) "Anyone who always votes for the same party is an idiot".
I don't vote for "the man" and I always vote Democratic in general elections. I'm sure that "issues of character" have some role in my own decision-making during primary season, but I make every intellectual effort to remember that I'm not voting for my favorite celebrity. I try to remember that an elected offical is someone who makes decisions about how my country is run, before they are a name and face in the news for me to feel good or bad about.
Voting for a politician based on their profile in People Magazine is an ugly reality of participatory democracy in a media saturated culture. If we let the unwashed ignorant masses have a say, this kind of unfortunate stupidity is unavoidable.
I don't vote for "the man" and I always vote Democratic in general elections. I'm sure that "issues of character" have some role in my own decision-making during primary season, but I make every intellectual effort to remember that I'm not voting for my favorite celebrity. I try to remember that an elected offical is someone who makes decisions about how my country is run, before they are a name and face in the news for me to feel good or bad about.
Voting for a politician based on their profile in People Magazine is an ugly reality of participatory democracy in a media saturated culture. If we let the unwashed ignorant masses have a say, this kind of unfortunate stupidity is unavoidable.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Morality and taxes
One of the strongest held arguments of the libertarian mindset is the notion that taxes are theft, and therefore immoral. The argument goes that since the state really shouldn't exist, tax payments are coerced, and wages are the product of the hard work of the individual...or something like that. The argument is so black-and-white that it is non-sensical to me. It seems proof positive that conservative philosophy really is based in justifying selfishness.
So, here's my take. It doesn't matter if the state (government) should exist because it does exist.
Wages and wealth are not JUST the product of the work of the individual. In large part they are, but the state plays a part in any wages or return on investments. The governemnt (and the society it regulates and supports) also contributes to the ability of the individual to earn cash. Because of this, government is entitled to receive a portion of the earnings it helped produce. Coercing the individual to pay a portion of their income to support the state is not theft. It is natural that the group (society) expects some contribution by all. It is also natural that some individuals will make attempts to avoid contributing to the whole. Avoidance of carrying out this responsility by illegal means or philosophical argument is the immoral position.
So, here's my take. It doesn't matter if the state (government) should exist because it does exist.
Wages and wealth are not JUST the product of the work of the individual. In large part they are, but the state plays a part in any wages or return on investments. The governemnt (and the society it regulates and supports) also contributes to the ability of the individual to earn cash. Because of this, government is entitled to receive a portion of the earnings it helped produce. Coercing the individual to pay a portion of their income to support the state is not theft. It is natural that the group (society) expects some contribution by all. It is also natural that some individuals will make attempts to avoid contributing to the whole. Avoidance of carrying out this responsility by illegal means or philosophical argument is the immoral position.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Thanks to Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan...
...for having a large hand in making me the hardcore liberal Democrat I am today. They are two giants in the rise of the evil Republican right in the modern USofA. (Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove are also very important figures.) As a young man coming to understand the political world around me, I reacted to their evil. So, cheers to you two rotten apples and to the hope that the political winds are finally turning a bit away from the immoral, bigoted, hateful political ideas and talking points that are still with us today.
“The enemies of America give us probably what we deserve. When we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, ‘you helped this happen.’” The Reverend Jerry Falwell, September 13 2001.
“The enemies of America give us probably what we deserve. When we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way—all of them who have tried to secularize America—I point the finger in their face and say, ‘you helped this happen.’” The Reverend Jerry Falwell, September 13 2001.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
How does the W Admin bail from Iraq and still be righteous?
I think the writing is on the wall.
Yesterday, I read that several "moderate" Republican legislators finally said something straightforward and honest in the White House on the subject of Iraq. Of course, they were doing it to save their political asses but that's how democracy is supposed to work. I also saw that evil Dick Cheney was in Iraq having 'frank' discussions with the civillian Iraqi leadership about the progress that the US (as represented by evil Dick) expects them to make.
It is clear to me that the way out of Iraq for the W Admin is to blame the elected Iraqi leadership for all the ill that is going on there. This will provide the spinning political cover that Republicans need to bail out and claim the high ground. They will effectively have their cake and eat eat too, riding this wave of bullshit back to legislative and executive electoral victory in 2008. The American people will buy it.
PS. Today I see W is opening the door a bit to accept some 'benchmarks'. This is a great device to assign blame on the Iraqi leadership in the near future. Watch Rove spin this into a victory for the Republicans.
Yesterday, I read that several "moderate" Republican legislators finally said something straightforward and honest in the White House on the subject of Iraq. Of course, they were doing it to save their political asses but that's how democracy is supposed to work. I also saw that evil Dick Cheney was in Iraq having 'frank' discussions with the civillian Iraqi leadership about the progress that the US (as represented by evil Dick) expects them to make.
It is clear to me that the way out of Iraq for the W Admin is to blame the elected Iraqi leadership for all the ill that is going on there. This will provide the spinning political cover that Republicans need to bail out and claim the high ground. They will effectively have their cake and eat eat too, riding this wave of bullshit back to legislative and executive electoral victory in 2008. The American people will buy it.
PS. Today I see W is opening the door a bit to accept some 'benchmarks'. This is a great device to assign blame on the Iraqi leadership in the near future. Watch Rove spin this into a victory for the Republicans.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
A diary...uh....uh type entry
Burito. I shoud not have eaten the whole thing. Ooof. Thank God the weather is nice ,so I can sleep with the windows open. God is good.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Roger Clemens
It will be fun to watch OLD Roger try it again. My prediction is that his performance for the balance of the season will not be worth the mountain of money he is costing the evil Yankees.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Virginia Tech killings
No more legal handguns in any US State would be a good start.
(MS)NBC is the worst offender at the moment, but the media should not give this nut's views and photos the air and print time that the nut wanted. Self-censorship would be in order here. No government involvement necessary, just some thought and sense. Publicizing his 'manifesto' is inviting other whack jobs to do the same thing to get their own little piece of fame.
(MS)NBC is the worst offender at the moment, but the media should not give this nut's views and photos the air and print time that the nut wanted. Self-censorship would be in order here. No government involvement necessary, just some thought and sense. Publicizing his 'manifesto' is inviting other whack jobs to do the same thing to get their own little piece of fame.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Imus' mouth
Dear America,
How 'bout that Iraq war? Let's not discuss that. Let's talk about "the race card", "a national dialogue on race", "polcitical correctness", "the media".....this is your opium.
What the hell do you think on the issue of the Presidency vs the Legislature as relates to military action in Iraq? That's what I really want to know. I don't care how you feel about an entertainer's tasteless joke.
How 'bout that Iraq war? Let's not discuss that. Let's talk about "the race card", "a national dialogue on race", "polcitical correctness", "the media".....this is your opium.
What the hell do you think on the issue of the Presidency vs the Legislature as relates to military action in Iraq? That's what I really want to know. I don't care how you feel about an entertainer's tasteless joke.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Evil
Yesterday President Bush reiterated his stance on staying the course in Iraq. Among other things he said of some of the combatants and their tactics: “People who do that are not — it’s not a civil war, it is pure evil. And I believe we have an obligation to protect ourselves from that evil.”
So, he (and the American voters) see the Iraq War as a battle of good vs. evil. WE, somehow, are players in a great historical drama that involves self-righteousness, power and September 11. I understand and loathe that position. What I don't understand is how the presence of 'evil' means that it isn't a civil war. Can't you have a civil war with evil? Maybe that's just too much to understand and spin for mass consumption. A talking point must be simple so that the voting public can digest it quickly and shit it out in the form of an opinion at great speed. The President knows this, he is a master of spin. Spin works because Americans have little interest in digesting larger amounts of information and thinking for themselves.
So, he (and the American voters) see the Iraq War as a battle of good vs. evil. WE, somehow, are players in a great historical drama that involves self-righteousness, power and September 11. I understand and loathe that position. What I don't understand is how the presence of 'evil' means that it isn't a civil war. Can't you have a civil war with evil? Maybe that's just too much to understand and spin for mass consumption. A talking point must be simple so that the voting public can digest it quickly and shit it out in the form of an opinion at great speed. The President knows this, he is a master of spin. Spin works because Americans have little interest in digesting larger amounts of information and thinking for themselves.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Conservative people are...
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." JK Galbraith
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Big, tough guy
GW Bush said this today: “Debating these differences should not come at the expense of our troops. Congress shouldn’t tell generals how to run the war. Delays beyond April and into May will affect the readiness of the American military. Enough politics.”
Yeah, well you're an irresponsible politicker too. And you started it. SO THERE!
But seriously, "enough politics"? I'm confused, how is it that "the decider" gets to say 'enough'? I believe the US Constitution allows the voters who elected an opposing majority in the House to have a say as well.
Yeah, well you're an irresponsible politicker too. And you started it. SO THERE!
But seriously, "enough politics"? I'm confused, how is it that "the decider" gets to say 'enough'? I believe the US Constitution allows the voters who elected an opposing majority in the House to have a say as well.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Conservative is...(take 2)
My friend Tim is smarter than I am. When he said he couldn't follow my first attempt to describe conservatism, I figured that I either wrote over his head or wrote it poorly. Since I'm a semi-verbal accountant, the latter explanation is more likely. So....
A week ago I bought a bunch of grapes and put them in the fridge for my kid to munch on. She found the grapes to be tasty and attractive - a satisfactory status quo was in place. As the grape supply got low, I bought a second bunch which did not look exactly like the first bunch that she was enjoying so. She remarked that the new bunch looks funny. Paraphrasing Pete Townshend - the new grapes are not the same as the old grapes. A conservative would dismiss the possibility that the new grapes could have any worth because the old grapes are just so darn attractive and tasty. A conservative would hesitate to try the new grapes even after the old grapes were gone. The conservative grape person would hold their stubborness and closed-mindedness up as a righteous virtue, as they are the true upholder of all that is sweet and shiny in the pantheon of grapeness.
A week ago I bought a bunch of grapes and put them in the fridge for my kid to munch on. She found the grapes to be tasty and attractive - a satisfactory status quo was in place. As the grape supply got low, I bought a second bunch which did not look exactly like the first bunch that she was enjoying so. She remarked that the new bunch looks funny. Paraphrasing Pete Townshend - the new grapes are not the same as the old grapes. A conservative would dismiss the possibility that the new grapes could have any worth because the old grapes are just so darn attractive and tasty. A conservative would hesitate to try the new grapes even after the old grapes were gone. The conservative grape person would hold their stubborness and closed-mindedness up as a righteous virtue, as they are the true upholder of all that is sweet and shiny in the pantheon of grapeness.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Conservative is...
Standard political usage tells us that Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. This is not absolutely true, but relatively so.
Conservative legal thought holds that precedent should be upheld. Whether the precedent is Roe vs Wade or Dred Scott doesn't particularly matter in the legal/judiciary use of 'conservative'. A legal/judiciary conservative would be opposed to legalization of abortion because the precedent is in place, regardless of the moral, philosophical or religious feeling they might have about the procedure. Their conservatism would mean they are philosophically committed to earlier decisions and find change to be more distasteful and the status quo. This is illustrated by the sneering talking point of 'activist judges'.
Conservative economic thought holds that classsical economics are the true word. Market forces are good. Regulation, taxation, protectionism, subsidy and all forms of government market involvement are bad. Always. Again, the purity of the old ideas appeals to the conservative mind. The conservative mindset is closed to new thoughts and truths that suggest classical established thoughts could be anything other than righteous and touched by the hand of their economic God. Modifications to the godly market force is heresy.
Conservative religious thought holds that the theological and philosophical ideas of the elders (whoever the hell they might be) are handed down almost directly from the Almighty. These ideas must not be questioned or altered. Again, adherence to a rigid dogma is the key to conservatism.
In all examples, conservative thought is rigid and closed. It stubbornly adheres to established ideas in the face of any challenge. Closed-mindedness is valued in conservative minds as if it were righteousness. It is not.
Conservative legal thought holds that precedent should be upheld. Whether the precedent is Roe vs Wade or Dred Scott doesn't particularly matter in the legal/judiciary use of 'conservative'. A legal/judiciary conservative would be opposed to legalization of abortion because the precedent is in place, regardless of the moral, philosophical or religious feeling they might have about the procedure. Their conservatism would mean they are philosophically committed to earlier decisions and find change to be more distasteful and the status quo. This is illustrated by the sneering talking point of 'activist judges'.
Conservative economic thought holds that classsical economics are the true word. Market forces are good. Regulation, taxation, protectionism, subsidy and all forms of government market involvement are bad. Always. Again, the purity of the old ideas appeals to the conservative mind. The conservative mindset is closed to new thoughts and truths that suggest classical established thoughts could be anything other than righteous and touched by the hand of their economic God. Modifications to the godly market force is heresy.
Conservative religious thought holds that the theological and philosophical ideas of the elders (whoever the hell they might be) are handed down almost directly from the Almighty. These ideas must not be questioned or altered. Again, adherence to a rigid dogma is the key to conservatism.
In all examples, conservative thought is rigid and closed. It stubbornly adheres to established ideas in the face of any challenge. Closed-mindedness is valued in conservative minds as if it were righteousness. It is not.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Bravo again, Speaker Pelosi
I did not think it possible to pass such a measure as she did today. The military funding bill with Iraq pullout date is a HUGE accomplishment for the reasonable people of the USof A. I would follow her nearly anywhere.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Politics just IS
Politics are not bad, nor are politics good. Politics simply is. One of my least favorite righteous arguments is the accusation that a person is 'politicizing' something that should be 'above' politics. That's bullshit. NOTHING is above politics. Human interaction requires political positioning and technique. All interaction is an exercise in power, however subtle it may be. We may naively wish things to be otherwise, but they are not.
Death, sex, religion, food, drink, love, hate, sickness, jurisprudence, music, sport, humor, art, business and any other form of the human experience involves political positioning when it is shared between two or more people. The simple act of speaking or putting pen to paper invites comparison with the views of others, and an attempt to frame one person's experience in the context of the experiences of others. This comparison and sharing of context is political.
Death, sex, religion, food, drink, love, hate, sickness, jurisprudence, music, sport, humor, art, business and any other form of the human experience involves political positioning when it is shared between two or more people. The simple act of speaking or putting pen to paper invites comparison with the views of others, and an attempt to frame one person's experience in the context of the experiences of others. This comparison and sharing of context is political.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Let me see if I've got the spin straight here...
The US needs to send more money and more soldiers to Iraq to do good, serve George Washington's ideas of freedom, save the world from Islamofacists, blah blah blah.
The UK (our strongest ally in this crusade) is pulling money and soldiers out of Iraq because things are going so well in their sector.
Is there a particular reason why our strong ally won't transfer some of their bodies and equipment into the US sector before the US pours more blood and money down the drain? Isn't that what allies and a 'coalition of the willing should do for each other?
I can't think of a way to spin that one. Even my cynical mind can't conceive of a one liner to twist it in favor of the Republican apologists. Better to avoid the question.
Let me take a REAL stab at answering it. The reason is that the UK government has had enough of this quagmire and they are leaving the US to mop it up. Labour must give in to public opinion a bit and appear sensible because a campaign is soon to start there. I can't say that I blame them. I wish Tony Blair would have had the balls and brains to walk away from it 2 years ago.
The UK (our strongest ally in this crusade) is pulling money and soldiers out of Iraq because things are going so well in their sector.
Is there a particular reason why our strong ally won't transfer some of their bodies and equipment into the US sector before the US pours more blood and money down the drain? Isn't that what allies and a 'coalition of the willing should do for each other?
I can't think of a way to spin that one. Even my cynical mind can't conceive of a one liner to twist it in favor of the Republican apologists. Better to avoid the question.
Let me take a REAL stab at answering it. The reason is that the UK government has had enough of this quagmire and they are leaving the US to mop it up. Labour must give in to public opinion a bit and appear sensible because a campaign is soon to start there. I can't say that I blame them. I wish Tony Blair would have had the balls and brains to walk away from it 2 years ago.
A little more political - another quote of the day
“I always tell people that everyone looks the same to me in Japan. Which is cool, man because I wish we could be like that in the Dominican, so we can hide.” David Ortiz
NOT political - quote of the day
“To feel good when I was 21, all I had to do was to smoke a joint. Now I have to turn off my phones, do tai chi for an hour, drink a strong cup of coffee, and stay away from bad people, so I can feel good for an hour or two — knowing when it ends, I’m gonna feel like the miserable 59-year old prick that I actually am.” - Iggy Pop
Friday, February 16, 2007
Speaker Pelosi on the Iraq resolution - She rules
For four days and three nights, more than 350 Members of Congress have come to the House floor to speak their conscience about the war in Iraq, and the President's escalation proposal. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the substance and the tenor of this debate.
There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. As the resolution states, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."
We owe our troops a debt of gratitude, for their patriotism, courage, and service. As a sign of respect for them, particularly those who have lost their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we observe a moment of silence.
We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the state for a New Direction on Iraq by passing a resolution of fewer than 100 words which supports our troops but disapproves of the President's escalation proposal.
One year ago Senate majority, Leader Harry Reid and I stood with House and Senate Democrats to propose our agenda for Real Security - to project our power and values to protect the American people.
Consistent with our Real Security agenda, Democrats have sent the President four letters, the first last July and most recently in January, urging him to adopt a strategy for success for Iraq containing these elements:
1. Change of mission2. Redeployment of troops
3. Build political consensus4. Diplomacy5. Reform reconstruction6. Refocus on the War on Terror
In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real counter terrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in mission will allow the number of US troops in Iraq to be reduced, diminishing their presence in the daily life of average Iraqi citizens, and minimizing the chances of these troops being caught in the cross-fire between warring Iraqi factions.
Ending the emphasis on a combat mission will also allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin within the next four to six months. Declining troop levels will require fewer bases and none of them will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman David Price. A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment.
Success in Iraq requires more than military force. As 3-star General Peter Chiarelli, until recently the Commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq observed in December, "We need to get out of thinking this is solely a military conflict where we must simply apply more U.S. or coalition and Iraqi forces against an enemy that we can destroy. All our nation's strengths -- diplomatic, economic, political -- must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process."
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically.
Iraq's neighbors have the greatest stake in Iraq's stability and the role it will play in the region. Leaders of those countries are best able to help Iraqi leaders improve security by reducing ethnic tensions. To this end, an international contact group should be established to support a political settlement in Iraq and preserve Iraq's sovereignty.
An international conference should be convened to broaden support for the reconstruction effort that is essential if Iraqis are going to be put to work building their country's future.
There has been little effective reconstruction in Iraq because of mismanagement and disappearance of funds.
In order for the reconstruction of Iraq to attract international support, it must be conducted according to practices which are honest, transparent, and accountable. They must be governed by the kind of process set forth in legislation introduced by Congressman Patrick Murphy and the Blue Dog Coalition. The United States should take the lead on accountability in reconstruction.
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraqi factions politically.
The U.S. must insist that Iraqi leaders make the political compromises needed for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that will produce an inclusive political system in Iraq. A good beginning would be to press Iraqi leaders to amend the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. The resulting political consensus will allow Iraqi security forces to challenge the militias on behalf of the nation and disarm them.
Proponents of the President's escalation are equating the War on Terror to the war in Iraq. As the esteemed Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Ike Skelton, has said, "Two conflicts. Two wars. And the two should not be confused. There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts together as 'the war on terror,' but the wars are truly separate and distinct."
The war in Iraq continues to detract from our ability to fight the war against international terrorism effectively. We need to finish the job started more than five years ago in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and address other conditions around the world in which the appeal of terrorism breeds.
The longer it takes us to resolve the situation in Iraq, the longer resources and attention will continue to be diverted from the war on terrorism. Our ability to respond to the escalating conflict in Afghanistan and other potential crises in the world is constrained severely by the deterioration in military readiness produced by the operational tempo in Iraq.
By placing so much emphasis on dealing with the problems in Iraq militarily, and not enough emphasis on sustained internal and international diplomatic engagement, the President's escalation plan repeats past mistakes.
The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success.
The bipartisan resolution today is nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President: we are committed to supporting the troops and we disapprove of the escalation.
Our troops are working together to protect America, and we, in this House, must also work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.
I urge my colleagues to support our troops and a New Direction in Iraq by voting aye on the bipartisan Skelton, Lantos, Jones resolution.
There is one proposition on which we all agree: our troops have performed excellently in Iraq. They have done everything asked of them. As the resolution states, "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."
We owe our troops a debt of gratitude, for their patriotism, courage, and service. As a sign of respect for them, particularly those who have lost their lives in the war, and for their families, I request that we observe a moment of silence.
We owe our troops a course of action in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. Today, we set the state for a New Direction on Iraq by passing a resolution of fewer than 100 words which supports our troops but disapproves of the President's escalation proposal.
One year ago Senate majority, Leader Harry Reid and I stood with House and Senate Democrats to propose our agenda for Real Security - to project our power and values to protect the American people.
Consistent with our Real Security agenda, Democrats have sent the President four letters, the first last July and most recently in January, urging him to adopt a strategy for success for Iraq containing these elements:
1. Change of mission2. Redeployment of troops
3. Build political consensus4. Diplomacy5. Reform reconstruction6. Refocus on the War on Terror
In terms of changing the mission, U.S. forces in Iraq must be transitioned from combat to training of Iraqi forces, real counter terrorism activities, force protection and logistics. A shift in mission will allow the number of US troops in Iraq to be reduced, diminishing their presence in the daily life of average Iraqi citizens, and minimizing the chances of these troops being caught in the cross-fire between warring Iraqi factions.
Ending the emphasis on a combat mission will also allow the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin within the next four to six months. Declining troop levels will require fewer bases and none of them will need to be permanent, consistent with legislation introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman David Price. A smaller military presence in Iraq will also relieve some of the strain on our troops, their families, and our military equipment.
Success in Iraq requires more than military force. As 3-star General Peter Chiarelli, until recently the Commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq observed in December, "We need to get out of thinking this is solely a military conflict where we must simply apply more U.S. or coalition and Iraqi forces against an enemy that we can destroy. All our nation's strengths -- diplomatic, economic, political -- must be leveraged to help the Iraqis find their way through this process."
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq's neighbors diplomatically.
Iraq's neighbors have the greatest stake in Iraq's stability and the role it will play in the region. Leaders of those countries are best able to help Iraqi leaders improve security by reducing ethnic tensions. To this end, an international contact group should be established to support a political settlement in Iraq and preserve Iraq's sovereignty.
An international conference should be convened to broaden support for the reconstruction effort that is essential if Iraqis are going to be put to work building their country's future.
There has been little effective reconstruction in Iraq because of mismanagement and disappearance of funds.
In order for the reconstruction of Iraq to attract international support, it must be conducted according to practices which are honest, transparent, and accountable. They must be governed by the kind of process set forth in legislation introduced by Congressman Patrick Murphy and the Blue Dog Coalition. The United States should take the lead on accountability in reconstruction.
There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraqi factions politically.
The U.S. must insist that Iraqi leaders make the political compromises needed for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that will produce an inclusive political system in Iraq. A good beginning would be to press Iraqi leaders to amend the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. The resulting political consensus will allow Iraqi security forces to challenge the militias on behalf of the nation and disarm them.
Proponents of the President's escalation are equating the War on Terror to the war in Iraq. As the esteemed Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Ike Skelton, has said, "Two conflicts. Two wars. And the two should not be confused. There are those who attempt to fuzz the two conflicts together as 'the war on terror,' but the wars are truly separate and distinct."
The war in Iraq continues to detract from our ability to fight the war against international terrorism effectively. We need to finish the job started more than five years ago in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and address other conditions around the world in which the appeal of terrorism breeds.
The longer it takes us to resolve the situation in Iraq, the longer resources and attention will continue to be diverted from the war on terrorism. Our ability to respond to the escalating conflict in Afghanistan and other potential crises in the world is constrained severely by the deterioration in military readiness produced by the operational tempo in Iraq.
By placing so much emphasis on dealing with the problems in Iraq militarily, and not enough emphasis on sustained internal and international diplomatic engagement, the President's escalation plan repeats past mistakes.
The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success.
The bipartisan resolution today is nonbinding, but it will send a strong message to the President: we are committed to supporting the troops and we disapprove of the escalation.
Our troops are working together to protect America, and we, in this House, must also work together to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home.
I urge my colleagues to support our troops and a New Direction in Iraq by voting aye on the bipartisan Skelton, Lantos, Jones resolution.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Why Republican wins are bad
I've been wondering how to put words around this truth. I don't have to because John Kenneth Galbraith did in 1992's "The Culture of Contentment". He was a better writer than I am. Duh.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
"I say to John Kerry: I love you John Kerry, and I'm so sorry that things didn't work out for our country."
Harry Reid said that yesterday, but I concur.
The man is a class act, and the USofA doesn't deserve to have him as its President.
Massachusetts does deserve to have him as Senator.
The man is a class act, and the USofA doesn't deserve to have him as its President.
Massachusetts does deserve to have him as Senator.
Friday, January 19, 2007
"This is only the beginning."
Summary from Speaker Pelosi's blog entry on Huffingtonpost.com:
HR 1: Enacted provisions of the 9/11 Commission after 2 1/2 years of inaction by Republican Congress.
HR 2: Minimun wage increase passed, after 10 years of Republican inaction.
HR 3: Passed extended stem cell research provisions, despite inaction by Republicans for fear of offending pro-life righties.
HR 4: Passed changes to Medicare, allowing for negotation with Pharmacutical corporations to lower drug prices. A shortcoming of the Repub Medicare changes passed previously.
HR 5: Cut interest rates on student loans. This just makes good sense. "No Child Left Behind" notwithstanding.
HR 6: Cut subsidies and tax breaks to Repubilcan's oil friends, and invest in renewable energy.
Now, let's talk about the Iraq War and the evil that Republicans do...ALWAYS.
HR 1: Enacted provisions of the 9/11 Commission after 2 1/2 years of inaction by Republican Congress.
HR 2: Minimun wage increase passed, after 10 years of Republican inaction.
HR 3: Passed extended stem cell research provisions, despite inaction by Republicans for fear of offending pro-life righties.
HR 4: Passed changes to Medicare, allowing for negotation with Pharmacutical corporations to lower drug prices. A shortcoming of the Repub Medicare changes passed previously.
HR 5: Cut interest rates on student loans. This just makes good sense. "No Child Left Behind" notwithstanding.
HR 6: Cut subsidies and tax breaks to Repubilcan's oil friends, and invest in renewable energy.
Now, let's talk about the Iraq War and the evil that Republicans do...ALWAYS.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
"We have a new strategy with a new mission: Helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad.”
This is the same old spinning word games on the same old "stay the course" strategy. And then there was this sameoldsameold gem from today's address: "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.”
Coupla things. Securing the people of Baghdad is not a new idea. It may be new to W, but it certainly has been thought of previously. Second, Democrats and Republicans alike have been proposing strategic ideas for YEARS that differ from the President's same old strategy. W's assertion that his opposition has proposed nothing is a huge lie. It is either a lie of ignorance or a bald-faced, knowing twist on the truth to smear opponents.
Now, I think W and his inner circle are more evil than ignorant but intelligent liberals can disagree about such things. I might be able to accept the premise that the W-ites are simply too stupid and insulated to have heard other ideas, but I tend to lean toward the notion that they have heard the other ideas, dismissed them outright, and are now righteously acting as if the plans never existed.
Remeber, WE voted this evil into power. We now eat the poo they feed us.
Coupla things. Securing the people of Baghdad is not a new idea. It may be new to W, but it certainly has been thought of previously. Second, Democrats and Republicans alike have been proposing strategic ideas for YEARS that differ from the President's same old strategy. W's assertion that his opposition has proposed nothing is a huge lie. It is either a lie of ignorance or a bald-faced, knowing twist on the truth to smear opponents.
Now, I think W and his inner circle are more evil than ignorant but intelligent liberals can disagree about such things. I might be able to accept the premise that the W-ites are simply too stupid and insulated to have heard other ideas, but I tend to lean toward the notion that they have heard the other ideas, dismissed them outright, and are now righteously acting as if the plans never existed.
Remeber, WE voted this evil into power. We now eat the poo they feed us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
