Roccondil

shameful

2008-11-03T18:33:00.000-08:00

I gotta be honest. After watching their behavior in this election, I can't believe I've considered voting for any GOP candidates since I turned 18. They have become despicable in campaign season, not to mention their obstructionist records in Congress and Puritan-like witch hunts for any Democrats who have even the slightest moral issues (but let's not talk about our own problems, kay?).

Why can't there be more Lincoln Chafees and Chuck Hagels?

The First Debate

2008-09-27T16:26:00.000-07:00

Pre-Debate: What? McCain actually showed up, even though the bailout bill hasn't been passed yet? So he just broke his promise, which he stated was such a big deal. I've gotta say, he loses this first point here. Either he didn't show up and people would be disappointed, or he does show up, which makes us wonder whether he lied about the importance of being in Washington, or he's leaving us high and dry to be at this debate. If it gets brought up, I don't think he can get around this. He took a big gamble by "suspending" his campaign, and I think he may have lost.

Financial recovery plan

Obama: Obligatory thanking of college and people. Kind of a waste of his speaking time, important though it may be. Two wars, worst financial crisis since Great Depression. Calls for oversight, potential gains distributed among taxpayers, don't "pad CEO bank accounts," and help for homeowners. Takes his first shot at Bush/McCain's failed economic strategy of "trickle-down" politics. Also his first "that's why I'm running for president

McCain: Did he seriously just use his time to announce Ted Kennedy's health? Wow. I don't even know what to think about that. McCain definitely looks better on this first question, praising the bipartisan efforts of Congress while Obama's first answer was already an attack against McCain. Not the best move though, making a joke about your age. Funny, yes, but should you remind us of that? This is the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. I'm sorry, say that again? What does that even mean?

Lehrer reminds the candidates that they didn't answer his question about the plan and whether they support it. Nice.

Obama: Haven't seen details yet, so dunno. Remember how we got here - abuse of sub-prime mortgages, taking advantage of people. Intervention is important, but so is re-examining our recent deregulation. Gotta have more regulation than the GOP allowed.

McCain: [are you gonna vote for the plan?, asks Lehrer] "I hope so." You hope so? Is somebody else holding your vote hostage? What a strange way to answer. His statement about responsibility brags about calling for SEC chair to resign, despite the criticism that said he was irresponsible for saying that.

Obama Senator McCain is right about more responsibility, but not just when there's a crisis. Good point here, that McCain is just doing this now that we're in trouble, while Obama was the one to call for change in anticipation of the problem. Ten days ago McCain said the economy was strong. Wonder how many times that'll come up.

McCain: Fundamental problems, gotta fix this system. Praises American workers, says "fundamental belief;" I don't think the word fundamental should be used from him too often.

Fundamental differences between your approaches?

McCain: Gotta get spending under control, rein in the huge expansion of government size. Republicans came to change government, but it changed them. Whoah, earmarks are a gateway drug? Better talk to your running mate, who champions them. Says he'll veto every bill with earmarks, but I think that would keep him from passing any bill. Poor promise to make. Attacks Obama for huge earmark requests.

Obama: Yep, earmarks are out of control. But they were $18 billion last year, McCain wants $300 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy. Nice comparison of numbers. Didn't answer the attack, but he did use a good distraction.

McCain: Yes, but earmarks have tripled. Obama, apart from tax cuts, will expand spending significantly. McCain wants to lower taxes AND cut spending.

Obama: Cuts off McCain to clarify, promotes his priorities to cut corporate loopholes, expand health care coverage. Obama says he will reduce wasteful spending, but can't focus on that when we've got people really struggling.

Lehrer is REALLY trying hard to get these two to talk to each other, and they simply won't do it.

McCain: Good point here about the high corporate tax rates in America leading to businesses going overseas. Wants to keep jobs here through low taxes. "My friends" count: 1. Ask Obama about his definition of "rich."

Obama: 95% Americans will get tax cut. "Rich" are people making over $250,000. Says our business tax rate is effectively one of the LOWEST in the world because of loopholes that allow businesses to go overseas. Again, good response. I gotta check these numbers to see who's more accurate. Says McCain wants to tax health care benefits. Really? I've heard that multiple times also, and I'd like to see if it's true. Wonder where I'd find good numbers on that.

McCain: Interrupts Lehrer, who tries to go to a new topic. "Festooned?" Honestly, who knows that word? McCain's in danger of making himself the elitist in this campaign. Promotes his own attacks on wasteful spending, says Obama hasn't, but no examples that I heard (maybe he gave one while I was typing). Accuses Obama of voting to raise taxes on those making $42,000 per year. Wow, that's quite a problem if he actually did.

Obama: Accuses McCain of lying (without using the word), talks about McCain's tax breaks for oil companies.

Lehrer shifts now to the financial rescue plan again (will they ever really talk about it?), asks them what they'll have to give up in spending, if we have to pay for that bill.

Obama: Tough to say, because the economy's slowing and we don't know what the budget will look like. Some things have to be done. That includes energy independence through home production and especially newer, renewable energy sources. Gotta fix the health care system, that can't be cut from his plan. Third thing can't be cut is education spending and research spending. And rebuild infrastructure because it's falling apart. Yes, but you didn't answer the question. What WILL you cut first? I'd like to know that as well. Ah, eliminate programs that don't work. What are examples?

McCain: Gotta cut spending. Obama has most liberal voting record in senate. Okay, that's not accurate. It's the same attack used against Kerry in '04, and it's based only on 2008, when he missed a lot because of the campaign. By 2008, McCain's one of the most conservative, not a moderate, because in 2008 he's voted with Bush 100% of the time. McCain says he knows how to get spending under control, cites negotiation of a Boeing bill as example. Ooh, his brokering put people in federal prison. So we want a President who will put more in prison?

Lehrer calls them out on not answering. So what will you CHANGE??

Obama: Not willing to give up energy plan, but we might not be able to do individual components. Give $15 billion in subsidies to private insurers under Medicare. That's no good and it should not happen. Nice response to McCain's "liberal" accusation, says it's just that he's voted against Bush. Touts his own work with Tom Coburn (strong conservative) to get the federal checkbook online.

I like that Lehrer is really trying to get these guys to stay on target, but

McCain: How about a spending freeze except for defense, veteran's benefits and something else? Wow, that's harsh.

Obama: That's a huge knife (forgot his word) when you need a scalpel. Let's stop spending so much in Iraq.

McCain: Well how about not sending money to "countries who don't like us very much." Strong effort to not use the word "hate?" Doesn't like that Obama is opposed to nuclear energy.

Lehrer asks if this financial crisis will affect the way they operate as President, or if they'll just move on happily, as planned.

Obama: The important thing is to know who we're fighting for. It shouldn't be the rich who are getting lots of tax breaks.

McCain: Says Obama would hand health care over to the federal government, which he doesn't want. Need to cut spending, Obama wants new spending. Second remark about helping veterans - he's really trying hard to get them tonight, knowing they'll tune in to the foreign policy debate.

Obama: Tom? Jim? Steve? Carl? Missed McCain's name again. McCain voted with Busy 90% of the time, including this "orgy of spending." That makes me giggle.

McCain: Calls himself a maverick again, but doesn't deny voting with Bush on the economy.

Lehrer asks if we have any lessons from Iraq.

McCain: Weird first answer that I didn't understand. Initially we did well, but he came back in '05 saying we needed new strategy. Our new strategy (the surge, I assume) is succeeding and we will come home with victory and honor. Benefits of success, vs consequences of defeat. Can Obama respond to yet another charge of advocating defeat in Iraq?

Obama: Another claim of a "fundamental difference." Cites judgment in calling for us to not go into Iraq in the first place. Ooh, first allusion to Afghanistan and chasing the real Al Qaeda enemy. Spending too much in Iraq, hurting us here at home. The lesson we can learn is, never hesitate to use military force, but have to use it wisely, which we didn't do in Iraq.

McCain: Doesn't answer that, just accuses Obama of still opposing surge, never meeting with General Petraeus.

Obama: Proud of Biden who's got great credentials. These decisions don't go through my subcommittee. McCain's right that violent was reduced, our troops are great. Petraeus is also great. But the surge was containing damage of four years of mismanagement. McCain pretends war started in 2007. "You were wrong" when McCain claimed it'd be easy, that we'd be greeted as liberators, etc. Obama says he has better judgment.

McCain: Obama doesn't know the difference between tactic and strategy. Hmm. McCain is now saying that Obama refuses to admit we're winning. For the second time (at least), Obama has to interject "that's not true" to Lehrer. He seems really worried about what McCain's saying. Obama cut off funding for troops.

Obama: McCain opposed funding in bills that included timetables. Obama opposed funding in bills that didn't include a timetable. They both supported funding, but differed on the timetable. The question isn't about the approach once we're there. The question is, should we have gone in the first place, which McCain is avoiding because he was gung ho about us entering Iraq in 2003. We can fix Afghanistan if we don't give Iraq their country back, and we need to reduce Iraq troops in 16 months, also going to Afghanistan to "crush" Al Qaeda and capture/kill Osama bin Laden. This is his first real address of foreign policy, and it was pretty decent. Not great, but decent.

McCain: Uses Petraeus and another general against Obama. Now says Obama's plan means defeat in Iraq.

Lehrer: Alright, let's move on to Afghanistan. More troops, how many, and when?

Obama: Yes, as soon as possible. This was our worst fatality year in Afghanistan since 2002, and Al Qaeda is becoming emboldened and attacking us more. 2-3 brigades to Afghanistan, where even Secretary Gates said we need to deal with Al Qaeda. Press Afghan government to work for their people, deal with Al Qaeda safe havens in Pakistan. Bush/McCain gave Pakistan money, even though they haven't done anything for us.

McCain: The mistake I regret was leaving the region when the Taliban first formed. Um....but he repeated that when we left Tora Bora and allowed bin Laden to escape. Won't threaten Pakistan like he says Obama's doing. I do wonder what will become of Obama's threats, but what about McCain's threats against Russia? We have increased troops to Afghanistan, we'll do more, and we'll change strategy as well.

Obama: Ooh, McCain looks constipated. Obama didn't say he'd attack Pakistan. If we know Osama's in Pakistan, we'll take him out. C'mon McCain, you said we should wipe out North Korea, and you sang songs about bombing Iran. You seriously chastise me for threatening comments? We lost legitimacy in Pakistan by supporting a dictator simply because he was "our dictator."

McCain: Obama doesn't understand that Pakistan was a failed state when Musharraf came to power. Sorry, but Phil wonders what that really means with respect to Obama's comments. When McCain was young 200 years ago and Reagan was President, "tragically, I was right." Supported going to Bosnia and intervening in Kosovo and Somalia when many GOP opposed it under Clinton. Good call bringing those up. Strong military creds, going against own party to do the right thing. Talks about Vietnam and how hard it is for an army to recover from being defeated, and we need to not be defeated in Iraq. Uses the word "dishonor" again.

Obama: No US soldier EVER dies in vain, because they're carrying out the Commander in Chief's orders. The question is, are we using good judgment? It's a big deal to send troops into battle. Nobody's talking about defeat in Iraq, but McCain said we could "muddle through" Afghanistan. We need to take Afghanistan seriously.

McCain: Talks about defeat again, says Obama's not taking up things that fit under his subcommittee. Condescending to the last. Gotta be honest, I don't care if he's right, McCain's acting like a real prick.

Lehrer asks what the threat is from Iran.

McCain: If Iran acquires nukes, it's a threat to Isreal, and it's a threat because it allows other Muslim nations to get nukes. "We cannot afford another Holocaust." Says he proposed a league of democracies, which could impose sanctions on Iran that would have a beneficial effect. Iran is hurting us by sending weapons into Iraq. Need to act with allies to keep Iran from getting nukes. Obama didn't want to label Iran a state sponsor of terror. Iran has a lousy economy because they have a lousy government. So why is our economy lousy, Senator?

Obama: To clarify, he considers Iran's Republican Guard a terrorist organization, but says the single greatest thing that strengthened Iran was our war in Iraq. Obviously the last eight years didn't work because Iran's getting closer to nukes. Yes, Iran's a great threat, especially to Israel, but it could also start an arms race in the Middle East. We need tougher sanctions, but we need some cooperation from Russia and China, which are not democracies, but trade extensively with Iran. Need tough, direct diplomacy. Not talking to countries has not harmed them, so McCain's wrong in not wanting diplomacy.

Best line of the night from Lehrer to McCain: "Senator, what about talking?"

McCain: Ooh, completely bumbled Ahmadinejad's name. Reminiscent of Bush. Says that Obama wants to sit down with no preconditions, with a guy who espouses the extermination of Israel. Sitting down to talk legitimizes their illegal behavior. He needs to stop using long names, because he can't get 'em right. McCain would sit down, but needs preconditions.

Obama: As President, reserves the right to sit down with anybody, anywhere, any time, if it keeps America safe. McCain mentioned Kissinger, one of his advisors, who recently said we should sit down with Iran without preconditions. Obama has a great zinger - it "doesn't mean you invite them over for tea." In North Korea ("axis of evil," can't deal with them), they tested missiles, expanded their nukes, pulled out of non-proliferation. When we re-engaged, we've at least finally made some progress, though it's on shaky ground due to recent happenings. McCain even said he wouldn't potentially meet with PM Zapatero of Spain, because he didn't know if they were aligned with us. I wondered if Obama would bring up that disastrous interview.

McCain: I encourage meetings with lower level people, but not the President. Obama doesn't seem to understand that "without precondition" you sit down with, and legitimize comments of Ahmadinejad, who verbally attacks Israel and threatens them.

Obama: McCain knows he's being deceptive about Obama's position. How could we say nothing while Ahmadinejad spews this stuff?

McCain: So wait, we're going to sit down, Ahmadinejad says "we're blowing up Israel," and we say, "no you're not?" McCain's really starting to get worked up. It's just a matter of time before Obama says something that makes McCain yell or swear.

Lehrer asks about Russia. Enemy? Threat? Ally?

Obama: They can be dangerous, and they're strong, and what they did in Georgia was unacceptable. They need to leave the separatist regions in Georgia. Explain to Russians you can't be a 21st century power and act like a 20th century dictatorship. Need to affirm and support smaller democracies in Europe. Too many loose nukes, Obama has led in the Senate to deal with proliferation, even worked with GOP to do it. You don't deal with Russia by "staring into his eyes and seeing his soul," an interesting reference to Bush's comments about meeting with Putin.

McCain: Obama's first comments about Russia and Georgia - both sides did something wrong. This shows a misunderstanding of a KGB-run government. "I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters: a K, a G and a B." We need to help our allies, and it's about energy, not just Georgia. Ah, of course, it's all about oil. Russia controls these pipelines. Russia wants to regain status of the old Russian empire. We want Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, make it clear that Russia is violating their ceasefire agreement. Russia's gotta behave. Just like Palin, apparently McCain thinks that by using big names of foreign leaders, he'll sound really smart.

Obama: Agrees with McCain a lot on this issue, but he immediately condemned what Russia did in invading Georgia. Was the first to call for rebuilding Georgian economy, and we sent $1 billion into the country. Months ago, asked Bush to replace Russian peacekeepers in Georgia with international peacekeeping troops. It didn't happen, maybe could have prevented what happened. But with Russia controlling oil, we can't drill our way out of the problem. Obama says he's got a plan to make us independent. Over 26 years, McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy like solar and biodiesel.

McCain: No one in Arizona is against solar. Obama's against reprocessing and storing nuclear. We KNOW if we drill offshore and "exploit" these reserves, it'll help us a lot. Supported Nunn-Lugar in the early '90s, which put us on road to eliminating issue of nuclear waste and fuel.

Obama: Never said object to nuclear waste, just said we've gotta store it safely. McCain won't let him talk again.

Lehrer asks about the chances that we'll get another 9/11 type attack on American soil.

McCain: Less of a chance now than we had right after 9/11. Lieberman and McCain worked on exploring how to prevent another 9/11, had difficulty until families came in and pressured government to get the commission passed. Really wants to push the idea that he's been bipartisan and reached across the aisle. Need to know we have trained interrogators so we don't torture prisoners, we need better technology, we need to work with allies. We're safer today than we were on 9/11, but we're not out of the woods yet.

Obama: We're safer in some ways. Lots of airport security, secured some potential targets, still have a long way to go. Haven't done enough in terms of transit or ports. Gotta keep nukes out of terrorists' hands. Terrorism is a big threat, but the biggest part of Afghanistan, not Iraq, so we need to shift our military focus. Also, we need better foreign image, and Obama will restore our standing in the world, which is key to getting help in combating terrorism. High five to McCain for helping us on the torture issue.

McCain: Obama doesn't understand that failure in Iraq encourages Al Qaeda, as evidenced by his "date certain" withdrawal plan, regardless of ground conditions. Can't do what Senator Obama wants to do.

Obama: No doubt that in last eight years, Bush and McCain have been solely focused on Iraq, while bin Laden is still out there evading capture and Al Qaeda resurges. In the meantime we're borrowing billions of dollars from China, and they're active in many regions where we're absent because of our focus on Iraq. We can no longer project power in the world because we're so narrowly focused on a single nation. Never been a country "ON EARTH" that saw economy decline and yet maintained a solid military. This is a national security issue.

McCain: There are advantages to experience and knowledge and judgment. Obama has made wrong judgments, doesn't have the experience. Tries to claim that Obama is similarly stubborn to Bush, talking about the surge. What? That's a pretty specious connection there, and doesn't strengthen McCain's case at all. "Reform, prosperity and peace." Don't need any on-the-job training.

Obama: Name is from Kenya, where father came from. Father admired America as a child, and Obama says that children around the world don't admire us in the same way. We need to "send a message to the world" that we're committed to helping ordinary people in the world.

McCain: "When I came home from prison." WHAT?!?!? This is such a non-sequitor, and had nothing to do with the point he was trying to make. Congratulations, Senator McCain, on completely trivializing a heretofore serious discussion. That was awful.

Holy heck, so that was a lot of typing, sorry. Shoulda found a way to condense it. Maybe I still will. But, long story short, how did the debate end up?

Well, to start with, one of the most important questions is, simply, who came across as more presidential? I have to completely hand it to Obama on this one. He reached across the aisle and offered agreement with some of McCain's views, and was very calm and respectful in this debate, while Senator McCain looked like a grumpy old man. McCain literally didn't look at Obama once, as far as I could tell, and he was scowling half the time, and condescending whenever he spoke of Obama. He looked like mean old Mr. Tinsley down the street, who never gives your baseball back when you hit it over his fence. McCain was tired, and Obama looked very ready and sharp. Don't think the images matters? Ask Gore after his makeup-enhanced debate in 2000 (just like McCain Friday night, he also spent lots of time scoffing at then-Governor Bush), or Nixon from his fabled debate with John Kennedy in 1960. Appearances can be crucial.

Connecting with voters, I'd say again, no contest. Did you notice that John McCain didn't use the phrase "middle class" once? He continues to fail in any potential attempt to comfort me. All I know is he wants to reform government, but while Obama continues to promise making government work for ME, McCain just swears he'll stop making it work for all the politicians. I didn't get the sense that McCain really understands the average voter, but Obama really shined on that one.

As for the specific issues, it was nearly a draw at first glance, but that can be a bit deceiving. I'd say Obama was definitely stronger on the economy and the bailout, he seemed to win the Iraq section, and as I mentioned, he probably came out ahead on general debate appearance. Meanwhile, McCain looked better on Russia, he probably came out ahead on terrorism, and I'd give him the edge on Iran and spending. Afghanistan, well, they both win because nobody talks about Afghanistan so Americans don't know enough to say whether either candidate was "more right" about that. But currently, the economy is by far the biggest factor people are considering as they make their decisions for November 4th. Seeing as how Obama has always been viewed as sharper on the economy, and only helped himself with this debate, I'd say it's pretty tough to argue that McCain won.

It was one of the more boring debates I've ever seen, with only two real memorable lines, both from Obama (one about PM Zapatero of Spain, and his retort about McCain singing the "bomb Iran" song). But for what it's worth, as objectively as I can possibly view this, I'd say Obama came out ahead after this debate. It shouldn't matter much, but this was also supposed to be McCain's strongest debate and he's definitely not showing any kind of uptick in the polls. Post-debate polls support the hypothesis that Obama won (and I've stolen this idea from many other sites, including fivethirtyeight.com), and I would say this is going to be a tough one for McCain to pull out.

Thursday night is the Palin-Biden debate, and I am eagerly anticipating that one. I wonder if McCain will try to get her out of it, given her shockingly disappointing appearances with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric (seriously, can she talk about anything beyond what she's memorized in her tutoring sessions with McCain aides?). If Palin doesn't improve and the debate with Biden goes on, McCain could lose the rest of the bounce he got from Palin's initial excitement. At least, what little additional support still remained.....

With friend like these.....

2008-09-18T15:53:00.000-07:00

On August 29th, 2008, John McCain told us about Governor Sarah Palin, "once you get to know her like I do, you'll love her too."

Really? Huh. I find that rather interesting, because, you know, I've heard about a bunch of people who DO know her, and are frightened of the possibility that she'll be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Forget about the fact that when he said this, Senator McCain had just selected Palin as his running mate, despite having only met her TWICE. Let's look past that, and see what some of those close to her say about how much they "love her too":

On September 13, the same day Sarah Palin was receiving a send-off in Alaska, her rally was overshadowed by a group of women (estimated at 1,400), saying they've had her in charge for two years and the nation doesn't need four years of the same - YouTube video

Good Morning American talked with four of Sarah Palin's "closest friends" for fifteen years, just seven days ago, to ask about the Vice Presidential nominee. They love her, yes, but three won't say that they are voting for McCain/Palin. Hmm......(in all fairness, it's not personal - two of three women are pro-choice, which Palin is DEFINITELY not, and two are turned off by her attempts to get rid of government protection for polar bears) - ABC News

"Executive abilities? She doesn't have any.....she just has no respect for rules and regulations," said Nick Carney, who selected and groomed Palin for her first political race in 1992. He later served with her on the city council, when she used over $50,000 in city funds to redecorate her office (it was "illegal," according to Carney, because she didn't clear it first with city council). - Palin as Mayor - many people who spoke out in this article wouldn't give their names, because of Palin's penchant for vengeance.

Carly Fiorina, one of McCain's economic advisors, was asked whether Sarah Palin has the experience to run a major business like Hewlitt-Packard (Fiorina is a former chair of the company). Her response? "No, [she doesn't]. But you know what? That's not what she's running for." Right. She's only running to be second-in-command of the world's largest economy in the middle of a huge economic crisis. - Can't run a business?

And Palin's not the only one. See what some close to McCain have said about him in recent months:

"The thought of [McCain] being president sends a cold chill down my spine." That would be Republican Senator Thad Cochran, of Mississippi. "He is erratic. He is hot-headed. He loses his temper and he worries me." WOW. He's from McCain's own party!! - Cold Chill

You may have seen the brief ad from Brave New Films, featuring a former POW who spent time imprisoned with John McCain in Vietnam. He has some less-than-flattering things to say about McCain there, including that McCain's is not a finger he wants to see "next to that red button." But that's not the whole interview. He sees McCain's policies as "much the same as those of the Bush administration," and states that McCain is "not the 'straight talk express' he markets himself to be." - Philip Butler interview

This is my personal favorite. A second cousin of John McCain is a professed Democrat, but said his whole family was excited about McCain in 2000, not because of their relation, but because in the Arizona Senator he saw a different kind of Republican, one he could get behind. Now, the cousin calls McCain "out of touch," "ideological" and "desperate," and says "my cousin John is long gone." The kicker comes at the end: "America's families no longer recognize you, nor does your own." McCain's family

This is a fact: I have not yet heard a single person close to Obama question his temperament or his ability to be a solid President.

I like Ike

2008-08-23T07:43:00.000-07:00

A list of some incredibly insightful comments from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, regarding war and national security. We would all do well to ponder these words of President Eisenhower:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

"Only Americans can hurt America."

"Controlled, universal disarmament is the imperative of our time. The demand for it by the hundreds of millions whose chief concern is the long future of themselves and their children will, I hope, become so universal and so insistent that no man, no government anywhere, can withstand it."

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?"

"I deplore the need or the use of troops anywhere to get American citizens to obey the orders of constituted courts."

"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... Is freedom."

"In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims?"

"Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage. "

"This world of ours... Must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect."

"Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace."

"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war."

(thanks to Get In Their Face for the quotes)

But he was a POW!! Don't you people get it yet??

2008-08-23T07:41:00.001-07:00

John McCain was asked the other day (August 20) if he knew just how many homes are owned by him and his wife, Cindy. He couldn't answer. For whatever reason, John McCain doesn't know how many homes he owns (here's a hint - it's more than the four he actually claims to "use"). Barack Obama's campaign has jumped all over this, painting Senator McCain as out of touch and elitist, because how could he sympathize with people struggling to salvage ONE home? The guy wears $520 Italian loafers, and he flies around Arizona in a private jet, yet he tells blue-collar workers that HE'S the candidate who understands them.

The McCain camp hit back immediately, and I expected them to focus more on how Obama's not exactly middle-class either. It'd be apples and oranges, since McCain's wealth is still way above Obama's, and McCain was just like Bush, his family's wealth helping him to enter Naval Academy. But they ignored that, for the most part.

How did they respond? McCain's aide Brian Rogers was interviewed by the Washington Post (link here), and first he did mention Obama's house ("It's a frickin' mansion"), but then he got into the real issue at stake here. "The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff. It's not as if he lives in ten houses.....This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison."

I honestly had to read it three more times to believe that this was actually the line used by Rogers. Yes, John McCain is using his time in the Hanoi Hilton to deflect attention from his wealth and his distance from Americans facing foreclosure. Seriously, what does that have to do with ANYTHING related to this issue? You forgot how many homes you own because of your treatment thirty years ago?

I looked around, and noticed that McCain has used his time in Vietnam many, many times during this campaign:
*When Obama's campaign suggested McCain wasn't in the designated "cone of silence," and that he may have overheard some of Obama's answers, the response was, "the insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."
*Responding to Elizabeth Edwards' criticism of his health care plan, McCain's campaign stated that he knew what it was like to get inadequate health care --"from another government."
*Here's a likely-not-exhaustive detailing of some other instances where this experience has apparently come into play:

NO!! This is wrong. Just wrong. You were a prisoner of war during Vietnam, and for that you are to be honored. It was a great service to our country, and nobody would argue that you deserve respect and praise. But DO NOT use that time in Vietnam as political leverage. It is not a way to justify everything you do, and now you are turning your military service into a political ad and a "get out of jail free" card. Unacceptable. How much more respect can I lose for you, Senator McCain?

He owns seven homes, by the way, totaling over $13 million in worth.

Oh, the deception

2008-08-19T17:07:00.000-07:00

Again, this time in front of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Senator McCain accused Senator Obama of having this underlying, selfish motive for running for the White House.

“Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president."

Senator McCain, are you not ambitious for seeking the same office? Does it not take a measure of ambition to even dream of running in this exhausting race? I can't believe that Senator McCain doesn't also....wait, what's that?

Ah, of course. If we look at Senator McCain's memoirs, Worth the Fighting For, we notice this great little bit of irony. Or perhaps hypocrisy would be a better word.

"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time."

Really, is there any length to which McCain won't go to win this election? I've lost almost all of the great respect I once held for the man falling apart in front of us.

McCain vs. Science - do we really want to go down this road again?

2008-08-17T15:52:00.000-07:00

John McCain and Barack Obama recently appeared with Rick Warren (author of "The Purpose Driven Life" as part of a Presidential forum on the candidates' faith and morals. One of the most telling moments of the forum for me, was when Warren asked McCain how he would define "rich," (a taxes-related question). McCain's response was elusive at best, and he shifted to a discussion of pork barrel spending. He criticized the spending of $3 million on a study of grizzly bear DNA in Montana, stating sarcastically that he wasn't sure if it was a parental test or criminal. This garnered a healthy laugh from the audience, and McCain was quite proud of his line, a statement he has used on many occasions beginning during the GOP primaries. Yes, his mockery of legitimate scientific research was well-rehearsed.

In reality, $4.8 million was spent between 2003 and 2007, in an effort to study grizzly populations in the west, much of which is based on DNA testing of trapped bears. Here in America, we have this little thing called the Endangered Species Act, which requires the government to study populations of endangered species, and to take action to preserve the remaining individuals. This study covers one of two grizzly populations in the entire country that number more than 50 individuals, and without an idea of these populations and their trends, it will be much more difficult to preserve the species.

This patronizing attitude towards crucial scientific research is, quite frankly, one of the most troubling things I have heard from either candidate during this campaign. For the last eight years, George W. Bush has taken money away from scientific research, he has ordered scientific findings to be hushed up or modified to suit his own political agenda, and he has drawn the ire of the American scientific community. He is the President who opposed science, much like the governments of Galileo's time, and John McCain threatens to continue this record of ignorance and suppression.

Throughout the entire forum, Senator Obama would consider the questions and offer thoughtful, heartfelt responses. In stark contrast, Senator McCain responded quickly and without much thought, many of his answers recycled from earlier in his campaign. He also seemed eager to please the right-leaning crowd. This "maverick" senator bragged in May of 2003 to FOX News that he and the president "agree on most issues," and voted together 90% of the time (it jumped up to 95% in the past year).

Senator McCain missed all eight energy votes in the past year (even one when he was in his Senate office but just didn't take the time to get up and vote), yet he has the audacity to run campaign ads boasting of his comprehensive energy plan. We may not like the thought of electing a president who is actually smarter than us (seriously, who wants competence in the White House?), but I'd hate to give four more years to somebody who appears to take pride in their ignorance.

contributions in a different light

2008-08-17T13:11:00.000-07:00

Or, if we look at all those numbers in a slightly more condensed fashion.....

It's even more evident here that a large majority of financial donors prefer Obama. Who doesn't prefer Obama? Apparently the mainstream media, who continues to analyze every potential harmful connection of his, while ignoring similar dangerous connections of McCain's (for instance, lambasting Edwards while ignoring McCain's extramarital affairs, McCain's advisor who is a lobbyist for the nation of Georgia, and Chuck Hagee, a pastor more inflammatory than Jeremiah Wright, whose endorsement McCain actually actively sought, unlike Obama who has rejected his former pastor).

Also, the family-friendly major industries of tobacco, oil, gambling and lobbyists all prefer McCain. That scares the heck out of me.

More on campaign contributions

2008-08-15T11:57:00.000-07:00

It's very interesting to look at the different major industries and how they are supporting the 2008 presidential candidates with their money. As my previous post showed, oil employees are donating more to Obama, while McCain reaps the reward when it comes to oil executives and corporations. Surprise, the Republican platform once again appeals to corporate America.

But what about some other major industries and groups?
(all information taken from the Center for Responsive Politics, at http://www.opensecrets.org)

Contributions from all military personnel:
Barack Obama: $335,536
John McCain: $280,513

Troops Abroad:
Barack Obama: $60,462
Ron Paul: $45,512
John McCain: $10,665

-What's interesting here is not just that Obama—and even Ron Paul—are leading McCain in funds raised from active, overseas military. The fun part is that the military still donates more to Republicans than to Democrats, and yet they are pulling for the Democratic candidate in this election.

Casinos/Gambling:
John McCain: $193,825
Barack Obama: $117,189

-McCain certainly is a gamble

Lobbyists:
John McCain: $809,656
Barack Obama: $202,329

-I don't think this is one you want people to know you're winning.....

Education:
Barack Obama: $8,784,068
John McCain: $967,678

-You're right, it's not fair. After all, education is the bastion of liberals, isn't it? Hmm.

HEALTH

Health Professionals:
Barack Obama: $5,224,639
John McCain: $2,815,727

Health Services/HMOs:
Barack Obama: $538,497
John McCain: $242,975

Hospitals/Nursing Homes:
Barack Obama: $1,419,892
John McCain: $434,486

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
Barack Obama: $845,251
John McCain: $342,375

-I'm really not sure what this means, but I'm amused that even nursing homes donate more to Obama.

Insurance:
John McCain: $1,301,305
Barack Obama: $1,144,386

-Probably too close to matter, but---congratulations, Sen. McCain, you're winning one!

Lawyers, Law Firms:
Barack Obama: $20,722,629
John McCain: $6,874,124

-Wow. Just....wow.

Oil & Gas:
John McCain: $1,332,033
Barack Obama: $394,465

-Add to this the fact that McCain missed all eight energy votes in the past year (two years?), and I think it's safe to say that he is NOT allowed to place wind turbines and solar cells in his commercials.

Real Estate:
Barack Obama: $5,816,677
John McCain: $5,795,797

-Another dead heat.

Retired:
Barack Obama: $19,202,876
John McCain: $18,884,993

-Shouldn't McCain be cleaning up in this one?

FINANCIAL

Commercial Banks:
Barack Obama: $1,883,058
John McCain: $1,698,978

Hedge Funds & Private Equity
Barack Obama: $1,795,813
John McCain: $1,295,165

Securities & Investment
Barack Obama: $8,905,777
John McCain: $6,277,757

-Even Wall Street donates more to Obama, despite the rumor that he'd be horrible for the economy. What aren't we being told by the right wing smear campaign?

Tobacco
John McCain: $95,466
Barack Obama: $28,495

-Umm....McCain wins another.....Good for him?

TV/Movies/Music
Barack Obama: $4,701,382
John McCain: $815,451

-Saw that one coming. Crazy communist artists

So what's the moral of the story?

McCain has raised more money from big oil, from tobacco, from lobbyists, from casinos, and from insurance (but just barely).

Obama gets more money from the military, from education, from the arts, from the financial sector, from real estate (barely), from the retired (barely, again), from the health industry, and from lawyers (by a heck of a lot).

Between those two groups of industries, which would we rather see winning come 2009? If you honestly have to think about it, then we have a real problem.

McCain vs. Obama on Big Oil

2008-08-15T11:52:00.000-07:00

Much has been made of the fact that our presidential candidates - God forbid - are taking money from individuals and corporations. Of course, every election season we hear about which candidate is in whose pockets, and how that might be influencing their policies.

This year, however, with the focus on the oil industry and rising energy prices, everybody is talking about where these oil companies are putting their money. Barack Obama has released an ad accusing John McCain of receiving $2 million from "big oil," while McCain responds that Obama is actually garnering larger contributions from the oil industry than is McCain. Both are pretty notable distortions of the truth, but only one claim drives at the important issue: are the oil companies determing candidates' policies?

Let's take a look at this wonderful graph provided by opensecrets.org:

As you can see, the oil companies have donated about $1.3 million to Senator McCain's campaign, or roughly 65% of Obama's claim. Meanwhile, Obama has received more donations from oil employees than has McCain. However, Obama's donations are coming from individual workers, who are donating not as part of the oil industry, but as hard-working Americans. The contributions given to McCain, in contrast, are coming from the companies themselves, meaning his overall earnings are more than three times what Obama has been given.

There is a huge difference between a lower-level employee contributing a few hundred dollars to Obama's campaign, and oil executives funneling money into McCain's. It's not just in the amount of money given, but the influence carried by the money. The executives certainly wield more influence than do the employees.

Also notable, is that Senator McCain is the one who is promoting the policies of the oil companies, while Senator Obama is attempting to hold these companies accountable to the American people. Obama is suggesting money be placed into alternative energy programs, while McCain has switched his former position, now demanding that we "drill here, drill now."

So who's really in the pockets of big oil?

lies do not become us

2008-08-05T08:56:00.000-07:00

Voting in November may be one of the most important things you do this year. I am not attempting to sway any votes, merely to present you with some facts so that you can make a more informed decision.

Unfortunately, many commercials and e-mails are obscuring the facts. I've seen e-mails accusing Barack Obama of being unpatriotic; of being a secret Muslim; of being in favor of obscene tax hikes; and of being more into himself than the presidency. For his part, Senator McCain has accused Senator Obama of being willing to lose the war on terror, of being an empty celebrity with nothing to offer, and of ignoring the troops on his visit to the Middle East and Europe. Senator McCain's latest commercial features language that suggests either liberals are looking for a "replacement savior," or – much more dangerously – that Senator Obama is himself the anti-Christ.

Obama has also caused a stir with comments that seem to have injected the issue of race into the campaign, though it can be argued that he was responding to an earlier ad from the McCain camp. I mention more of the attacks against Obama, simply because the media seems to be focused on publicizing all the outrageous claims made against him, while rightly ignoring most of the unfounded rumors involving John McCain (such as questions about his health, whether he is a natural-born citizen, and slanderous questions about his time as a POW in Vietnam). This has caused Obama to be on the defensive for six months now, since as early as the Democratic primaries.

The easiest way to determine the veracity of these claims is to visit http://www.snopes.com, a website dedicated to debunking and verifying urban legends, e-mail chain letters, and attributed quotes (each of the above claims against Obama is proved to be anywhere from grossly misleading to outright false).

[Senator Obama] "took time out of his schedule to come over and visit with us, not just at this camp but at other surrounding camps in Afghanistan." (Anthony Lewis, a US soldier stationed in Afghanistan - http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp)

Senator Obama's tax plan would actually favor lower-income voters, while the tax changes of the past eight years have favored upper-income taxpayers (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp explores the myth that Obama is secretly a radical Muslim who will betray us upon election. Obama is actually a dedicated Christian, and FOX News' repeated claims that he attended a madrassa in Indonesia are verifiably (I hope not intentionally) false.

An independent study found that 10% of Obama's ads, and 33% of McCain's ads, are negative comments about the other candidate (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/07/30/mccains-political-ads-go-negative-against-obama.html). With over $50 million already spent on advertisements with three months to go, these negative ads could become overwhelming. If we are only running this campaign to demonize the candidates by preying on people's fears again, then we haven't learned a single thing from the past eight years.

I believe that America deserves better than that. We deserve a leader who displays honesty and integrity, and who can help us to work through the problems we are facing right now.

If you really want to know who these candidates are, look past the partisan mud-slinging that is dominating our mainstream media, and look to the real issues that these candidates support. Most major news sites offer information on the candidates' positions (I particularly like http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7436221.stm at BBC), and USA Today even lets you input your feelings on the issues to determine your closest match (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm).

Be wary about any attack made against another candidate. So many claims are unfounded, and those sent out in chain e-mails are often the most dangerous and radical of all. I appreciate the candidates pointing out differences in policy, but once it turns into character defamation and mockery, there's a good chance it is wildly off the mark and misleading.

This November, I urge you to make your decision based not on smears, nor on mockery, fear or baseless claims, but on the real facts about these candidates. This is a crucial time for us as Americans and as global citizens, and it's too important to be decided by anything but the truth. Let's make informed decisions and vote for the candidate we want, instead of the candidate we haven't been scared away from.

That's right, "wasteful" and "frivolous"

2008-08-03T23:40:00.000-07:00

Kathy Hilton responds to John McCain's shameful use of her daughter in a political slam against Barack Obama. You know, the one where he tries to make us believe that it's bad to have a President who is well-liked around the world. Guess he'd rather have another Bush, who makes every other country (and half of his own citizens) feel like s***.

I’ve been asked again and again for my response to the now infamous McCain celebrity ad. I actually have three responses. It is a complete waste of the money John McCain’s contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country’s time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States.
-Kathy Hilton

Pretty sad, when even a presidential hopeful can't figure this out. After all, McCain claimed to be "proud" of that ad. Absolutely disgraceful.

Have I mentioned that McCain should be totally embarrassed by the campaign he's been running? Because it's true. This is the kind of stuff he complained about in 2000 when Rove used it to sink his then-honorable Presidential bid.

The "Straight Talk Express" derails itself yet again

2008-07-31T06:21:00.000-07:00

“What you’re going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won’t see it come out of our side at all.”– Cindy McCain, Today Show, May 8, 2008

Really? What about some of his recent commercials?....

"He's the biggest celebrity in the world" [cut to shots of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton] "but is he ready to lead? ....Higher taxes, more foreign oil: that's the real Obama."
--Awesome, let's portray Obama as nothing but a face. You know, because that's not negative.

"Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hadn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops. And now, he made time to go to the gym but cancelled a visit with our troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't let him bring cameras."
--Umm.....I dunno about the first two claims, but the last three statements are misleading to the point of being outright lies. So...yeah. Thanks for your honesty, McCain. Way to take the high road. Oh, and a response to that from Republican Chuck Hagel: "I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, `You’re less patriotic than me. I’m more patriotic.’....John's better than that."
--p.s. In complaining about Obama not visiting troops, McCain showed video of Obama playing basketball....with the troops.

In fact, according to The Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin, one out of three ads run by the McCain campaign has been a negative ad about Obama, while only one out of ten Obama-run ads are negative, as he chooses to focus more on promoting himself.

Obama's response?

"You know, I don't pay attention to John McCain's ads, although I do notice that he doesn't seem to have anything to say very positive about himself. He seems to only be talking about me. You need to ask John McCain what he's for, not just what he's against."

McSnooze?

2008-06-05T14:31:00.000-07:00

First of all, it's nice to see that we finally have our two major candidates for the 2008 Presidential election decided. I was getting rather tired of the marathon Democratic nomination process, mostly because it was dividing a party that is sorely needed to balance out a crackpot group of Republicans who still manage to retain some semblance of respect among their base. Of course, I'd love to see a system with more than just two parties, because this whole B&W, all-or-nothing, right or left brand of government keeps convincing me that we need some different viewpoints instead of just the two extremes that have taken over in politics.

How long until we can do a tiered voting system like Australia? Well, until the day we get that, hooray for Obama.

But I also watched the John McCain speech from the other night, and I honestly can't figure out how this man is so popular right now. For all the complaints about a lack of energy from Gore in 2000 and Kerry in '04, I truly believe John McCain is the least charismatic major candidate we've had in a very long time. His speeches sound like the recitation of a high school essay for which he's still trying to learn the pronunciation. His smiles look plastered onto his face, and I swear if he keeps turning his head it'll fall off his shoulders. The guy makes a three-toed sloth seem like it's on a sugar high.

Seriously, is this the man we are considering to have as a president for the next four years? I can't imagine even his wife would stay awake for his State of the Union addresses.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

Hillary Clinton, that is NOT okay!

2008-05-26T10:31:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton, responding late last week to calls for her withdrawal from the Democratic race, referenced not only her husband's late clinching of the nomination in 1992, but also the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, as reasons not to drop out of this race.

This. Is. Unacceptable.

Here are some words from Keith Olbermann, regarding her "unforgivable" choice of words:

For any person, let alone a presidential candidate, to speak with such flippancy regarding the murder of somebody, especially somebody like RFK, shows either a McCain-like lack of tact and awareness, or else it shows an inhuman lack of consideration and sympathy. Either one is not okay.

There's no way Clinton should throw something like that around. And it's the second time she's mentioned it. Is she so cold and calculating that she just doesn't care who she hurts, so long as she accomplishes her ultimate goal of personal accolades and machiavellian gain?

Disgusting.

[updated] And now this, from Liz Trotta, speaking on FOX "News" yesterday:
"…and now we have what some are reading—as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama , umm, ah… Obama, well both if we could…haha…"

Opinions like that should not be legitimized by being placed on national television, even if it is a joke of a network. Will she be punished? No way. If somebody on MSNBC said it about McCain though, there'd be hell to pay with the GOP. Oh, America, what can't you do to embarrass me?

[[update again]] Today, Liz Trotta apologized for her "lame" attempt at humor. Thank you, Liz. Way to show us how it's done. For the record, Hillary still hasn't apologized, just said she was taken out of context and she's apparently the victim here. Trotta 1, Clinton 0.

Sounds familiar......

2007-10-25T16:40:00.000-07:00

Americans too often teach their children to despise those who hold unpopular opinions. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place - the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else's keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan. — Mark Twain

Hate

2007-04-09T00:00:00.000-07:00

I know everybody does it. It's not exactly a new trend in America, let alone the world. Shoot, I can't even really give a lecture, because I know how many times hateful thoughts have passed through my mind, and I'm unfortunately not always horrified to possess them. But sometimes something's just gotta be said.

For those of you lucky enough to read this before I find a way to delete the slander, go ahead and read the comment left on my last post. It's quite a beauty, ain't it? I'm a particular fan of his oh-so intelligent rant about me eating my own boogers. Finely tuned argumentative style, I must admit. "Eat s*** and die, m***** f*****s," he concludes. Why? Must be the upside-down flag, or perhaps the fact that I had something critical to say about this most "blessed" nation I sometimes consider myself fortunate to call home.

Is this really the state of things today? A person does nothing more than speak their mind (and really, a very calm and harmless post I made), and suddenly they find themselves attacked as a lower-than-human disgrace to their own kind. I see hate all the time. But never have I felt it so directed towards myself. All of a sudden, though I can't at all sympathize with those who really face the business end of a loaded gun, I see the type of attitudes they're up against. Matthew Shepard happens to be attracted to the "wrong" gender, and because of this he is mutilated and murdered, with no second thought by his aggressors. After September 11, Americans are so frenzied that in some areas, it's practically considered criminal to be of Arabic descent. Muslims and Middle Eastern Americans are afraid to leave their houses, because Confederate Flag waving warmongers are on some kind of self-proclaimed vigilante mission, trying to rid the country of anybody else who they think might attack us.

What the crap is wrong with people? Sometimes I read the Bible, and go to church, and it's real easy to love people. I just look around a room, and even though I know I wouldn't LIKE some of the people, I can see everybody and feel love for them all. Not nearly to the extent that Jesus did, or wants us to, but it's a start. But sometimes I just wonder, with the trouble I have loving myself, how can I even find the strength to love people like this and be anything but afraid of them?

Sometimes I hate the world. *sigh*

2006-09-29T12:14:00.000-07:00

I have never been ashamed to call myself American--until today.

Congress just verified that we, as a nation, have absolutely and unabashedly abandond our honor and our morals. Bush's torture bill just passed through both the House and Senate, with barely enough opposition to even mention. Our "president" now has full authority to determine what constitutes torture, and to authorize its use on terror detainees, disregarding the nearly sacred Geneva Conventions. The writ of Habeas Corpus is also suspended for detained suspects, meaning anyone arrested is essentially unable to even challenge the legality of their captivity.

We are closer than we have ever been to a tyrannical dictatorship, and nobody seems to give a crap. Well I do, and I'm sick of it. First chance I get, I'm leaving this country. It's almost a certainty now that we will be unable to recover from these attacks on our values, our constitution, and our nation itself. George Washington himself would not have raised his sword for the country Bush is creating.

I want to cry.

more Rumsfeld ranting

2006-08-30T20:11:00.000-07:00

You owe it to yourself to watch this video, and then show it to all your friends. I love Keith Olbermann. Thank you, Crooks and Liars!

1,209

2006-08-24T12:35:00.000-07:00

That's how many days it's been since Bush claimed "Mission Accomplished" with his signature, smug little grin aboard the USS Lincoln.

Maybe it helps to spell it out a bit, just so you get a picture of how large that number really is:

One thousand, two hundred, and nine days.

It's been three years, sixteen weeks and two days.

That's one hundred seventy-two weeks and five days.

Manipulating the other direction, we've suffered through an additional 29,016 hours of fighting in Iraq since Bush essentially told us it was over.

After Bush's assertion that we had done what we set out to do, our troops have been fighting insurgencies for 1,740,960 more minutes than they expected.

That translates to 104,457,600 seconds during which our military has been exposed to threat of being blown up by a roadside bomb.

And to make things even better, we were supposed to start bringing our troops home later this year. Instead, Bush has just recalled 2,500 marines who have served their four years and were expected to be able to reenter their civilian lives. What's next, the draft he's been claiming to oppose since we began military operations? Thanks, Mr. President. It's like Christmas came early this year.

Why they hate us

2006-08-17T11:21:00.000-07:00

Julia E Sweig, U.S. Council on Foreign Relations

Thanks to ModerateVoters.org and their blog for the story and link.

America's moral standing in the world has precipitously declined since 2001. For starters, blame the Bush administration's go-it-alone tough talk after 9/11, contempt for the Kyoto accord, war and then chaos in Iraq, secret prisons in Europe and alleged use of torture at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Democrats would have you believe that a new team — theirs — in Washington would change all this. Not so fast.

Around the world, anti-Americanism is not simply the result of anger about President Bush's foreign policies. Rather, it is deeply entrenched antipathy accumulated over decades. It may take generations to undo.

-Cold War legacy: U.S. intervention in Vietnam, and covert attempts to overthrow governments in Iran, Guatemala and Cuba, among others, created profound distrust of U.S. motives throughout the developing world. Europeans also disdain these policies and bemoan the cultural coarseness of Americanization sweeping their continent.

-Power and powerlessness: Power generates resentment. But the United States has lost the ability to see its power from the perspective of those with less of it. In Latin America, for example, U.S. policies — whether on trade, aid, democracy, drugs or immigration — presumed that Latin Americans would automatically see U.S. interests as their own. And when denied deference, we sometimes lash out, as did Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld when he lumped Germany, a close U.S. ally, with Cuba and Libya because Berlin opposed the Iraq war.

-What we stand for: Bush is wrong to say that foreigners hate us because of our values and freedoms. Quite the contrary. U.S. credibility abroad used to be reinforced by the perception that our laws and government programs gave most Americans a fair chance to participate in a middle-class meritocracy. But the appeal of the U.S. model overseas is eroding as the gap between rich and poor widens, public education deteriorates, healthcare costs soar and pensions disappear. Most recently, the U.S. government's seeming indifference to its most vulnerable citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina further undercut belief in the American social contract. The immigration debates also have fostered the perception that the U.S. is vulnerable, hostile and fearful.

But anti-Americanism will begin to ebb if the new watchwords of U.S. policy and conduct are pragmatism, generosity, modesty, discretion, cooperation, empathy, fairness, manners and lawfulness. This softer lexicon should not be construed as a refutation of the use of force against hostile states or terrorist groups. Rather, a foreign policy that deploys U.S. power with some consideration for how the U.S. is perceived will gradually make legitimate U.S. military action more acceptable abroad.

Recovering our global standing will come not only from how we fight or prevent the next war, or manage an increasingly chaotic world. Domestic policy must change as well. Steering the body politic out of its insular mood, reducing social and economic inequalities, and decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels will help improve our moral standing and our security.

I have been waiting so long for this

2006-08-17T10:54:00.000-07:00

Federal judge rules warrantless wiretapping illegal

A federal judge ruled today that the Bush Administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program is unconstitutional, and violates-get this-"the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] and Title III." It gets better. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered that the NSA's spying program be ended immediately, as it is so stinkin' illegal.

Honestly, with all the Big Brother programs instituted by Bush, I'm shocked that it's taken this long for such a huge slap on the wrist. I only wonder how Bush will go about "proving" that he is above the law. This could be more interesting than his current attempts to rewrite the Geneva Accords to allow prisoner torture that has already taken place.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) appeared on ABC's This Week to speak out against Bush's illegal spying on American citizens. He informed George Stephanopoulos that the government has made a major boo-boo in failing to appear before Congress to work together and create a means of halting terror in its tracks. He also bashed Karl Rove for his politicization of terror, a criticism too long in coming. Major props to Senator Hagel for his ability to speak out against members of his own party without breaking with his party and making enemies. Very constructive and very admirable.

Let's hear it for democracy in action!!!!

It took them this long?

2006-08-01T21:57:00.000-07:00

Woolsey tries to revoke Bush's Iraq supremacy

Honestly, with the argument presented in this article, it seems pretty darn simple. I can't believe it would have taken them this long to figure out that this was possible. Is it not this simple, or are congresspeople that dense? I don't get it.

Genetics at its best/worst?

2006-05-13T14:02:00.000-07:00

I don't even know what to say to this. I'm still trying to decide how I feel about it.

British baby designed to be cancer free

Is this right? Have we already gone too far? I'm not so sure anymore what I believe, now that it's actually happening.

oh, poetry

2006-05-05T13:10:00.000-07:00

I wrote this a while back as a class assignment. We were to craft a response poem based on the Adrienne Rich poetry we had been reading as a class. I thought her poetry was filth, some of that unnecessarily wordy junk where it's not quite predictable but not quite creative. I didn't like it at all, so I jumped all over this chance to subtlely protest her work. We were to either use her own lines, or create a poem using similar language. Every line of my poem is verbatim from one of her own, so I have turned her poetry against her in this carefully assembled verse.

Oh, by the way, the prof loved it =)

A wild patience has taken me this far
long after the rains have stopped
I am bombarded yet I stand
abandoned, untended, unmended

This is the oppressor's language
the most accurately transmitted most
untranslatable language in the universe
I have to learn alone
to pretend that this is natural

The notes I'm putting together are purely
in my head, but you couldn't know that, and
I am having to do this
by authorities whose faces I rarely see
This is how it feels to do something you are afraid of
the best intentions are none too good
but I needed a way of saying
only: that it is unnatural,
what I had read about

We're hiders, hiding from something bad
trying to clarify connect
we aren't ready for it, nothing that was said
it barely sorts itself out

On my knees, in the ashes, I could never
desire
to dig again

Sounds like Iraq to me

2006-04-24T18:52:00.000-07:00

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'
--Abraham Lincoln, 1848

Bushwhacked!

2006-04-24T18:34:00.000-07:00

Bush approval rating slides to 32%

Several prominent GOP congressmen call for Rumsfeld's dismissal

Six New York teens sue Rumsfeld over recruiting misconduct

Retired justice says Rumsfeld shows 'disregard' for military law

An eighth general calls for Rumsfeld to step down or be forced out

Honestly, how can Bush continue to support the guy? Even if he was doing a good job - which I don't believe to be the case - he's costing Bush mucho support. Granted, a plethora of events are responsible for Bush's ratings demise, but Rumsfeld sure ain't helping. What will it take for him to get rid of Rummy? Maybe Borten will add the Defense Secretary to his little black book as he continues to shake up the staff. We can only hope so.

Born to Be Wild

2006-04-12T09:32:00.001-07:00

Here's the "midterm" for my environmental ethics course: a formal paper on an environmental topic of our choice. My choice.....well, see for yourself.

“The caged animal tells us that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we and they live.”

In theory, zoos are a commendable institution. However, when put into practice, they often fail to serve the best interests of either the inhabitants or the visitors, and unfortunately they may also resort to ethically reprehensible practices. If they are to continue, changes must be made on all levels, including rehabilitation ideas, enclosure size and type, and educational methods.

The American Zoological Park: a bastion of environmental education and exposure to the various creatures first introduced to us by the likes of Jane Goodall, Jacques Cousteau and Marty Stauffer. Championed by such notable zoologists as Jack Hannah, America’s zoos and aquariums have long served the noble purpose of bringing the natural world to people who may otherwise be unaware of the diversity of fauna in the world. Certainly it affords many of us a rare glimpse of an animal kingdom we will never experience firsthand. These institutions reach a surprisingly large number of people; over 142 million Americans visit zoos and aquariums every year(1). That number exceeds the combined attendance of Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the National Basketball Association. Over $96 million in support is given by the two million Americans who are registered members of zoological parks. In a recent Pew Charitable Trust poll, zoos and aquariums were ranked by the public among the most trusted and powerful sources on the environment today. With accredited locations across the United States, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) is dedicated, according to its website, to “excellence in animal care and welfare, conservation, education, and research that collectively inspire respect for animals and nature.”(2) Yet despite all of these factors, zoos and aquariums have some exceedingly vocal critics, who lambaste these animal refuges, using such arguments as unethical treatment, intrinsic animal rights to freedom, and effects on wild populations and entire ecosystems. Are these complaints justified? A thorough analysis of the issue shows that though the concept of zoos and aquariums is overall a commendable one, they often resort to unethical practices and questionable motivations in their quest to reach the public in whatever way they can. While the existence of these parks is not entirely a hindrance to a moral society, certain reforms are necessary if we are to purge ourselves of this ethical smudge.

An important point in analyzing the existence of zoos from an ethical standpoint, we must first defend the position that animals are beings worthy of being subjected to ethical treatment. Animals must have rights in order for us to consider whether or not we violate those rights in our handling of them. The issue of animal rights has long been contended, arguably since God reprimanded Balaam for striking his donkey on his way to see Balak (Numbers 22). Since then, groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Animal Liberation Front have lobbied extensively for animal rights. These groups often go to great lengths to defend the inherent rights of animals to fair and respectful treatment by humans, despite the fact that we see ourselves as intellectually and morally superior to all other animals on the earth. This superiority of humans is also challenged by Tom Regan in “The Case for Animal Rights.”(3) Regan contends that equality extends to all animals that can be considered “subjects-of-a-life” (SOALs). He applies this SOAL label to all non-human animals, thus positing that these animals are the bearers of moral rights. Kant’s idea that a being must be fully rational in order to possess rights is inadequate, because infants and the mentally incapacitated are routinely allotted most of the same rights as other, completely rational human beings, despite their inability to reason. So cognizance itself cannot be the cutoff point for moral worth. What instead is the key factor for humans, Regan says, is that we have a life that matters to us, even if it doesn’t matter to anyone else. This is the basis for the “subject-of-a-life” argument, and it can be extended to non-human animals as well.

Even following Kantianism though, we find a persuasive argument for animal cognition, and thus for animal rights. Donald R. Griffin, in “Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness,” argues for the existence of animal consciousness, based upon many animals’ abilities to solve complex problems and to communicate(4). Many tests have been done involving the ability of animals to work through challenges. These animals often pass with flying colors, appropriately adjusting their behavior to achieve the desired result. In a world where evolution is a process taking thousands or millions of years, such rapid behavioral adaptation seems more than mere instinct. Additionally, Koko the gorilla is a prime example of an animal who learned to communicate with a different species by adopting a new language. Koko is often heralded as compelling evidence in favor of animal cognition. More recently, work such as that done by Jane Goodall has sparked a debate over the consciousness of non-human animals. Goodall’s time spent with chimpanzees in Tanzania showed the individuality of these homonids, and raised questions over the existence of self-awareness in her chimpanzee companions.

If animals are indeed on equal footing with humans in their possession of rights, what misguided arrogance has led us to believe that we may contain animals in zoos and aquariums, separated from their natural environments? If the case for animal rights holds fast, then the captivity of any wild animal is a deplorable situation, and we should make every effort to return these animals to the wild. AZA-accredited institutions are required to follow certain animal acquisition policies in order to obtain individuals for their collections. The policies claim that in order to meet goals, “it may be necessary to acquire wild-caught specimens.”(5) In these cases, animals are taken from the wild, ironically, to help zoos explain why we need to protect the environment in which the individual will no longer be able to live. But this is often not the case. Indeed, many zoo animals have lived their entire lives in captivity and would not survive if released into their natural habitats. In addition, releasing all animals would overcrowd some ecosystems and could cause trauma to individuals and entire populations. So the rights argument, while compelling, would call for the abolition of all zoos and aquariums, which, in our current day and age, is not a feasible option.

Less extreme than the push for animal rights is the case known as animal welfare. Dealing not so much with the philosophical argument of whether or not animals are sentient beings, the animal welfare movement concerns itself with whether or not an animal suffers needlessly in our dealings with it. This movement, first heralded in the early 19th century by Richard Martin, led to the creation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) in the United Kingdom. The council has created a list of five freedoms held by all animals:

1. freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition
2. freedom from discomfort due to environment
3. freedom from pain, injury and disease
4. freedom to express normal behavior for the species
5. freedom from fear and distress.(6)

These basic freedoms can and should be extended to all animals in captivity, be they domesticated or wild. The second and third freedoms, dealing with discomfort and pain, once again necessitate an animal with human-like ability to feel pain. From a non-Christian perspective though, Bernard E. Rollin argues that it is “highly implausible” to believe that animals are mechanically different in their ability to feel pain(7) (analysis from a Christian perspective is unimportant for this argument, because God called us to care for the earth, so we would have a religious duty to the earth to not cause it to suffer needlessly). Accepting therefore that animals are capable of feeling pain and suffering, these freedoms, as outlined by the FAWC, are consistently violated in zoos and aquariums.

Freedom from discomfort, according to the FAWC, entails being provided with “an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.” In my own limited experience at some of the nation’s most widely acclaimed zoological parks, I have seen distressing scenes of animals clearly not living in comfort. I have stood in Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo, watching a white tiger pace back and forth on a cement floor, having not more than two thousand square feet on which to set foot. Looking a little higher through the dismal chain link fence, I noticed that the only shade this tiger received was due to the sun setting behind his walls. His refuge from the heat consisted of a single hose spraying a weak mist into his cage from ten feet in the air. I have seen cheetahs explore their fifty feet of fence at the Saint Louis Zoo, lacking sufficient room to walk very far, let alone run as they are accustomed to doing. These are only two examples of unlivable enclosures in zoos for animals. And as they occur at two of the most highly rated zoos in the United States, it can only be expected that the list of transgressions is long and troublesome.

The fourth freedom listed by the FAWC is the freedom to express normal behavior, described as having “sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.” Yet how many times have I seen an elephant, a herd-oriented creature, standing by itself in a zoo? How many bears, naturally roaming up to 400 square miles, have I seen restricted to a quarter of an acre of concrete with a pool? Gorillas, who in the wild won’t remain in the same location for more than a day, must daily cope with the same irritating humans peering at them through large expanses of glass. They are given a few imitation tree trunks, but little effort is made to make them truly feel at home. We make up for the lack of habitat with a rubber ball or a rope for entertainment. We pat ourselves on the back because the back wall is painted like a rainforest, so the gorillas appear to be in their natural habitat. “The caged animal,” Randall L. Eaton writes, “tells us that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way we and they live.”(8)

Eaton writes about seeing a single orca in a small, round tank, or three or four dolphins circling their aquarium together. These cetaceans are used to living in pods ranging from a dozen individuals to over a hundred dolphins in the same traveling group. Crossing thousands of miles of ocean in the wild, these captive animals are confined to what is for them the equivalent of a bathtub. Unable to fulfill their innate need for social interaction and large expanses, these large marine mammals are degraded further by having dead fish thrown to them. In the ultimate of insults, they are not even able to obey their basic hunting instinct. Eaton wonders what would happen if we could communicate with these killer whales, “ambassador[s] for the orca nation,” and they asked to go home.(9) What if we were forced into a position where we could see ourselves, face to face, in all our hypocrisy? If we were made to realize the deceit in campaigning to save wild places while parading as our spokesperson a killer whale who, used to living 80 years in the wild, is not expected to pass 20 years of age in a man-made enclosure?

Another of the main goals of zoos and aquariums is that of public education. Granted, most zoos and aquariums see this as a peripheral goal, and it is certainly not the main function of these institutions. While a pleasant “side dish,” education certainly does not trump their first priority, which is shuffling visitors in and out of the main gates. Zoos are major revenue and tourism sources for cities. Along with the 142 million visitors they attract, zoos and aquariums provide over 32,000 jobs nationwide and spend $1.5 billion on operating budgets and outside services. Once they have succeeded in attracting people and entertaining them sufficiently to inspire a return visit, the process of education may begin. Not that active education is needed for patrons to learn from zoos. I learn more about the zoo’s many inhabitants every time I visit. But zoos and aquariums have a unique opportunity to use their exhibits to serve the greater good, teaching the public about the necessity of conservation and preservation if we hope to still share the world with these species in a hundred years. Finances are important if they are to continue their existence, but zoos and aquariums should not focus so much on economic gains, as their unique position places them in a position of moral responsibility to the educational needs of this nation.

Zoos and aquariums often maintain individuals with the intention of rehabilitating them and releasing them back into the wild. One of the noblest callings of zoos and aquariums is re-releasing their recuperated inhabitants into their natural habitats, where they hopefully have a chance to aid in population recovery. As Gary Duke explains, one of the main purposes of wildlife rehabilitation is the returning of individuals to their ecosystems.(10) A problem arises though, involving those ecosystems. Quite often the reason for these animals being in danger is that their habitats are also in danger. Returning an animal back to its habitat could possibly subject it to the same harmful factors that landed it in human care in the first place. In this case, the revolving door care for animals does nothing but exhaust our resources as we rehabilitate the same animal time and time again. It is undeniable that California Condors have continued to survive as a species because of the effort made to bring the remaining individuals into captivity until the population was large enough to release them back into the wild.(11) But unless we make an effort to solve the problems that led to the plight of the Condor, it will again face extinction in the next decade. Whether or not we are prepared to save the species again has yet to be determined. Glenn Albrecht stresses that the key to recovery of a species is not the rehabilitation and release of a single animal.(12) Rather than spending money one or two animals in captivity that might later be introduced to an already overcrowded population, Albrecht urges those same groups to pool their money and make an effort to salvage what is left of those animals’ diminishing habitats. Without a rainforest, we would have no place in which to reintroduce a poison arrow frog or a blue and gold macaw. Rehabilitation is important, but maybe more important is the preservation of the environment into which we would release recovered individuals.

Zoos and aquariums, for the most part, are to be commended for the advances they have made over the past few decades in humane treatment, frugal spending and educational efforts. Yet if they are to prove themselves worthy of the millions of dollars being spent on them, they must recognize and act upon the need for major institutional changes. The enclosures in which animals are kept may be the best currently available, but they should ideally be more realistic in modeling the animals’ natural environment, including the difficult issue of size. Education is a terribly important goal of zoos and aquariums, and if they are to reach the public effectively, they must be willing to place education above other desires such as self-promotion and lucrative dollars. Finally, rehabilitation and relocation, though a commendable practice, does nothing to solve the large problem of habitat destruction. If the rehabilitation is to prove successful, we first need to take action in ensuring that these animals are being placed in viable environments. Zoos and aquariums are some of the greatest outreach institutions in America, and in order to fully show their understanding and appreciation of this, they will need to make drastic changes in several practices so as to increase the potential for positive impacts on society and on environment.

Literature Cited

1. The American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 2006. http:://www.aza.org/. March 21, 2006.
2. Ibid.
3. Regan, Tom. “From The Case for Animal Rights” in Environmental Ethics, ed. Armstrong, S.J. and R.G. Botzler. (McGraw-Hill, 2004).
4. Griffin, Donald R. “Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness” in The Animal Ethics Reader, ed. Armstrong, S.J. and R.G. Botzler. (McGraw-Hill, 2004).
5. The American Zoo and Aquarium Association.
6. Farm Animal Welfare Council. January 10, 2006. http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm. March 21, 2006.
7. Rollin, Bernard E. “Animal Pain” in The Animal Ethics Reader.
8. Eaton, Randall L. “Orcas and Dolphins in Captivity” in The Animal Ethics Reader.
9. Ibid.
10. Duke, Gary E. “Wildlife Rehabilitation: Is it Significant?” in The Animal Ethics Reader.
11. Lindburg, Donald G. “Zoos and the Rights of Animals” in The Animal Ethics Reader.
12. Albrecht, Glenn. “Thinking like an Ecosystem: The Ethics of the Relocation, Rehabilitation and Release of Wildlife” in The Animal Ethics Reader.

which war is this?

2006-04-10T08:28:00.001-07:00

Upon reading David Maraniss' They Marched Into Sunlight, I couldn't help but notice two frighteningly familiar parallels in his discussion of Vietnam-era goings-on.

Communism, and this is too often ignored, is evil. It is a pseudo-religion which justifies a ruthless dictatorship. Since 1917 its disciples have been responsible for the planned deaths of many millions of innocent men, women and children. It is a system of government that destroys its opponents without mercy, controls the minds of those who lives under it, and ambitiously boasts that it will one day dominate the world.

Let's see.....pseudo-religion? Well, we've got that covered with mandatory reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in some schools, though I recognize this is a shaky comparison at best. Ruthless dictatorship? Well, we have an odd history of supporting certain dictators (South Vietnam, early Saddam, early Taliban, Israel.....), while nearly having dictators of our own ("I'm the one who gets to decide [whether or not we go to war], not you." - GW Bush). How many innocents have we murdered since 1917? Maybe not just with the intent of killing innocents, but we are disturbingly willing to put up with massive "collateral damage" to achieve our goals. Iraqi citizens for one. Destroys its opponents without mercy? Well, how about all the vicious attack ads in politics, especially from Bush in his two campaigns? How about the leak of Valerie Plame, which we now know was orchestrated by El Dubya himself? How about our massive military operation in Iraq, which we now know was very much avoidable? Controls the minds of those who live under it? Wow, well, let's start with the color-coded terror alert system? The whole idea of that thing is to keep us under fear so that we'll comply with the government's demands. Makes me think of a line from 1984: "You want a picture of the future? Imagine a boot stamping on a human face. Forever." And boasts that it will one day dominate the world. You mean like Bush arrogantly saying that a democratic Iraq will lead to a stable, eventually democratic Middle East?

"If this hearing is to take up that question of abandonment--if it is only ot hear the cries of appeasement from people who cannot find enough distaste for [evil ideology] to fight it--then this hearing does not serve a purpose, that is, no other purpose than to weaken dangerously the determination of our country and its people at a time when great determination and strong moral courage are demanded as fitting examples of democracy."

What's that? Dissent is bad for our war? Dissent is a bad example of democracy? Guess which war, Vietnam or Iraq? Hard to tell, isn't it? Yeah, this is a quote from Tom Thompson during the Vietnam War. Ironically, he later became the secretary of health and human services under GW Bush. Fitting, isn't it?

Dems got some cajones!!

2006-03-15T09:38:00.000-08:00

CNS article

Looks like the Democrats are finally beginning to create their own platform. The biggest thing missing from the party in the elections of the last eight years is a unified party line. For once, somebody's pushing to adopt a party standard, and not a moment too soon. But the Democrats' success hinges on a few key elements:

1. They must all adopt the party platform. Without unity, Pelosi can say whatever she wants, and no matter how good it is, nobody will give a crap because their candidates haven't signed on.

2. They must convince America that they're serious. Nobody believed John Kerry, and Bush used that against him. Or maybe Bush is the reason we didn't believe Kerry, but either way, that happened across America in 2004, because Dems didn't make the right arguments, and they just didn't come across strong enough. Communication with your voters is rather important.

3. They must convince America that they're a better alternative than Republicans. Not that the Republicans suck, but that Democrats DON'T suck. Everybody knows that politicians are corrupt and immoral. A purely attack-based campaign works for almost nobody, current president not included. Americans are willing to listen if they think you're good for them, even if you've screwed up one or two small things.

4. That being said, they need to avoid scandals, they need to avoid public embarrassment (e.g. Howard Dean and recently John McCain at the Republican Straw Poll). Don't do anything stupid, and your chances of election increase tenfold.

5. They must get some money. No matter how good you are, without the money to wage an effective campaign, nobody knows or cares about you. Dean has done a horrible job fundraising, and the rest of the party needs to either inspire him to work, or drop him like a bad habit and find somebody who knows how to run a party.

6. If all else fails, bash the Republicans. Hey, it worked for Bush and Rove, didn't it?

I'll miss him

2006-03-06T21:02:00.000-08:00

Kirby Puckett died. I'm sad.

scientific principles examined

2006-03-04T18:18:00.000-08:00

In class last week, we discussed the merit of several supposed scientific principles compiled in one of the essays in our Environmental Ethics text, one of which stood out to me as an interesting point of departure for discussion. Our class wrestled with the question of to what degree we should hold the scientific realm responsible to society. We asked if it is wrong for scientists to come to a conclusion and then presume to tell communities what they should be doing about it, or if scientists are rather obligated to interpret their own results and offer advice on how people should respond to those results.

Almost exactly two years ago, a panel of 60 of the nation’s top scientists compiled an open report and letter that accused the Bush administration of “suppressing, distorting or manipulating the work done by scientists at federal agencies.” These scientists, 20 of whom are Nobel laureates, represented a broad spectrum of political beliefs, defending their field against a power that presumed to misrepresent and misinterpret scientific research. This episode provides a perfect example of why it is acceptable, and even necessary, for scientists to present not only the objective truth of their experiments, but also to discuss the implications of their work for society. Just as we would not expect George Stephanopoulos to be able to single-handedly extrapolate on the findings of the United Nations’ WMD investigation, it is absurd to think that a scientist’s work can be brought to the public without the approval and assistance of the scientist in question. While certain objective truths about a research project’s data can be presented equally well by any number of individuals, the scientist who is most familiar with the project is needed to thoroughly explain the significance of their findings.

I think it is insulting to suggest that a scientist is unfit to comment on the validity of his/her own research. While it is understandable that certain prejudices towards their findings may exist, they are the best authority on what they have studied, and should be allowed to bring that information to the public themselves.

The Middle of the Pack

2006-02-15T08:51:00.000-08:00

My family has always considered itself part of the shrinking middle class of America. My father teaches at a small private high school, and until recently my mother was employed only part time, choosing to homeschool her four children through eighth grade. Never has money come easily to us, but at the same time we have always managed to make ends meet. By cutting corners and exercising frugality, we have led a comfortable lifestyle on modest funds. Looking at our income, our living habits, and our values, we are very much a part of the middle class, neither rich nor poor, and having neither the stereotypical haughtiness of the wealthy nor the imagined resignation of the destitute. Our position in today’s debated class system has been reinforced at several points in my life, some of which continue to impact the way in which I perceive our family’s “place” in society.

One story that sticks out in my mind as the perfect example of our place in society took place before I was born. Until I was past the age of ten, my family would eat at fast food restaurants only occasionally, and even then we would share fries and drinks to save money and lessen the amount of unhealthy food entering our bodies. On one of these occasions, when my oldest brother Ben was only three years old, he and my parents were each eating a cheeseburger and sharing a small drink and an order of fries. Ben looked over at a neighboring table, at which he noticed another child enjoying his happy meal and toy, and he asked, “Mom, are we having a sad meal?”

This tale recounts with accuracy the type of economic life in which I have always found myself. While money is certainly easier to come by now than it was ten years ago, when the thrift store was where I got my “new” clothes, ours has never been a life of complete luxury. Yet our ability to eat out occasionally and not threaten our bill paying shows that we have had some monetary comforts. Following the example of my parents, who make an effort not to spend money unnecessarily, I have made a name for myself as a thrifty spender among my friends, though they have other terms they prefer to use.
Similar to the fast food story is another example of how my parents instilled a certain financial sensibility in me. As children are wont to do, my siblings and I believed in Santa Claus, diligently writing Christmas lists and either burning them in the fireplace or trusting our parents to find a way to deliver the precious notes. Without fail, Santa responded every year as best he could, and seemed awfully fond of bringing us Legos, as well as ornaments bearing his likeness. Our first computer was paid for, in large part, by a monetary gift from Saint Nick himself, who, according to his note, recognized their great expense and thought he would help us in our quest to afford a beautiful new Macintosh.

Years later, I have come to the conclusion that these acts were most likely not performed by Santa Claus himself, yet their impact is still felt today. Even as we grew out of our belief in Santa Claus, my parents have still managed to place gifts from Santa under the tree each year. This is undoubtedly an effort to preserve a fun tradition for us, but in it I see another message given by my parents. The gifts from Santa have typically been more expensive than those acknowledged by my parents as their own, and despite a minor jump in income, my parents still never directly give more than two gifts per child, leaving us to rely on siblings and Santa for anything else on our lists. This has resulted in an almost subconscious awareness of our economic situation. We are told through this practice that we do have limitations to what we can afford to spend, even on Christmas gifts for each other.

The classes that pervade today’s American society show themselves in various ways, many humorous, many sad and poignant. A person’s idea of their societal role is often defined by a single occurrence that remains with them throughout their life. I have had a number of defining moments that contribute to my own image of my family's place in middle class America. These two stories exemplify this image of mine, and will likely continue to impact my self-image for the rest of my life.

back to the kids

2006-01-20T19:37:00.000-08:00

And now that we've gotten into The Plague, Camus gives pretty much a direct answer to Dostoevsky's questions about the suffering of children.

[Rieux's] interest quickened when, in a more emphatic tone, the preacher said that there were some things we could grasp as touching God, and others we could not. There was no doubt as to the existence of good and evil and, as a rule, it was easy to see the difference between them. The difficulty began when we looked into the nature of evil, and among things evil he included human suffering. Thus we had apparently needful pain, and apparently needless pain; we had Don Juan cast into hell, and a child's death. For while it is right that a libertine should be struck down, we see no reason for a child's suffering. And, truth to tell, nothing was more important on earth than a child's suffering, the horror it inspires in us, and the reasons we must find to account for it. In other manifestations of life God made things easy for us and, thus far, our religion had no merit. but in this respect He put us, so to speak, with our backs to the wall. Indeed, we all were up against the wall that plague had built around us, and in its lethal shadow we must work out our salvation. He, Father Paneloux, refused to have recourse to simple devices enabling him to scale that wall. Thus he might easily have assured them that the child's sufferings would be compensated for by an eternity of bliss awaiting him. But how could he give that assurance when, to tell the truth, he knew nothing about it? For who would dare to assert that eternal happiness can compensate for a single moment's human suffering? He who asserted that would not be a true Christian, a follower of the Master who knew all the pangs of suffering in his body and his soul. No, he, Father Paneloux, would keep faith with that great symbol of all suffering, the tortured body on the Cross; he would stand fast, his back to the wall, and face honestly the terrible problem of a child's agony. And he would boldly say to those who listened to his words today: "My brothers, a time of testing has come for us all. We must believe everything or deny everything. And who among you, I ask, would dare to deny everything?"....

But, Paneloux continued, there were other precedents of which he would now remind them. If the chronicles of the Black Death at Marseille were to be trusted, only four of the eighty-one monks in the Mercy Monastery survived the epidemic. And of these four three took to flight. Thus far the chronicler, and it was not his task to tell us more than the bare facts. But when he read that chronicle, Father Paneloux had found his thoughts fixed on that monk who stayed on by himself, despite the death of his seventy-seven companions, and, above all, despite the example of his three brothers who had fled. And, bringing down his fist on the edge of the pulpit, Father Paneloux cried in a ringing voice: "My brothers, each one of us must be the one who stays!"....

As for the rest, we must hold fast, trusting in the divine goodness, even as to the deaths of little children, and not seeking personal respite....

"My brothers"--the preacher's tone showed he was nearing the conclusion of his sermon--"the love of God is a hard love. It demands total self-surrender, disdain of our human personality. And yet it alone can reconcile us to suffering and the deaths of children, it alone can justify them, since we cannot understand them, and we can only make God's will ours.

what about the kids?

2006-01-18T22:43:00.000-08:00

I never did make it all the way through Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, but that was slightly made up for this week, since my interim class read "The Grand Inquisitor" and preceding chapters from said novel.

The book brought up some excellent points, one of which still sticks with me. I wouldn't say it's a hinderance to my faith, but it certainly gives me a question I've never thought of before, and I don't know how to answer it.

To paraphrase the question, what exactly does Christianity have to say about the suffering of children?

Thinking about Jesus' affinity for children, and his comments that "the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these" and "unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven," how can the merciless suffering of children be reconciled with our faith?

I suppose there's an easy answer I can't think of, but Dostoevsky's character related some pretty horrendous stories about the cruel treatment of children, and somehow it just doesn't seem right.

ease his pain......

2005-12-24T17:58:00.000-08:00

I was talking on AIM last night to a friend, and she told me that I'm too negative; that I need to adopt a more positive outlook on life and find things that make me happier. I was taken aback, I must say. I will admit that my parents spent a good ten years of my life at home trying to convince me that it's okay to be upbeat about things, and that following their advice didn't make it seem like I was only doing it under orders. It took me a long time to realize that all they wanted for me was a happier childhood and a longer, more ulcer-free life. Since getting to college, I'm certainly had my ups and downs, but I think I've finally started to get the hang of being optimistic. I can go through my daily life and see the rose in the thorns, rather than just noticing that my finger gets pricked every once in a while.

So when said friend told me that I'm being too negative, I was surprised that I would still be infected by this horrible disease, the main symptom of which was a giant chip on my shoulder. "What ever could be the problem?" I asked myself.

I think I solved it.

Today I was reading an e-mail I received from my little sister, Rebecca, and I read the "signature" she attaches at the bottom of her e-mails. Typically, people have these cutesy little quips which mean nothing to anybody but them, yet they still find sadistic pleasure in subjecting us to their odd sense of humor with every single electronic message. This one though, caught my eye. It wasn't a joke. It wasn't Winnie the Pooh in his infinite depth. It wasn't even a late U.S. president with words of wisdom for our nation's future. It was a simple phrase, but one which captured everything that's been on my mind as of late:

"Let my heart be broken with the things that break the heart of God."

These words, spoken by the founder of World Vision (Bob Pearce) during the Korean War, epitomize everything I've been feeling recently.

After I finish my bachelor's degree at St. Olaf, my two biggest goals right now are to join the Peace Corps, or to work with Youth Encounter and do a year of musical ministry around the country or the world. I see so many hurts in the world, and I want to do so much to ease that pain. For years I've wondered why God has given me such an easy road in life, and I feel like He expects something back. As they say, to whom much is given, much is expected. So why shouldn't I take all the gifts I've been given and allow God to use them in His work? If I don't do it soon, I'll get so caught up in life that I forget all about it.

But graduation is still a year and a half away. At this point, I refuse to delay the completion of my St. Olaf education, but I can't get started on these mission fields until I've graduated. So that means nearly two years until I can begin to go where I feel I'm being called. In the meantime, I watch the news and I read the papers, and I look all around me and see a broken world. I see a world where love is pushed aside and we try to fill that void with drugs, with violence, with sex and with greed. I see a world where loving your neighbor has taken a backseat to loving yourself.

Then I see myself caught up in that world, and it breaks my heart. I see how I go shopping for Christmas presents, and my eyes are constantly drawn to things that I want, but don't need. I feel myself pulled in so many directions by the world, and sometimes it's easier to just give in and tell God I'll come back later.

This breaks God's heart, and thus it breaks mine. I can see God crying because of this, and I can feel just an ounce of His pain, and I ache because of it. My heart literally feels heavy, like it's weighed down with a burden it can't bear. And I feel like I can't do anything about it.

Sure, I try. This is the second year that I've made a donation in somebody's name for a Christmas present. I joined the volunteer network at St. Olaf (though I have yet to participate in any activities.....). Anytime I'm conscious of it, I try to make the world a better place. Well, more than I used to, at least.

But I still need help, and I still feel the pain, and I still long for that burden to be lifted. I've seen and experienced so much brokenness in this world, and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

I guess for now, all I can do is the little things. The tasks I can complete right now are the simple ones that seem minute, but can work wonders when multiplied. I just need the strength and the guidance to do that. And for that, I need prayers, both from myself and from others. I need the strength from God, because when I try to do this alone, it feels like I'm gasping for air.

But if I am given that strength.......

For the Good of the Nation

2005-11-27T10:45:00.000-08:00

American Conversations essay on a Supreme Court case from the 20s/30s. I chose Buck v. Bell, a case from 1927 in which.....well, I guess you'll have to read the essay to find out.

“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”(1) Thus declared Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his majority opinion supporting a controversial Virginia statute in 1927. The case brought before the Supreme Court challenged a Virginia law that condoned the involuntary sterilization of the state’s institutionalized individuals. This case served to call into question the widespread eugenics movement in America, which was championed as a tool for cleansing society of “undesirable” individuals. Rejected almost unanimously by the Supreme Court, Buck v. Bell’s verdict essentially became a judicial authorization of sterilization practices throughout the United States, and within ten years over 27,000 people were sterilized in America(2). Directly, the Supreme Court’s decision sentenced Carrie Buck to an infertile life, thus depriving her of the future children she may have had. More broadly, the case served as an example upon which other eugenics advocates would lean for years to come, advancing the cause of their own ideal humanities.

In the late 19th century, states were experimenting with various methods of keeping “defective” persons from reproducing, which would spread their undesirable genes throughout the population. Charles Darwin had recently published On the Origin of Species, and the theory of natural selection was making its way into the public eye, where scientists were leading the quest to better man’s chances of survival. 1895 saw the first legislative act against marriage between “defective” individuals in Connecticut, and by 1897 the introduction of successful vasectomies provided states with an even more conclusive solution to their problem(3). Within thirty years, twenty-four states had passed involuntary sterilization laws(4), including Virginia, and the movement gained support from some of the nation’s most prominent citizens, including Theodore Rooesvelt, who said, “some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world.”(5)

Involuntary sterilization laws were supported by a majority of the American public, who desired to protect themselves from society’s outcasts. Relatively few had to experience the law as an outcast, but that was the situation for Carrie Buck, whose adopted family, the Dobbs, requested that she be committed to a mental institute in 1923. Carrie became pregnant at age sixteen, and to protect their reputation, the Dobbs asked a local court to declare Carrie “feebleminded” and commit her to the same colony as her mother. Carrie was interned at the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded after her daughter’s birth in 1924, and the colony’s superintendent recommended that she be sterilized to allow for reintroduction into society before “her childbearing age [was] past.”(6)

The plaintiff assigned to Carrie Buck was a Mr. I.P. Whitehead, a eugenics supporter on the colony’s board of directors. In the brief he submitted to the court, Whitehead argued that the salpingectomy interfered with Buck’s “constitutional right of bodily integrity,”(7) thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process of law clause. Whitehead claimed that the government cannot simply “make a proceeding due process of law by declaring it to be such,”(8) or else their power would know no limits. The Fourteenth Amendment also provides for equal protection of the laws, and this involuntary sterilization, according to Whitehead, does not have substantial enough evidence to override equal protection. Perhaps Whitehead’s most powerful statement was that this type of law allowed whichever faction of the government was in power to simply eliminate those citizens deemed unnecessary. This would, as Whitehead stated at the close of his brief, replace the “constitutional government of the fathers…[with]… Plato’s Republic.”(9)

Unfortunately for Ms. Buck, the defense had an answer for each of Mr. Whitehead’s arguments. Aubrey E. Strode, representing the Colony’s Superintendent Dr. J.H. Bell, ridiculed the idea of this law being cruel and unusual punishment. That provision, he argued, was designed to prevent the government from conducting torture and physical mutilation of its citizens. Comparing these involuntary sterilizations to mandatory vaccinations, Strode argued that the desires of the individual may be overridden when the safety of the individual and of society are at risk. Strode claimed that this sterilization was in fact beneficial for the colony’s inhabitants, for they are already kept from procreation by their segregation in the colony, which also deprives them of their liberty. But if sterilized, they can be reintroduced into society without posing a threat to the reproductive health of the state. Strode referred to the state courts, which determined Buck to be feeble-minded, and argued that for her own good, the woman needed to be sterilized to prevent an unfortunate pregnancy or unpleasant internment in the colony.

Chief Justice Holmes wrote the majority opinion deciding in favor of the Virginia Colony. He agreed with the evidence that pointed to all three Bucks in question (Carrie, mother Emma and daughter Vivian) being feeble-minded. Holmes’ most forceful, and most controversial statement, was that,

“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting t o execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”(10)

With a vote of 8-1 against Buck, the court crushed her last hopes of saving her fertility, and she was sterilized in October of 1927. Paroled a short time later, Buck married twice, but was forever deprived of the chance to start a family
Holmes’ seemingly harsh and bigoted statements provide an insightful depiction of the general attitude of the time towards the mentally handicapped population in America. Eugenics supporters were convinced that their actions were benefiting humanity and providing for its future. Many abnormalities were believed to be hereditary, so by sterilizing the “unclean,” America could eventually purge itself of inadequate traits.(11) In a time when the nation was suffering from an economic depression, it was thought that some of the pressures on society could be alleviated by the eradication of the least self-sufficient group. One of the most influential women’s rights activists in our nation’s history, Margaret Sanger, was herself a proponent of eugenics, and said,

The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.(12)

The court’s ruling in Buck v. Bell was a brief victory for science and public opinion in America. By the mid-30s, the eugenics movement was in full swing, with as many as 100,000 Americans undergoing involuntary sterilization in the first few decades of the 20th century.(13) Not until the rise of the Nazi party in Germany did the United States begin to realize the full potential of eugenics. In 1933, Nazi Germany enacted the Eugenic Sterilization Law, providing for the involuntary sterilization of individuals with physical or mental handicaps. The law borrowed its language and inspiration from Harry Laughlin, superintendent of America’s Eugenics Record Office, who was a driving force behind the American eugenics movement.(14) The Nazis sterilized over 2 million German citizens by the end of World War II, hoping to improve the strength of their bloodlines, and this idea had also been applied in the running of concentration camps. As the American public became aware of the possible consequences of this social cleansing, eugenics began to fall out of favor in the United States. As late as 1976, the North Carolina Supreme Court said that the sterilization of certain individuals is beneficial in that it lessens a burden on the state.(15) For the most part though, the eugenics movement was abandoned after the 1930s and World War II.

In 1927, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Virginia, upholding a law that would cost Carrie E. Buck her fertility. The Supreme Court ruled that her involuntary sterilization was in fact legal and even necessary. More than that, they decided in favor of America’s majority, who feared that which they did not understand. The court decided that the best way to deal with a different group of people was to take steps designed to eliminate those people for good. This case opened the doors for thousands of Americans to lose their fertility, and it was a jumping point for Nazi ethnic cleansing. Buck v. Bell is a black mark in the history of the American judicial system, a “cruel but forgotten [error] of history.”(16) Serving as an example for social Darwinists for years to come, it took America down a path of social cleansing which we will hopefully never follow again.

1. Buck v. Bell. 274 U.S. 200, 47 S. Ct. (584) 1927.
2. J. David Smith and K. Ray Nelson, The Sterilization of Carrie Buck, cited in Michael J. Berson and Bárbara Cruz, “Eugenics Past and Present: Remembering Buck v. Bell,” Social Education 65 (2001): 304.
3. Berson and Cruz, 300.
4. Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), cited in Berson and Cruz, 302.
5. Matt Ridley, “The New Eugenics,” The National Review (31 July 2000): 34-36, cited in Berson and Cruz, 302.
6. Smith and Nelson, cited in Berson and Cruz, 302.
7. Buck v. Bell. 274 U.S. 200, 47 S. Ct. (584) 1927.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Buck v. Bell, cited in “Buck v. Bell,” in Great American Court Cases, Vol. III: Equal Protection and Family Law, ed. Mark Mikula & L. Mpho Mabunda (Farmington Hills, MI: The Gale Group, 1999), 399.
11. Geral Grob, “Introduction,” in The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States, ed. Phillip R. Reilly (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), xi., cited in Berson and Cruz, 300.
12. “The eugenic value of birth control propaganga,” Birth Control Review, Oct. 1921 (17 November 2005).
13. “Swedes Resent Scapegoat Role in Eugenics Controversy,” The Financial Times (6 September 1997): 2, cited in Berson and Cruz, 304.
14. Berson and Cruz, 304.
15. “Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough,” in Historic U.S. Court Cases, Vol. II, ed. John W. Johnson (New York: Routledge, 2001), 803.
16. Stephen Jay Gould, The Flamingo’s Smile: Reflections in Natural History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985), 317.

Lyrics that rock my world

2005-11-03T22:26:00.000-08:00

Though the pain is an ocean, tossing us around
You have calmed greater waters
Higher mountains have come down
I will sing of your mercy that leads me
Through valleys of sorrow to rivers of joy
-Jars of Clay, "The Valley Song"

I thank you for the music and your stories of the road
I thank you for the freedom when it came my time to go
I thank you for the kindness and the times when you got tough
And Papa, I don't think I said "I love you" near enough
-Dan Fogelberg, "Leader of the Band"

We were meant to live for so much more
Have we lost ourselves?
-Switchfoot, "Meant to Live"

I see that there is evil
And I know that there is good
And the in-betweens I never understood
-Ben Folds, "Philosophy"

Hop on my choo-choo
I'll be your engine driver in a bunny suit
If you dress me up in pink and white
We may be just a little fuzzy 'bout it later tonight
-Counting Crows, "Holiday in Spain"

So I'll be king and you be queen
Our kingdom's gonna be this little patch of green
-James Taylor, "September Grass"

If I didn't believe in you, then here's where the travelogue ends
If I didn't believe in you, I couldn't have stood before all of our friends
And said, "this is the life I choose, this is the thing I can't bear to lose"
Trip us or trap us, but we refuse to fall....
If I hadn't believed in you, I wouldn't have loved you at all"
-Jason Robert Brown, "If I Didn't Believe In You" (from The Last Five Years)

If your heart is beating fast, then you know she's right
If you don't know what to say, well that's alright
You don't know what to do? Remember, she is just as scared as you"
-Phil Collins, "Father to Son"

Oh so squishy, most delishy, make a wishy, save the fishies
Spam with rice and mashed potatoes, get a tissue, blow your Spam's nose
Make a person out of Spam, cut off his nose and laugh at him!
Pick him up (don't let him fall), then light a match and cook your Spam doll
-Phil Grupe, "Big Can O' Spam"

consumerism scares me

2005-11-01T22:29:00.000-08:00

Wrote a paper recently on materialism in America. Not the greatest article, though the prof was very fond of this closing paragraph, so I thought I'd share. It isn't a long blog, but I liked this......

Unfortunately, I too am a tool of the great consumerism machine. I find myself inexplicably drawn to new clothing, the latest technology and sleek, exciting looking atrocities, for no reason except that I want to buy something. It gives me a feeling of accomplishment and importance, that I am able to purchase a few extra pleasures on a whim. I have bought into the scam, and though I kick and scream, I am trapped alongside the rest of America, spiraling down a drain that leads only to a dark hole where we consume ourselves into oblivion.

A very brief discourse (oxymoronic, no?) on globalization

2005-10-14T17:24:00.000-07:00

The following three paragraphs are a short essay on globalization, which I wrote last fall for my international relations course at St. Olaf.

Globalization, the integration of many formerly separate cultures into a single conglomerate society, is increasingly on the march, resulting in both positive and negative outcomes. Contrary to popular belief, the increased pace of globalization is not likely to lead our world to a new era of peace and comraderie. While citizens of many nations are able to communicate with each other and travel great distances to bridge gaps which once encouraged national isolation, the gap between rich and poor seems to also be increasing. Those able to afford new technological advances are entitled to its benefits, educationally and economically. Unfortunately, this privileged few comprise approximately two-thirds of the world’s population, a strong majority located in the “global north,” leaving much of the southern hemisphere effectively oppressed, the haves keeping the have-nots socially, economically, and politically inferior. While such polarity is not a new scene in the world, the quick transmission of information through televisions, internet, and telephones has led to a more informed lower caste, who, whether or not they suffer more than in times past, are able to compare their living standards with those of the arrogant, selfish Americans, ignorant to the vile conditions affecting billions of people across the globe.

With this wide gap between the privileged and the rest of the world apparent, it is not surprising that international hostility has not decreased significantly, despite the growing interdependence between nations who contribute so much to each others’ economies. An example can be seen in the Middle East, where after the attacks of September 11, 2001, children and adults alike were seen dancing in the streets, celebrating the humiliation and devastation of the “white satan,” America. These people detested America in part because of ideology, but also because they know full well how well Americans live in comparison to other nations, and how greedy and petty the United States can be. Some people despise the fact that women are free to speak their minds in America, some criticize (especially now) the country’s arrogance in international affairs, working with other countries only as long as they benefit. And some simply hate and fear the incorporation of American ways into the rest of the world. As countries can communicate and interact more openly, the dominant nation has, intentionally or not, imposed its morals, its nuances, and its democracy on states unable to sustain their former way of life in the face of such pressure.

With the increase of globalization, it is almot inevitable that the dominant nation will somehow exert unnecessary influence on the rest of the world, thereby intimidating and provoking those nations acted upon, and hatred and conflict can only worsen following these occurances. Hopefully in the near future we can find a way to control the amount of globalization occuring, and more importantly, learn to share what resources we have, so that the whole world may benefit from an increasingly globalized planet, and tension between states may be reduced.

Rabin call for peace

2005-10-13T22:10:00.000-07:00

I miss Yitzhak Rabin.......

“This signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, here today, is not so easy... We have come from Jerusalem, the ancient and eternal capital of the Jewish people. We have come from an anguished and grieving land. We have come from a people, a home, a family, that has known not a single year – not a single month – in which mothers have not wept for their sons. We have come to try and put an end to hostilities, so that our children and our children’s children will no longer experience the painful cost of war, violence and terror.

We have come to secure their lives, and to ease the sorrow and the painful memories of the past - to hope and pray for peace.

Let me say to you, the Palestinians: We are destined to live together, on the same soil in the same land ... We say to you today in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough. We harbor no hatred toward you. We have no desire for revenge. We, like you, are people who want to build a home, plant a tree, love, live side by side with you – in dignity, empathy, as human beings, as free men...

We wish to open a new chapter in the sad book of our lives together - a chapter of mutual recognition, of good neighborliness, of mutual respect, of understanding. We hope to embark on a new era in the history of the Middle East.” (The Rabin Memoirs, Appendix E, pp. 400-401)

baseball in October

2005-10-05T08:22:00.001-07:00

So the MLB regular season has come and gone again. Why does it always seem so short? It was a rather exciting finish, but all of that can be forgotten. Because with October comes a fresh start for eight teams. These contenders can forget about any blemishes on their regular season, because that doesn't matter anymore. All that matters now are the next 3-19 games for these teams (preferably on the higher end).

Any baseball fan knows that you never can tell who will dominate and who will roll over come the fall classic. That's why it's so much fun to make predictions about the outcomes of these series; you really don't have any way to know whether you'll be right or not. I, however, am perfectly capable of predicting every single series, be it divisional, NLCS, or the World Series. So in a stunning shift from my normal blog topics, here's my predictions for the 2005 Major League Baseball playoffs (being a Cardinals fan, I'll admit a bit of a bias, but I tried not to let that affect this too much):

NATIONAL LEAGUE DIVISION SERIES

1. Houston Astros vs. Atlanta Braves
All logic would point to the Braves clobbering the Astros. Sure, the 'Stros have some dominant pitching, but the Braves are 14-time winners of the NL East, and boy did they come on strong at the end of the season to hold off Philly and the Nats. With a lineup that includes Chipper Jones, as well as potential MVP and ROY Andruw Jones and Jeff Francouer, respectively, how could the Braves lineup possibly be stymied by even the best of pitchers? Add John Smoltz and Tim Hudson on the mound, and you've got a formidable nine-man setup.
With Roger Clemens at the top of his game though, and powerhouses Roy Oswalt and veteran Andy Pettite anchoring the rotation, and superstar Brad Lidge in the bullpen, could the Astros make a return trip to the NLCS this year? They're hungry after coming so close last year against St. Louis, and don't think Ausmus, Biggio and Bagwell won't have something to say before it's all over. However, the Astros are the wild-card team, and they haven't fared well on the road this year. Clemens hasn't been as dominating of late, and even at his best, he could never get run support from his meager offense. The Astros want revenge against the Cards, so don't be surprised to catch them looking ahead. The Braves want revenge here and now for last year, and they're gonna get it, despite Smoltz's sore shoulder.
Prediction: Braves in 5

2. San Diego Padres vs. St. Louis Cardinals
Say what you will about San Diego scraping against the .500 mark and barely clinching their division with a record some would consider pathetic. At their best this year, they can play with anybody. Unfortunately for them, their best is taken down a couple notches at this point, especially with Jake Peavy out for the rest of the postseason with a broken rib. How much does that hurt? Pedro Astacio is now the top starter for the Padres, who have lost their top gun and their best shot at shutting down the potent St. Louis lineup.
The loss of Scott Rolen cannot be overlooked. Last year, Rolen was a pivotal part of the offense that powered the Cardinals to the World Series, and his absence leaves Albert Pujols that much less protected in a lineup that features three minorly hobbled sluggers. Five of the Cardinals' regular position players have spent considerable time recovering from various ailments, and recurring injuries could put a damper on this year's playoff run. But if the starters (minus Rolen) can stay healthy for three more weeks, the lineup can match up with any in the postseason. Add to that a duo of starting pitchers the Cards didn't have last October, Mark Mulder and Chris Carpenter. The addition of a strong southpaw and a Cy Young contender give the Redbirds the top starters they lacked the past few seasons, and they should have more than enough to take out San Diego.
Prediction: Cards in 3

AMERICAN LEAGUE DIVISION SERIES

1. Boston Red Sox vs. Chicago White Sox
The world champion BoSox were expected by many to return to the Fall Classic this year. And why not? Featuring the fearsome Johnny Damon, David Ortiz, Jason Varitek, Manny Ramirez and now Edgar Renteria, and with Curt Schilling, David Wells and Matt Clement on the mound, what should stop them? How about a lessened role for Schilling, who has yet to fully prove himself since returning from his ankle injury. How about Renteria not coming close to meeting expectations? How about losing last year's out-of-nowhere hero, Orlando Cabrera? How about losing the incentive they had last year, now that their title-less streak is at zero years? Well, they've got one thing going for them: the last three World Series winners were wild-card teams.
Probably this year's biggest playoff surprise would have to be the Chicago White Sox. And not even that they made the playoffs, but it's HOW they made them. The White Sox, barring a minor near-collapse in mid-September, completely dominated the American League Central this year. Not since 1994 has Chicago's south side turned out a club this solid, with expectations this high come October. Jose Contreras, Jon Garland and Mark Buehrle have had their way with AL hitters, and the lineup featuring A.J. Pierczynski, Scott Podsednik, Juan Uribe, Tadahito Iguchi and Paul Konerko has become downright frightening, especially after last night's 14-2 clobbering of the BoSox. The ChiSox are hungry for more baseball, and they're gonna get it.
Prediction: White Sox in 4

2. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim vs. New York Yankees
The Yankees aren't as strong as they've been in the past, but they've still got those magical two words going for them: Mariano Rivera. If they get him in the game, he'll get them the save, no ifs ands or buts. Throw in Alex Rodriguez, a revitalized Jason Giambi, Hideki Matsui, and oh yeah, some guy named Aaron Small who is 10-0 in his first major league season. Holy crap, they're still good.
The Angels have Garrett Anderson. They've got Orlando Cabrera. They've even got Bartolo Colon and all of his dominating pitching. And don't forget the rally monkey. Who could forget the rally monkey? But the most ridiculous off-season move they made was the name change. That's why they won't win this one. Nobody can take a team seriously, when it takes you longer to say the name than to sing everybody's favorite song during the 7th inning stretch. C'mon guys, dump the dumpy name.
Prediction: Yankees in 3

NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES

Atlanta Braves vs. St. Louis Cardinals
I still remember the NLCS from 1996, when the Cards were up three games to one and somehow let it slip through their fingers. The Braves got shellacked by the Yankees that year, and Cardinals fans everywhere "knew" that the Redbirds could have taken the World Series. This year, they can prove it. Why? This isn't 1996. The Cards have home field advantage. The Cards finally have aces. The Braves lost Maddux and Glavine, and Smoltz is ailing. I'll take Pujols over Andruw Jones any day. And though they succeeded in the regular season, the Braves have too many rookies with too little playoff experience to take this one all the way to the bank. The Cards are battle-hardened from last year, and they're hungry for those elusive rings. Besides, Abraham Nunez will be the NLCS MVP, and he can't very well do that on a losing team, can he?
Prediction: Cardinals in 6

AMERICAN LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES
White Sox and Yankees. When is the last time that two teams at the bottom of the organizational alphabet faced each other this late in the playoffs? The answer is 1990, before the two recent expansions, when the NL's Cincinnati Reds and Pittsburgh Pirates squared off in the NLCS. The Reds prevailed 4-2, going on to win the World Series against the A's. What does that have to do with this series? Absolutely nothing. The Yanks aren't the Yanks of the late 90's. They're a thinner lineup and an older team, and they just don't have the stuff to go all the way this year. And I'll take Contreras, Garland and Buehrle over inexperienced Aaron Small and an aging Randy Johnson any day. ChiSox also have home field advantage, which will be key in this series.
Prediction: White Sox in 7, home team wins every game

THE WORLD SERIES!!!!!!!!!!!!
These teams have never faced each other in the postseason, which is why it will be so much fun to watch. Rabid Chicago fans, exhausted by waiting since 1919 for a World Series appearance, will most likely streak across the field, hurl unnecessary insults at St. Louis players, and interfere with at least five or six foul balls. The Cards fans will display their usual knowledgable fanaticism, cheering wildly for the home team and pretending the Sox don't exist. But that won't win the series for the Cardinals. The players will. The White Sox pitchers have been phenomenal this year, but they've never had to take a look at Sir Albert and his royal firing squad. The White Sox have home field advantage (stupid All-Star game rules.....thanks a lot, Bud Selig), but it won't be enough for them. They haven't been in the postseason in years, and they won't just hop back in and take home the grand prize. Tony LaRussa is the third winningest manager in MLB history for a reason, and this October he's gonna show it. The NL always benefits from interleague play, because their pitchers actually know how to swing a bat in NL ballparks, and both teams use the DH in AL ballparks.
Prediction: Cardinals in 6

That's right. The Cards are gonna win the World Series. I would have been more clever or more in depth with the last few, but I just got tired of researching and really thinking, so take it for what it's worth. Go Cards!!

Cowboys and Indians

2005-10-03T12:23:00.000-07:00

I've needed to post something. Badly. I'm way too absent here. But I just don't have the time to come up with all these deep thoughts and crap while I'm putting so much work into classes and such. So I took K-ris' advice and decided to post one of my class assignments. You know, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.

I wrote this short piece to be delivered orally in my American Conversations discussion class. We were presenting on various topics related to Wounded Knee, and my group was to talk about events and attitudes since the battle/massacre. The group decided that I would present myself as a confused student in the present, trying to decipher all the information I've been exposed to over the years. We're told so many different things about the settlers and American Indians, and it's just way too confusing. So here's my bit. It's not the most profoundly written statement ever, but what average student would think aloud in a thesis-style format? Hope you get something out of it.

I'm a college student in 2005. I've grown up hearing all about these so-called "Indian Wars," but I really don't understand them at all. First they told me that the west was won, and now apparently it was lost at the exact same time. Once, I learned about savages and scalping, but now they tell me I have to be politically correct and realize things weren't as they seemed to be. I grew up hearing about brave settlers conquering the wilderness, and suddenly they've turned into evil beasts of men, scourging and raping pristine land.

Everything was so simple, and I felt so good about our ability to tame all that nothingness that was bought by Thomas Jefferson two hundred years ago. Now I have guilt, and I don't understand why. Now I feel like I should apologize for something---that I don't think I did.

Apparently we've helped out the Indians--sorry, the Native Americans--by civilizing them after we came. But whose definition of "civilized" do we use? And how is it civilization when you fence them into an unwanted piece of land and force them to adapt or disappear? I mean, do we really think that casinos will make up for everything? On the other hand, do we even need to make up for anything anymore?

It's interesting how we visit casinos and watch cowboy westerns, and we get the impression that these people have vanished, that they're just a relic from the past. But they haven't - not yet, anyways. Many have resisted assimiliation. I would too, if assimilation meant turning my back on my heritage and my family. Have they really disappeared, or is that just wishful thinking for some?

We're told to be sensitive to all minorities, but have you noticed that Native Americans are never mentioned as one? It's almost like we're hoping this sensitive topic will disappear, just like the bison and the Ghost Dance.

With so many different ideas being thrown at me, I don't feel like I'll ever have a clear picture of what happened, and what's still happening today. I honestly don't have a clue. But then again, I don't feel so bad, because I don't think anybody else does either.

DeLay deWhat?!?

2005-09-28T12:47:00.000-07:00

Check this out:

Tom DeLay Indicted (The Smoking Gun)

DeLay Indicted In Campaign Finance Probe (Breitbart.com)

DeLay Says He Is Innocent Of Charges (Yahoo! News)

Congressman Who Filed DeLay Complaint Last Year 'Pleased' (rawstory.com)

DeLay Responds: This Is Partisan Grandstanding (rawstory.com)

And on a similar note:

Frist Faces Heat As SEC Orders Formal Investigation (Bloomberg.com)

I'm not sure what to think. Part of me wants to giggle hysterically and go running around campus cackling at the top of my lungs, despite my current vocal rest situation. But the rest of me is really concerned that this would happen to anybody in our government, regardless of party affiliation or personality. I'm so confused! I'll post more later, but I've gotta go sit in choir and not sing......

you can't say that online

2005-09-25T22:36:00.000-07:00

I'm gonna be honest, I always wondered if something like this would ever happen in America. Well, China beat us to it, it appears.

According to this Reuters news story, posted on Yahoo! and linked to by Matt Drudge, China is beginning to clamp down on internet websites which do not help in "maintaining national and public interests." In other words, websites critical of the government or regarding sensitive topics are being deleted by the government. A task force of sorts has been appointed to monitor online activity and quickly remove any overly critical or offensive posts.

Interesting. I didn't know China had its own Patriot Act.

still unsatisfied

2005-09-24T10:33:00.000-07:00

Last time I posted on this topic, it opened a whole can of worms. I must be an idiot, because here I go again:

This article, from the online edition of The Independent, details stories given by a returned Iraqi veteran who has now applied for conscientious objector status. This veteran talks about how "indiscriminate firing" in Iraq probably led to the deaths of countless innocents, and how they were once ordered to fire on any taxis they saw in a city because supposedly taxis were being used for transport by insurgents.

Not since August 1968, the high point of the opposition to the war in Vietnam, has there been a majority of people in America who believe that an ongoing conflict was wrong. That historic turning point in public opinion came seven months after North Vietnamese forces launched the devastating Tet Offensive, as the divided Democratic Party Convention in Chicago was choosing Hubert Humphrey rather than Eugene McCarthy as its presidential candidate and 10,000 anti-war protesters fought pitched battles with police in the streets.

For all the optimistic things I hear about Iraq from our administration, it's a little odd that more and more negative press seems to be coming out of the middle east.

I for one would love to see America succeed in Iraq. I have never supported our invasion, but now it's on us to bring peace to the region, and I'd hate to see America harmed politically or militarily by this conflict. I think most liberals are with me on this. However, it sure seems like we're about to hit a dead end, and right now it looks like Bush doesn't have a Plan B for this situation.

I guess he's too busy making sure he doesn't "get in the way" in Texas and New Orleans. Hail to our fearless leader.

can't we just be friends?

2005-09-19T18:58:00.000-07:00

So the other day, a friend of mine and K-ris' (we'll call her Suzie for anonymity) came into our dorm room with a quandary of hers. She's got this acquaintance (how about Carlos?) whom she wishes to become better friends with, simply to be friends, and nothing more. Yet how would she ask him to dinner without giving the impression of alterior motives, she wonders?

Thoroughly perplexed by this most puzzling dilemma, Suzie came to us for help, and to ask if we could accept the question at face value, without assuming anything else lingered in her mind.

This brought to mind a most amusing scene from the classic film When Harry Met Sally, starring Billy Crystal as Harry Burns and Meg Ryan as Sally Albright:

Harry: ...no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too.
Sally: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU?
Harry: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then.

So where exactly do we draw the line between friendship and something more? Can we draw the line? Can any man say in complete honesty that he has been friends with women for the sole purpose of being friends? I'd like to think I have several friends with whom I have no desire to sleep. But how close to truth does this exchange hit?

I can definitely say that this is an issue with which I have often struggled. How often is my selection of female friends determined by the level to which I am attracted to them? Does that play a major role? Does it play a part at all?

What comforts me is the fact that I can think of a couple pretty durn good female friends of mine with whom I do NOT wish to have sex. So basically that means Harry was wrong, at least in my case.

It's the little things in life.

spoke too soon?

2005-09-19T18:49:00.000-07:00

Okay, scratch that last post. New information reveals that apparently the White House has been working its ass off trying to dig up some dirt on environmental coalitions regarding the Katrina disaster. According to the article I found on TruthOut.org (originally on RawStory), the office of Alberto Gonzales wrote a letter to the U.S Attorney's offices, asking for any kind of information that could be used against eco groups. Read it for yourself:

Has your district defended any cases on behalf of the (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers against claims brought by environmental groups seeking to block or otherwise impede the Corps work on the levees protecting New Orleans? If so, please describe the case and the outcome of the litigation.

So basically they're asking for anything they can use to say that the levees were not fixed because of eco groups, instead of accepting responsibility for taking money away from the levees to send to the struggle in Iraq.

Wow. That's nice and shameful. Way to try to pass the blame. I thought we were over that.

I hate the administration again.

finally, he's growing up

2005-09-13T10:43:00.000-07:00

Yahoo News

President Bush, speaking Tuesday at a White House press conference, took a large share of the responsibility for governmental blunders following Hurricane Katrina.

Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government....To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility........Are we capable of dealing with a severe attack? That's a very important question and it's in the national interest that we find out what went on so we can better respond.

Bush just went up in my book. I have lost so much respect for him over the years, because of his seeming inability to ever admit mistake, no matter how large the error. After Katrina mishaps, he praised "Brownie" (former FEMA chief Michael Brown) for doing "a heck of a job." Democrats were fuming because apparently Bush was either ignorant of governmental failings, or else he was too proud to recognize them publicly.

This is a big step. It doesn't end here. Not nearly. But it's a step in the right direction.

four-year anniversary

2005-09-11T10:00:00.000-07:00

Wow. It's been four years. Seems like longer somehow, yet shorter all at the same time. Weird.

For all the arguments I've had about political things and governmental issues, this should definitely be a day when we can move past that.

You say impeach Clinton, I say impeach Bush. So what? Today is about remembrance. Rememberance of those most devastated by the Twin Towers attacks; remembrance of those who risked their lives, and those who sacrificed them, saving those trapped in the rubble; remembrance of the national unity we once displayed so proudly, and which still hasn't completely escaped us yet; essentially, remembrance of our country at its highest and lowest points in recent memory.

I will avoid sappy, sentimental comments, but I will most definitely be thinking about 9/11 today, along with much of America.

Today we can lose all labels and just be Americans, together.

Impeachment is in the air......

2005-09-08T21:24:00.000-07:00

Usually I try not to get involved in too much flaming partisan political agenda material. But after the government's lack of immediate response to Katrina, and after our president's inability and unwillingness to track down exactly why we weren't better prepared, it has become painfully clear to me that George W. Bush is not capable of protecting this country, from terrorism, from recession, or as Keith Olbermann puts it, from "the biological weapon called standing water."

Such incompetence should not be tolerated by the people with whose safety he is entrusted. From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, from inflation to WMDs, corporate scandals to nuclear proliferation, energy crisis to New Orleans, Bush has shown time and again why he is not fit to lead this country, and this time it has gone too far. We are none of us safe while Bush is in office, and I am officially joining the call for his resignation (ha!) or impeachment.

Here's a post from The Bulldog Manifesto:

Impeach George W. Bush -- A Call to All Blogs and Activists!

The time has come. It's time to stay on point. The blogs need to unite around a rallying cry of "IMPEACH BUSH." As of this post, the term "impeach bush" is the third most popular search term at Technocrati.

President Bush has totally and utterly failed the American people. Almost every day we are presented with further proof why he should not be our president. From 9/11, to WMDs, to Iraq, to Katrina-- the reasons are many and obvious. We need to impeach him NOW.

The only point that should be discussed is-- "IMPEACH BUSH NOW!" We need to pound this point over and over again. It should be mentioned wherever possible, and it should not stop until the mainstream media and all politicans realize that we, the people, will not stand for gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, nor the utter lies, any longer.

The Bulldog Manifesto hereby calls upon every blog, from large to small, from Eschaton to Spontaneous Rising, from Daily Kos to Martian Anthropologist, from Crooks and Liars to Bring it On, from The Rude Pundit to The Talking Dog and EVERY BLOG IN BETWEEN!

The Bulldog Manifesto hereby calls upon every activist, from the national activists to the pissed off mothers, from the local politicians to the military families, from the school teachers to the student, spread the word, it is time to IMPEACH BUSH NOW. Cut and paste this post and email it to friends and family, write letters to your senators and congressperson, start your own impeachment blog, sign the Impeach Bush Petition, just do something! It begins with ALL OF US!

It doesn't matter whether the House of Representatives consists of a Republican majority, we cannot wait around until 2006 for that to change. We can no longer afford to wait. Impeachment begins NOW, with all of us!

Feel free to cut and paste this post wherever you wish. Link to this post at:

http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/09/impeach-george-w-bush-call-to-all.html

"Nobody's coming..."

2005-09-06T07:31:00.000-07:00

Quicktime Movie from the website "Crooks and Liars."

The same movie in WMV format.

Crooks and Liars, so you can search for it in case those links don't work anymore.

MSNBC's Tim Russert interviewed Aarons Broussard, the president of Louisana's Jefferson Parish. In the saddest, most heartwrenching interview I've ever seen, Broussard literally broke down and wept out of grief and frustration at the lack of governmental response to this tragedy. In his own words:

I want to give you one last story and I'll shut up and let you tell me whatever you want to tell me. The guy who runs this building I'm in, Emergency Management, he's responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, "Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?" and he said, "Yeah, Mama, somebody's coming to get you."

Somebody's coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody's coming to get you on Friday… and she drowned Friday night. SHE DROWNED FRIDAY NIGHT!

Nobody's coming to get us. Nobody's coming to get us!

The Secretary has promised. Everybody's promised. They've had press conferences. I'm sick of the press conferences.

For God's sake, shut up and send us somebody!!

I am ashamed of the United States of America. I am ashamed of my government. Most of all, I am ashamed of my president, who is giving the impression that if he can't find someone to retaliate against, he shouldn't pretend to care.

that wasn't so bad, was it?

2005-09-05T23:02:00.000-07:00

News Story

So I thought I'd lighten it up just a tad. All these horrible stories about Katrina, 10,000 dead, and the nomination of Roberts to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice (yeah, thought I'd throw it in there for flair)......man, I'm getting worn out when I pay attention. Not that these stories don't matter. But I needed a less depressing news article to read tonight. So I found this.

Apparently they (who is this "they' of whom we so often hear?) found that the radiation from Chernoble has only killed 60 people whose deaths can be directly related to the radiation. The death toll could still reach 4,000, but that's significantly less than the original prediction of 10,000. And of course, Greenpeace is being a bunch of whinos. They say these findings are "whitewashed," and lull the public into a false sense of security, encouraging them to move back into dangerous areas unnecessarily.

Who's right? You be the judge.

so confused

2005-09-05T22:24:00.000-07:00

I haven't been on here in a long time. About 19 days, to be more precise. It's been a long while. In that time I've spent a week at a lakeside cabin in Wisconsin, singing my heart out with my a cappella group. After that I moved into my room at Olaf, where I began the week by running into the open hatchback of a minivan, requiring a visit to the hospital so they could superglue the wound shut (cool scar now!). I spent a week training for my role as a Junior Counselor this year (basically an RA for freshmen), and then all the freshies came this past weekend. So the last few days have been introducing freshmen to St. Olaf and hanging out with them and my staff. It's very good times. But that is not the purpose of this blog.

I feel I should share something.

I'm confused.

Call it a personality crisis. It's not that, but it may as well be.

I'm having a political crisis. And it comes in two forms.

First of all, I'm becoming generally apathetic. While I spent ridiculous amounts of time this summer reading political sites and publications and trying to discover as much as I could about politics, I've been very inactive since leaving L.A. I haven't followed Katrina, which is very unusual for me. I haven't been keeping up with John Roberts' status, which is really weird. I'm not even up in arms about his nomination to be Chief Justice, since the oh-so tragic death of Chief Justice Rehnquist. And that worries me. Normally I'd be fuming about something like this. I don't understand what's happening. Maybe it's just being busy. Maybe it's this whole "St. Olaf bubble" that they always talk about. Maybe I'm just so dejected when I realize Bush has more than three years left, that I have resigned myself to being politically unaware while he makes all sorts of policies that piss me off. Probably the bubble and the business, but you never know.

The second concern, and the much more odd one, is that I don't know where I fit. It's odd how this is working. Most people that I talk to become more liberal at college, simply because of the lifestyle and personal situations and everything. I think I'm becoming more conservative. But not the Bush kind. Some would call him a neo-con. I call him a neo-fascist, for his desire to shift all power from states and individuals to the federal government (specifically the commander in chief). So I don't align myself anywhere near him. But more and more I'm getting really upset at guys like John Kerry and Howard Dean, and appreciating the guys like McCain. Not enough are like him, unfortunately. What ever happened to the old-school Republican fundamentals of morality and dignity? The Republican party has been in more scandals recently than a federal union between Kobe Bryant and Dennis Rodman would cause. tee hee =)

Seriously though, ever since the whole Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh fads have taken hold, it seems like Republicans have been joining Democrats in resorting to dirty politics and cheap gains rather than simple truth and honor. In the last few years, investigations have covered Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, the Republican-led Ohio government, Arnold Schwarzennager, Karl Rove, and the entire Bush administration, to name a few. Granted, some of these investigations are led by the paranoid, conspiracy theorist, radical Dems. But it doesn't mean they're not legit. What's wrong with American morals? The Christian right played a huge part in the last presidential election. And what was one of their biggest voting factors? Morals. Of course. So in some areas where Bush took that Christian right vote, what are some of the top TV shows? CSI. Desperate Housewives. Any reality show you can think of, really. Top movies? Kill Bill. Fight Club. Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Top news stories? Terrell Owens. Brad/Jennifer/Angelina. Seriously. Slight conflict of interests here?

Now I wouldn't say I'm actually a conservative yet. Though I do occasionally display some moderate-to-right tendencies, I'm still very much a liberal, and proud of it. But I think I'd be much less offended by the thought of being conservative if the conservative party would get back to decency. Cause right now the lefties aren't doing such a hot job either. Who's gonna get there first? We shall see.

Sorry it wasn't more eloquent or introspective. But what do you expect? It's 1:00 am, and I've spent the whole weekend leading around a bunch of freshmen, and running on low sleep. Speaking of which, I'm going to bed. Maybe I'll wake up a more defined political individual.

haha. yeah, right.

what do you get if you cross....

2005-08-17T16:54:00.000-07:00

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1793812005
http://alternet.org/wire/24208/
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B639959.htm

Scientists are searching anew for a cure for HIV, or Human Immunodeficiency Virus. This time, the quest has led them to one of the most unusual animals I've ever heard of being tested for human treatments. Forget mice, monkeys, rats, sheep, fruit flies, and whatever other animals you know to be test subjects for their similarities to humans. This time, crocodiles are the target.

Crocodile serum is said to kill a larger number of viral organisms than human blood when placed into a vial containing HIV. This proves useful to the crocs, who wage vicious territorial battles, and often come away missing chunks of flesh, tails and even limbs. Their bodies' ability to protect against infections is vital to their survival following these battles, and this powerful immune system has led scientists to investigate whether they can synthesize a "crocodile" antibiotic which could be used to aid humans in their ever increasing conflicts with the microbial world.

A number of obstacles still loom, though. Crocodiles are used to dealing with vastly different invading agents than are humans, so introducing factors beneficial to crocodiles into human blood could cause severe allergic reactions, as they would be seen as foreign by any human immune system. In addition, if these factors are so efficient in their destruction of HIV organisms, what might they do to other parts of the human body?

This is exciting news, but even if successful, a treatment is still years away, so it's still just speculation. But wow, the ramifications of such a finding......

the important news never changes......

2005-08-13T10:21:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Garry Trudeau and Ed Stein for these oh so insightful comics/cartoons. Why, oh why has everybody forgotten about Rove? Makes me sad.

And do you know WHY everybody has forgotten about Rove? No, it's not Iraq. It's not Bush's ridiculously long vacation in Texas. It's not his complete indifference to the grieving mother standing outside his ranch waiting to talk to him. And it sure as heck ain't all these imminent terror attacks they're warning us about (those jerks, playing with our emotions). I'll tell you why they've forgotten (thanks to Mike Luckovich):

can't use this card in hold 'em

2005-08-12T15:56:00.000-07:00

I hate racism.

I absolutely detest any form of racism, in others, or if I ever notice it creeping up in myself. I understand that it's almost impossible for anybody to not have even the tiniest little bit of it in themselves, even if it just means things like reacting to a comment differently when it comes out of different peoples' mouths. Most of these minute things are not issues though. We as a nation have done a pretty decent job distancing ourselves from the discrimination and intolerance of the past. Not to say we've completely moved past it. The KKK still exists, though they find themselves on rockier footing than several decades ago. The American national socialist movement, though small, is alive, and still breeding hatred of non-aryan races. And though I know it's not meant in degredation, I'm still even bothered by the kinds of jokes told by Dave Chappelle, who, in his efforts to make us understand how stupid most racial perceptions are, all too often crosses the line between satire and insult.

I'm very sensitive to this. Why? I'm not black, as you can obviously see from the first time you meet me. Shoot, talk to me on the phone and you can tell how white I am. My high school was 60% black, and a lot of my very white friends told me I was the whitest guy they had ever known. Whatever that means.....I was offended, to be honest. I actually have a very nice perma-tan, thanks to my German blood (or rather, the lack of any northern European in me). I'm white. I'm the "majority" in this nation. I shouldn't worry about race issues at all. The only time I even think about racial differences should be when I'm filling out all these silly cultural checkboxes on all of my internship and job applications. Seriously, it should be the ultimate non-issue.

So why am I still so caught up in this matter?

The other day, a Saint Louis radio station, KFNS, played host to an interview between sports writer Mike Claiborne and former Cleveland Indians pitching great, Bob Feller. Claiborne asked Feller what he thought was wrong with the game today, and Feller responded with a few comments. Feller said there's too much hotdogging going on today. He said that Willie Mays was a hotdog, and there's a lot of them today also. He said players don't respect the game enough. And he said that he's bothered by the fact that so many Caribbean players come into the game and don't even understand the rules of baseball, meaning the umpires have to tell them how to do everything. So how does Mike Claiborne respond? He calls Bob Feller a racist. Yep, that's right. He pulls the never-fail, scream-it-till-they-shut-up, why-won't-you-respect-my-noise, race card. Of all the dirty tricks. He could try to get Feller to explain the Caribbean comment. He could just ignore it and realize that Feller's an old guy and maybe just going senile (not as likely, but....). No, he calls him a racist and won't let him get two words in until he apologizes, which he doesn't. So Feller hangs up as Claiborne yells, "go ahead and cut me off, you racist!"

AAHHHH!!!! Why the race card? Why must you pull that horrible play? It's so below-the-belt! It's so irritating! And worst of all, it's so overused!! Claiborne was interviewed later by Chris "Mad Dog" Russo, of New York's WFAN radio, and Mad Dog asked Claiborne to explain why he would pull the race card. Mad Dog explained that Feller played with Larry Doby (who was black), and Doby had talked about Feller a number of times, never bringing up anything negative. Feller did some tour of some sort with Satchel Paige (black again), and no issues arose there. Why, oh why, would Claiborne call him a racist? Mad Dog asked for one previous instance of racism on Feller's part. What was Claiborne's response? He called Willie Mays a show off. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. Say anything negative about anybody who's black, and you're a racist.

I read an article last week by ESPN writer Scoop Jackson, about Dusty Baker's alleged unhappiness in Chicago, and a potential move to L.A. at the season's end. Scoop challenged this slowly spreading idea that Dusty isn't happy in Chicago, but he offers a reason that he says nobody else in Chicago will cover: the race of the manager. Scoop says we need to look no further than Dusty's skin to see why Chicago writers are so quick to write him off. Of course. It's all about race. Has nobody realized that perhaps Dusty is partially responsible for the team's pathetic performance this season, despite the presence (barring a few injuries) of Greg Maddux, Kerry Wood, Mark Prior and Carlos Zambrano in the rotation, not to mention Derek Lee, one of the majors' best hitters to this point? Maybe Dusty just isn't cutting it, and the writers want to see a better manager. Just like Tony Larussa was all but written off each of the last couple seasons, because of his inability to carry some fantastic Cardinals teams all the way to a World Series championship. Seriously, why you gotta say all the writers are racist? You're just crying 'wolf' here.

Now I don't disagree that racists still exist. In fact, I might even know a few of them. I know some people who are pretty condescending towards other races, though not to the point of discriminating against them; just look at them a little more suspiciously. I know both black and white people who feel like the other race is screwed up and America just needs to fix that problem to solve a bunch of other issues. But the more I hear people scream about racism, the more I become deafened to the cries of discrimination, and the more I'm in danger of missing it when something really happens. For every real case of racism, I hear at least ten pathetic attempts at painting a false picture of the "other side," and I'm getting sick of it.

preparing for another invasion?

2005-08-08T11:53:00.000-07:00

According to two new articles I read on rawstory.org, the United States is planning to increase troops in Iraq before the December elections, much as they did this January for the elections. It is believed the number of troops will then drop back down to its current level following the elections, again, as happened this past January.

Following the elections, the number of troops is expected to be decreased again, only this time it could decrease drastically. Estimates range from a reduction as small as 20,000 troops, up to as much as half of the current force in Iraq, which would drop the current levels to just over 60,000 troops in Iraq. The Pentagon is reportedly hoping to hand over much local control to Iraqi forces in the coming spring and summer, which would allow the United States to withdraw a number of its military personnel.

Before I got too excited though, I recalled another article commenting on John Bolton's immediate attacks on Iran and Syria when he got to the United Nations. Bolton wasted no time in criticizing these two countries, and I wonder if this is going to be similar to our attacks on Iraq before the U.N., attacks which preceded our invasion of the country. Are we simply removing our troops from Iraq to make them available for other invasions? Our troops feel worn, Gandalf. Like butter spread over too much bread. But why stop now? We're on a roll!!

liberal media? please.

2005-08-06T22:22:00.000-07:00

So, the latest Zogby poll shows that 42% of Americans would favor impeaching Bush if it's found he lied about why we went into Iraq, compared to 50% who would oppose such an impeachment. This figure splits up into 59% of Democrats and a whopping 25% of Republicans (I'm serious--that's a lot for his own party).

For comparison, when Clinton was dealing with Monica-gate, 39% favored impeachment, and 56% opposed it.

This begs the question: why isn't the media covering this issue? Why don't they talk about impeachment like they did with Bush? Is it perhaps because the story isn't juicy enough? We're living in the age of Brad and Jennifer. If it won't make Entertainment Tonight or In Touch Weekly, they don't cover it. It's all about stories that grab attention, and this just won't do it.

I'm not saying the media is conservatively biased. But I do believe they're story-biased. They don't attack conservatives any more than they do liberals, we just happen to have a conservative government, so they're more exposed to the media and their criticism.

Why do we still let them do business?

2005-08-06T22:03:00.000-07:00

Yet another one. This time sources say Halliburton sold key components to help build a nuclear reactor to an Iran oil company.

In 1991, Halliburton sold nuclear detonator devices to Libya, in violation of a Reagan-imposed trade embargo, which he established because of Libya's sponsorship of terrorism. Halliburton paid $3 million in fines.

Wow. Three million dollars. That was the Martha Stewart of corporation punishments. What this time, no Christmas bonuses for the CEO?

Know what's funny? Dick Cheney is repeatedly let off the hook because he is no longer the CEO of Halliburton. Well, these dealings with Iran began in 1995, while Cheney was still CEO.

How many more scandals before we take action?

I trust the soldiers

2005-08-04T12:42:00.000-07:00

This week, Paul Hackett, an Iraq War veteran, ran for Congress in a special election in Ohio. A heavily Republican district. And lost by 3 points, in a district where the margin has favored Republicans by at least 20 points for decades. One of Hackett's biggest war cries was that the troops are to be commended, but they are also to be brought home, because the war was poorly planned, we were lied to about why we went, and we're not safe over there, nor are we winning. This is an Iraq veteran.

Alternet posted an interview with an Iraq veteran, who also has been outspoken against the war since coming home. Here's his response to the question, "how do you feel about the need for an exit strategy now?":

I still feel just as strong about the need for an exit strategy as before. We are not going to win this war. The longer we are there, the more people are going to join the fight against us. We asked detainees why? Most said because they had lost a family member. So, if we figure that most families are three to four people and every time we kill one insurgent, they recruit two to three new members that may have not hated the U.S. until they lost a family member by their hands. It's the same as if they invaded here. Most households have a weapon in the house. That's millions and millions of weapons and people that are willing to protect their family and country from foreign invaders. They won't give up until we are all gone off of their soil.

Again, and Iraq veteran. Read the whole article. It's not pretty, what's going on over there. Orders are being given by commanders with no knowledge of the real situation in Iraq, and the officers with the troops are getting in trouble for modifying the orders to keep their troops safe. Troop morale is lowered by the extension of stays that were supposed to only last for months.

For all the pretty pictures that Bush and Cheney keep painting for us, it sure seems like this war is in crappy shape right now. Has anybody taken the time to look at the soldiers' point of view? Honor our troops, keep them safe, and bring them home from an unwinnable war.

say it ain't so, Raffy!!

2005-08-03T11:57:00.000-07:00

Well, it was just a matter of time, right? We've made it through half of a major league season since first hearing of "Juiced," Jose Canseco's tell-all book which allegedly details the steroid usage of some of the game's biggest players over the past decade. Finally Bud Selig's testicles dropped and he decided to get tough on steroids, forcing the MLB player's association to agree to steroid testing and harsher punishments. But no big players. Half a season, and no positive tests for Pujols, Slammin' Sammy, the Big Hurt, mud-helmet Biggio, Big Papi or A-Rod. Was Jose lying? Was it all a big hoax? Finally, we can settle back into loving good, clean baseball.

Whoops! I guess Rafael Palmeiro ate one too many beef patties, because suddenly the red light is blinking over his head, and he can't believe it. But he never used steroids, right? It was Mark McGwire who wouldn't tell the Grand Jury that he had never used steroids. Raffy stood in stark contrast to Big Mac, telling the panel "I never used steroids. Period." Hmm....well, he didn't say he wouldn't use them, just that he hadn't. So you really can't call him a liar, per se......

But this wasn't just any steroid. An undisclosed source has revealed that Palmeiro tested positive for stenozolol, a powerful steroid not found in dietary supplements. Well there goes THAT excuse. Name sound familiar? I know, I can't pronounce it either. But if the name doesn't ring a bell, this one might: Ben Johnson. You see, Johnson was the Canadian sprinter who in 1988 had an Olympic gold medal taken away after testing positive for stanozolol.

So now what do we do with Raffy? 3,000 hits. 600 home runs. Stanozolol. Cooperstown still calling? Let's not forget Gaylord Perry, one of the oldest and most famous pitchers to play the game of baseball, who still made it to the Hall of Fame after throwing who knows how many vaseline-covered balls from atop the mound. If that cheater can get in, do we let Raffy? And if we do, what's to stop us from opening the gate to the rest of the juicers?

Oh, it's a catch-22, to be sure. Either way, we're screwed. I'm just confused. I need a protein shake to calm me down.

sound familiar?

2005-08-03T11:44:00.000-07:00

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
-Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg trials following WWII

time for outrage

2005-08-03T11:15:00.000-07:00

Yet another sick and twisted story from within the walls of an American detention center. An Iraqi major general was beaten "using fists, a club and a rubber hose," according to official CIA documents discussed in this New York Times article. But Maj. Gen. Mowhoush wouldn't budge. He wasn't giving the information the "interrogators" needed. So they decided that the beatings weren't effective, and they should make Mowhoush comfortable, offer him a cigar, and promise him rewards for coopera----wait a minute, let me read that again. Let's see.......CIA sponsored......green sleeping bag....hmm.....stuffed him inside......wrapped in an electrical cord......."began to go to work." Wow.

We should be outraged. We should be in shock. We should be calling for answers, for personal accountability, and for somebody to claim responsibility for these actions. No, I'm not talking about the commanding officers at Abu Ghraib. I don't give a crap about what happens to them. It's time for the Pentagon and the CIA to come under fire for all of this. The use of dogs to break the wills and the flesh of detainees was a Pentagon-sponsored interrogation technique. And if the Pentagon comes down harder on these tortures, they don't happen. We're seeing interrogators who feel pressured to provide information for this "worldwide struggle against violent extremism," and resort to whatever means they can think of to get this information. We're seeing the product of an Administration, specifically a Secretary of Defense, who somehow believes that it isn't his responsibility to see that our soldiers treat prisoners with dignity and non-violence. This is a failing at the top, and it has trickled down. How is it that we haven't had any top officers on trial for this behavior? Sure, we've had lieutenants and captains questioned, but what about the generals, the colonels, and ol' Rummy himself? You have to cut off the head of the snake, not just slice at its tail.

the harsh truth

2005-07-30T01:11:00.000-07:00

"If liberals were in power it would be easier to attack them, but Republicans have the executive, legislative and judicial branches, so making fun of Democrats is like kicking a child, so it's just not worth it."

-Daily Show correspondant Stephen Colbert

how the other side lives

2005-07-29T13:00:00.000-07:00

Several weeks ago, abortion was demonized based on a single story, which told of a Kansas abortion clinician who kept aborted fetuses in his refrigerator and was rumored to have been eating the fetuses. Sick, I know. But one individual's perverted actions were used to attack all abortion doctors across the nation. This instance was used to label the entire practice of abortion (and the left-wing that "champions" it) as barbaric, evil, an instrument of the devil, and a society-ruining-tool. This was an immature attack by the right wingers, and in response, I shall make an equally immature attack against the pro-lifers to demonstrate how ridiculous it was.

Here is an article which demonstrates why anti-abortionists are really not the loving, caring, concerned individuals they make themselves out to be. A prominent anti-abortion activist has been arrested for molesting teen girls at his home for troubled girls. The man in question, John Burt, is reported to have been associated with two individuals who were convicted of killing abortion doctors in 1993 and 1994. So while they champion their pro-life cause, they're wreaking havoc on those already living. I guess this is the world those fetuses have to look forward to. We'll fight to bring them into the world, and then once they're here, we'll make it a living hell for them. Isn't that nice?

Now does everybody see how ridiculous this style of attack and retreat is? I know plenty of both pro-life and pro-choice people who are wonderful, decent human beings. I bet that even some abortion doctors and patients are not horrible baby eaters, and some abortion protestors really are concerned about people's well-being, pro-choicers included!

Please, please, please everybody who reads this, don't let yourself slip into the narrow mindset of assuming that everybody can be compared to one twisted person who happens to have made the news. Not only is it unfair and untrue, but it just makes you seem shallow and ignorant. And we don't want that, do we?

Bush is an aaaassssshooollllee

2005-07-28T15:55:00.000-07:00

watch movie

a kinder, gentler....I.R.A.?

2005-07-28T10:26:00.000-07:00

So here's some amazingly exciting news. The Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.), after 36 years of fighting the British in an attempt to create a united, free Ireland, has renounced its violent ways. Granted, it took over 35,000 deaths for them to formally declare that they would seek alternate strategies, but this is a huge step.

Tony Blair is optimistic, but Ireland's Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, is a little more skeptical/cautious. Ahern says it'll be great if they match their words with deeds, but they currently get their funds from smuggling, armed robbery and money laundering, so the question is whether they stop those as well. Also, concern has risen that more extreme factions may break off from the I.R.A., forming miniature local militias who still believe that only violence will solve anything.

So this is a potentially huge development for the United Kingdom. The major question is, how sincere are they, and is the entire organization on board with this decision? Here's hoping this isn't a bluff.

war, according to Aquinas and Phil

2005-07-27T21:32:00.000-07:00

Is such a thing as a "just" war possible? I don't believe in such things. But let's examine this theory, as it has been presented to me by a couple of my more dedicated visitors. I have been directed towards the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas as proof that Jesus did not actually promote a pacifist theology. So I did a little searching, and I found some Aquinas, the Summa Theologica. More specifically, Part II, Question 40, "Of War." The first of four questions regarding war is "whether some kind of war is lawful." Ooh, perfect for my quest! Let's begin (all biblical passages are taken from NRSV, because KJV scares me):

Aquinas lays out four main objections to war, followed by his replies (and I added my thoughts after each):

Objection 1. That war is always sinful because "punishment is not inflicted except for sin." Aquinas cites Matthew 26:52, where Jesus tells Peter "all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

Reply to Objection 1. Augustine writes that to "take the sword" is to arm oneself with the purpose of taking another's life, without the command or permission of a superior or authority figure. However, to use the sword as commanded by a superior "and by the authority, so to speak, of God," is not to "take the sword," but to use it by order. This is not condemned. And those who "take the sword" in an evil manner do not necessarily die by the sword, though they will die with their sword, and without repenting, will face eternal judgement.

Phil's Thoughts. What if we are directed to take the sword by an authority, but that authority is acting upon an evil and godless will? I know, I know, "those authorities that exist have been instituted by God," (Romans 13:2). I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. Does that mean Bush's war is just? By this logic, Hitler's annexation of Poland was just, simply because God put him in power. We can't use this argument to justify Bush's war in Iraq, nor to attack those who question Bush. After all, Bush questioned the authority which God put in Iraq. Hmm....yep, circular logic

I really have a hard time believing that this war is in any way, the manifestation of "the authority....of God." The same God who called us to "love your neighbor as yourself." The same God who told us "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." How exactly does he tell us that a war against the "heathen Arabs" is part of his will for us?

Objection 2. War is contrary to a Divine precept, and thus is a sin. Matthew 5:39 - "but I say to you, do not resist an evildoer;" also, Romans 12:19 - "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’" Thus, war is sinful.

Reply to Objection 2. It is good to keep these precepts in mind, but sometimes it is necessary for the common good, or the good of someone with whom a man fights, to act in self-defense or resistance. Augustine writes [I feel I can't paraphrase accurately, so the quote is presented in its entirety]: Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy." So in some cases, it's good to vanquish evildoers and break their "evil will."

Phil's Thoughts. Interesting indeed. But I think it's been proven over and over again that this was not a war waged in the interests of self-defense. I just watched a video of an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who said that we started bombing Iraq as early as 2001, and we were heavily bombing them in 2002, with the intent of either provoking Saddam into retaliating and giving us cause for war, or just weakening his air defense and leaving his country open to easy invasion. Doesn't sound like self-defense to me.

Read Augustine's words again. "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity. What was kindly severe about this? This was a brutal, full-scale offensive, launched against a helpless nation. Necessary for the common good? Are we also taking into account the common good of the Iraqis? The Iraqis who are now without homes, without husbands and wives, daughters and sons, and essentially without protection from these terrorists coming in from Saudi Arabia? We didn't serve the common good. The common good would have been aiding Iraq and working with Saddam to better his nation, rather than tearing it down so we could build a mini-America.

And to answer this from a biblical standpoint, I'll use the words of Jesus himself, not the interpretation of humans who came centuries after our Lord's death. "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; forgive, and you will be forgiven" (Luke 6:36-37a).

Objection 3. Nothing except sin is contrary to an act of virtue. War is contrary to peace. Therefore, war is sin.

Reply to Objection 3. War is waged not against peace, but against evil peace, which Jesus "did not come to bring," (Matthew 10:34). So Augustine says that we wage war to bring peace. "Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

Phil's Thoughts. Be peaceful in warring? Is that possible? Be peaceful in warring......so the cluster bombs and torture at Abu Ghraib and random arresting of Iraqi civilians and all that. Is that peaceful warring? I fail to see what peace we have brought through this war. What I see is restlessness and a fast-approaching civil war. What I see is a nation falling into utter anarchy, because every attempt at rebuilding has fallen flat on its face. We haven't brought the prosperity of anything.

Objection 4. [I'll ignore this one, because it deals with an arcane Church law which is broken in warlike games, which would thus make war itself a sin, and I also don't understand his reply at all.]

Aquinas also has a few more comments of his own about war:

On the contrary. Apparently, if Christianity forbade war altogether, then when the soldiers came to John the Baptist for advice (Luke 3:14), he would have told them to quit, rather than just saying they should be satisfied with their pay.

Phil's Thoughts. Well that's funny. The Gospels didn't mention something, so God must not have cared. What I find odd here is that this is the same argument used by liberals in the homosexuality issue, that because Jesus didn't condemn it, it must not be against God's will. But I don't want this to become a preaching session about homosexuality, so that's all I'll say. Just alerting the reader to that strange bit of logic. Back to the main point though: John wasn't Jesus. How can you argue the tenets of the Christian faith based on what John the Baptist said? I take Christ's words first, and he was all about love and forgiveness.

Finally, Aquinas lays out three things necessary to ensure that a war is "just." In no particular order:

Necessity Numero Uno. It's necessary to have the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. Basically, it's not the business of a private individual or group to wage war. It's a governmental affair. As Paul writes in Romans (13:4), "the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer." This is reference to Paul's "submit to the authorities, because God put 'em there" passage. For the sake of the natural order of the world, those authorities need to be the ones authorizing the war.

Phil's Thoughts. I dunno about that whole "submit to the authorities" thing. Does he mean all authority is placed there by God, or does he mean that we should submit to the authority which He has put in place, and which is not necessarily applicable to all authoritative figures? After all, Peter and John disobeyed the authorities and preached about Jesus, and they received no condemnation. The midwife who delivered Moses disobeyed the law, with no apparent harm done. So not all authority is necessarily enacting God's will. Thus, just because the President calls for a war, doesn't make it just. I'm not arguing for or against the Iraq war here, just pointing out that the President is fallible in this issue.

Necessity Numero Deuce-o. A just cause is required. In other words, those who are attacked have to have done something which merits their being attacked. Augustine specifies that a just war is waged to punish a nation or state which has abused its people, and/or siezed land unjustly.

Phil's Thoughts. Alright, I dunno how Augustine and Aquinas get away with this one. This isn't biblical at all. This is all about human concepts of justice and revenge. We're justified in attacking them if they've already harmed somebody else? Really? Man, you'd think they never heard of grace and forgiveness, and loving even the unlovable. I don't blame them though, it was just Christ that taught those things.

Necessity Numero Tres-ito The "belligerents" must have a rightful intention, so they're working to advance peace or avoid evil. Augustine says "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." And, "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

Phil's Thoughts. I'm gonna be honest. This one makes a lot of sense to me. From my personal standpoint, this is a just necessity. The promotion of peace and avoidance of evil is an awesome thing. It's great to work towards peace and uplifting good. But isn't it ironic that we'd have to go to war to do it? As Orwell wrote, "War is Peace." Augustine's comments are kind of like Robin Hood in nature. Punish evildoers in the name of uplifting the poor.

But here's my issue. Jesus didn't tell us to punish. He said we should leave that up to God. "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Romans 13:9). "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye" (Matthew 7:5), which goes right along with the "let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone." Let's all pass judgement on Saddam's evil ways and imagine that he's the greatest threat to us and our way of life.

Look at what Augustine says is "condemned in war." The "cruel thirst for vengeance." We went and bombed Afghanistan because of 9/11. It was all about getting them back for hitting us. It was to prove to them that we weren't weak, and if anybody struck us, we'd strike back ten times harder. Also condemned in war is "an unpacific and relentless spirit." Kinda like how we're unwilling to deal with Iraq peacefully? We can't wait for peaceful negotiations, yet somehow we manage to do so with North Korea, no problems at all. Relentless spirit, lust of power, you pick which one this fits into: "Bring 'em on." Doesn't sound like a guy who desires peace and an end to conflict. Sounds like an arrogant frat boy to me.

So yeah. I did read some Aquinas. And he does have some decent points. My biggest problem is that he interprets what Jesus says, to a degree which I find a little disturbing. He seems to twist some of Jesus' and Paul's words. And he just picks and chooses, which is always a dangerous habit to get into. If you pick and choose, you can make the Bible say anything you want it to. He really only used about five passages to back himself up. So most of his defense of war was based on human rhetoric, which is just the problem with most situations, that we rely on our own devices rather than trusting in God and asking Him to help us out.

I still think the Iraq war is unjust, and I still think there should be more of Christian outcry. And I fail to see how Jesus is not pacifistic. That one will never fly with me. But I took a look, and I think I'm better for it.

a kinder, gentler Phil

2005-07-27T15:10:00.000-07:00

Apparently I get riled up easily. I have been called many things recently, among them "militant," "angry," "assuming," "late," and, uhh..."expectant." I have also thrown caution to the wind and ranted on my personal blog for a good six paragraphs about why I was upset at a couple of people for treating me unnecessarily harsh. I may have been out of line. I don't think I was. However, this is a disturbing trend I'm seeing in things I write. I get frustrated, and I vent by raging on my blogs. Bad idea. I don't want to scare people away.

So, I'm sorry everybody.

I'm gonna try real hard to get my angry Phil out of the way before I post online, because half the time I look back on things I've written and realize that I was just being too emotional. Yeah. Gotta keep the bitterness and hate out of the way here. Stoic, emotionally detached Phil.

breathe in............breathe out.............breathe in.................breathe out.........

ahhhhh, that's better.

where's the Christian outcry?

2005-07-26T18:17:00.000-07:00

Every Christian should read this article: Who's Taking Blame for Christian Violence?. Really, I think everybody should read it, but especially those who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. If he's your Lord and Savior, then maybe you should think hard about what Calvin White has to say in his article, published in the Toronto Star today.

time for a vote of "no confidence"

2005-07-26T18:02:00.000-07:00

Here's yet more evidence that President Bush is completely out of touch with the American people and even his own Congress. John Bolton, a man who wasn't even allowed an up or down vote because the entirety of the Democratic Senate denied Republicans the 60 votes needed to move to a confirmation vote, is expected to be appointed by President Bush to the U.N. ambassador post this Friday, immediately after Congress begins its month-long recess for the summer. whew! long sentence.

A recess appointment would mean that Bush doesn't have to worry about Bolton's failure to get an up or down vote, but it also means that Bolton would only serve on the post until January, 2007. Unfortunately, that's still more than enough time to wreak havoc in the United Nations with his arrogant manner and U.N.-bashing talk. John Bolton is not the right person for this post, and a recess appointment by Bush is just another example of his inability to admit defeat or error and seek the common good.

Bush has also nominated Rep. Christopher Cox to head the Securities Exchange Commission, a five-member panel consisting of two Republicans, two Democrats, and a chair. Cox has been sued in the past for intentionally misrepresenting First Pension Corp., a California firm which was found to have essentially swindled muchos grandes pesos from Californians. That was horrible Spanish, wasn't it? "Very large pesos"? Cox also wrote a law, passed in 1996 (over President Clinton's veto), which is partly responsible for Kenneth Lay's (Enron exec) ability to do what he did. It also makes it harder to file suit against major corporations. Bush is a selfish, arrogant President, and he's more concerned about the rich than preserving the middle class, which is 100% essential to a strong nation. Our economic prosperity during Clinton's years was largely enabled by a strong middle class. But apparently Bush just lobbies for middle class votes, then screws over the same people who put him in office.

President Bush is a bad American.

she's worth at least 45 goats and a camel

2005-07-26T17:56:00.000-07:00

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13394619,00.html

haha. oh, so funny.

(hat tip to K-ris, a.k.a. Mathetes)

Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

2005-07-26T10:38:00.000-07:00

This is a hilarious and condemning look at American foreign policy in general, with a special focus on the Iraq invasion. Whether you were in favor of the Iraq invasion or not, I think you should take the time to read it. It's very insightful. And funny. Very funny.

(c) 2003 anarchie bunker

Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

Mexed Missages

2005-07-26T10:32:00.000-07:00

From a New York Times article published today:
"Mr. Hill also seemed to suggest that the United States would be amenable to a step-by-step process under which North Korean concessions were met by rewards from America and other participants in the talks. Mr. Hill said that when North Korea 'makes the decision to dismantle its nuclear program permanently, fully, verifiably,' the United States and other participants in the talks would take 'corresponding measures.'"

That's funny. When Iraq had their invisible WMDs, we never promised reward. We just threatened them if they DIDN'T comply. It's a funny little world.

Senators

2005-07-26T10:26:00.000-07:00

Senators don't care about us. They're too busy to really bother themselves with their constituents, who put them where they are. How sad is that?

I sent e-mails to a number of senators, especially the ones in California, Minnesota and Missouri (since I now have an address in all three, so they think I'm from their state!), regarding the photos and videos of Abu Ghraib which the White House is refusing to submit, despite the order of a federal judge.

For one of the California senators, I made the mistake of selecting "war in Iraq" as the subject of my letter. She didn't read it. Know why? She answered me yesterday. With a letter about how she had visited Iraq and agreed that we need to bring home our troops in a timely manner, because though they are to be commended for their good work, they're overworked and in danger. She didn't address the photos at all. She didn't read my letter. Sad day.

lonely blog

2005-07-24T15:10:00.000-07:00

nobody ever comments on my blog. there are two possible reasons. one, nobody knows about it and thus I don't invite enough traffic to see sufficient replies. two, the only people who read it are conservatives who don't have the patience to try and discuss with me, and they're sick of my "liberal" rantings, which are obviously fed by my hatred for all that is good and pure in the world. because let's face it, all liberals are baby eaters. oh, speaking of which, I haven't had lunch yet. gotta run!

"cruel" is a such a harsh term, though!

2005-07-24T11:45:00.000-07:00

The White House, in blatant disregard for the grand jury, has refused to turn over incriminating photos and videos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib. According to NBC, the photographs show guards raping a young boy, beating a woman almost to death, and committing sexual atrocities with prisoners, both dead and alive.

According to a Boston Herald article (2004), these photographs contain even worse imagery than the photographs already released by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, who actually had the cajones to bring attention to the Abu Ghraib scandal. (hat tip to Daily Kos)

Signaling the worst revelations are yet to come, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said the additional photos show "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman."

And Rummy never lies. Except for all that Saddam-Al Qaeda stuff. And the WMDs. And the fact that Iraq is going well, and we continue to make progress. But when incriminating himself, Rummy never lies!

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the scandal is "going to get worse" and warned that the most "disturbing" revelations haven't yet been made public.

"The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here," he said. "We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

And in typical fashion, Bush has promised to veto any bill trying to regulate or investigate the treatment of prisoners by American guards at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere.

Somebody defend this. PLEASE!!! Somebody come here and try to defend what has happened. All of you who said we were overreacting about prisoner treatment, tell me how this is overreacting? It's not cruel to chain them to the floor with no food in extreme temperatures? Why don't you try sitting there? How about some Chinese water torture? It's not cruel, just water! There's no psychological harm in all this, right? And then tell me that the rest of this isn't cruel. Tell me it happens all the time. Tell me it could be worse. Try to convince me!!!! I want to laugh in your face and then pull the American flag back up from the ground, where it's been trampled, pissed on, torn to shreds, and blasted with a 12-guage. I want us to restore dignity and honor to the stars and stripes. Be patriotic. Be American. Stop being a coward, drop your unquestioning partisan allegiance for just one minute, and realize that we screwed up and need to admit a mistake and fix it. If you don't have the balls for that, why don't you take your own advice and leave the country? This whole issue is a disgrace to the history of our nation. Worse than 'Nam. This makes me sick.

"A true patriot would shut up."

2005-07-23T17:13:00.000-07:00

Thanks to commondreams.org writer David Corn for his story.

Congressional Democrats held their own hearing on July 22 regarding the Valerie Plame/Wilson leak two years ago, since the Republicans in Congress are too cowardly and arrogant to take the initiative to investigate the matter. Ex-CIA officials spoke about the national security implications of this leak, and in short, derided lawmaking Republicans for their failure to press their leader to be more responsible and honorable.

Perhaps the most scathing comments came from James Marcinowski, "a former CIA case office and a former prosecutor" (and a self-proclaimed registered Republican, let the record show):

"Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up."

I agree wholeheartedly with Marcinowski. I am sick and tired of Republicans trying to tilt the tables and shift focus from an irresponsible and dishoneset administration to a political maneuver by the Democrats. The whole nation was up in arms about a stained blue dress, yet a political fiasco involving a CIA leak and a possible coverup has barely raised a Republican eyebrow.

This is not being blown out of proportion by Democrats. This is not an excuse to point the finger at an administration we find distasteful. And, in regards to the most pathetic attack I've heard against Democrats, this has absolutely nothing to do with the guy who stole an election from Al Gore. The current administration has placed their own political necks above the security of an intelligence official, which makes those she worked with less safe, and it also deprives us of an important operative, all of her intelligence and intelligence-gathering abilities, and the option to use her in the future. This is a national security risk, and those who would say otherwise are too cowardly and smug to admit that perhaps their politicians of choice actually screwed up.

Errors happen. It's alright. We forgive that. That's why Clinton still maintained a 60%+ approval rating throughout the end of his second term. That's why Kobe Bryant is still one of the most popular players in the NBA. That's why people still managed to shell out the dough to see Tom Cruise in War of the Worlds.

What is not excusable is an administration who will save face at all costs, even when it means being blatantly dishonest with the American people, turning former promises into empty lies, and deciding that their corporate allies and political scheming matter more than the common American who put them in power. And this includes the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. An administration official admitted that they had hoped the nomination would knock Rove off the front page. Well face it. We're finally calling on Bush to uphold his promises. We're holding him accountable.

And I won't take any more crap from people who try to shield Bush from criticism for this. Be patriotic. Don't accept this showing of abused power by incapable authority.

a change of heart

2005-07-21T11:35:00.000-07:00

I've taken the liberty of reviewing John G. Roberts Jr. some more. I had a post on here about how I had a change of heart and had decided that Roberts was okay. But I've had another change of heart, and this time I'm thinking clearly. The abortion thing still really bugs me. As you can read on Hughes for America:

Everyone knows by now that the Bush administration is so far in the pocket of the Christian Taliban that "anti-abortion" was only slightly below "able to breathe" on President Bush's Supreme Court nominee checklist. Everyone also knows by now that Republicans – especially the male ones – love nothing more than to be able to legislate what women do with their own bodies. The party of personal responsibility loves to make it their personal responsibility to tell women what they can and cannot do. So despite Roberts' seemingly conflicted record on choice – he was against it before he was for it (Republicans know what that's called) – to tell women not to worry and to dismiss their fears as premature prognostication is utterly insane.

If you didn't catch that the first time, let me repeat part of it for you.

So despite Roberts' seemingly conflicted record on choice - he was against it before he was for it (Republicans know what that's called) - to tell women not to worry and to dismiss their fears as premature prognostication is utterly insane.

I am saddened also by the fact that he helped to draft a 1990 proposal that would illegalize flag burning, saying it isn't protected under the First Amendment. Even Justice Scalia disagreed, saying it's vital to retain the right to burn the flag, as it dishonors the same flag to make a law saying we can't desecrate it. Scalia agreed with that argument. Man, that carries a lot of weight.

That said, I still would like to see Roberts either rejected, or turn into Souter. If he's turned down, there's the possibility that Bush might realize he actually needs a moderate, like Senators were calling for. Yeah. haha. That'll be the day.

lawbreaker!!!!!

2005-07-20T16:42:00.000-07:00

So, to all y'all who say Rove didn't break the law, here's me raining on your parade. This isn't definitive proof, but please think twice before throwing that argument at me again.

From the raw story, referencing a Wall Street Journal article:

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document

Apparently, Rove also withheld information from the FBI the first time they questioned him. Originally he told them he got the info from a reporter but said he didn't remember the name. In a later questioning, he said he didn't even know who he got the information from anymore. So uh....obstruction of justice......lying to the FBI in a Federal investigation. Man, that's heavy stuff.

Yeah, that's right. Suck on that, Rove!

nomination on the rocks

2005-07-20T16:09:00.000-07:00

After doing a little more research on the illustrious Judge John Roberts, I have come to the conclusion that he is far too shady to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. I think the most bothersome part of his record is what President Bush would call a bad case of "flip-flopping." As the U.S. Deputy Solicitor General for Kenneth Starr (grrr), Roberts argued before the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." In 2003 though, Roberts said he considers Roe "the settled law of the land," and he was only arguing for his client when he made the earlier comment in 1990.

I find that rather disturbing, that a lawyer would represent a client who holds the exact opposite of his beliefs. Was he lying in 2003, or was he immoral in 1990? Either way, it's not something I want answered on the Supreme Court.

John Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society, a group dedicated to "individual liberties and traditional values." Sounds harmless, right? Guess who else is/has been a member of this group? John Ashcroft. Dick Cheney. George Bush. Newt Gingrich. Clarence Thomas. Antonin Scalia. Gale Norton. Ronald Reagan. Kenneth Starr (grrr). Robert Bork. Now, in all fairness, the group also boasts Nadine Strossen, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg [shudder], Norma Cantu, John Podesta, Stephen Breyer and William H. Rehnquist. So really this means nothing. But all those names jumped out at me, and it scares me.

What I will give John Roberts is that he has supported a challenge to Federal Affirmative Action programs. I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action. However, he supported the right of individuals to block access to abortion clinics. You wanna yell and scream? FINE. But to deny a woman access to a clinic is beyond First Amendments rights, and because of that decision, Congress had to pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

This is what gets me though. In 2000, Roberts advised Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, telling him ways he could constitutionally give the state to Bush, thereby avoiding those nasty recounts which would have thrown the state to Gore. Roberts has also donated money to support Bush's presidential campaigns. Why does this seem to me like Bush is simply rewarding Roberts for "good" behavior? And the timing still bugs me. Odd, how this happens just as the investigation of Lewis Libby and Karl Rove is coming to a head.

Two great hopes

2005-07-19T21:00:00.000-07:00

One, that this Roberts character will not pass through the Senate. Or else that he'll turn into another Souter, only maybe slightly more moderate.

Two, that this Supreme Court nomination doesn't overshadow the Plame leak, as I'm sure the White House is hoping for. We've already had the Downing Street memo drowned out by Bush's G-8 visit, a Supreme Court vacancy, and domestic policy. Let's hope the media doesn't forget about Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby.

PUHCA again

2005-07-19T18:05:00.000-07:00

Once again, I lament the government's new proposed energy bill - a bill that would revoke the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA, for short). While most major newspapers have avoided mention of this action, it is more than a big deal. Whether you agree or disagree with the erasure of the act, this is a big deal. See AlterNet article for details on the act.

In short, this act would open up the utility market to massive consolidation with little government regulation. This would allow companies like Halliburton (ESPECIALLY Halliburton) to "raid the assets of utilities to feed speculative investments in completely unrelated businesses." Not exactly sure what that means? Well, it's the kind of maneuver Enron engaged in before they went broke and were busted by the government a couple years ago. Why did they get away with it? Partial repeal of PUHCA in fact, which led to the Enron debacle and the California energy crisis. Ironic, that Bush had those Enron ties back then, and now Cheney's Halliburton would stand to benefit from the exact same kind of tactic.

This repeal would also allow for foreign investors owning American utilities. I don't know too much about the ramifications of that, but something tells me that I don't want China in charge of my electricity and water.

But, the current version of the bill also allows FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) some oversight of utility mergers. Several senators are currently only supporting the bill because of this FERC oversight. If it's removed, the public needs to let their senators that they won't stand for this corporate-friendly energy bill. We need an energy bill to protect us from these major corporations that are more interested in their investments than their customers. Shoot, let your senators know NOW that you won't stand for PUHCA repeal, because it still gives corporations a boost in future bills. And besides, Bush just appointed Joseph Kelliher as director of FERC. The same Kelliher who just worked for Dick Cheney in helping to draft this outrageous energy bill. hmm.....

Contact your senators and ask them to block the energy bill!! It's the only way to save PUHCA. The bill only makes us more dependent on oil anyways, which is the last thing we need right now. Let's ask for an energy bill that actually focuses on utilizing renewable energy, rather than one that keeps us going down the same path: a path leading to pollution and dangerous levels of dependence on foreign oil.

AP-Ipsos polls

2005-07-15T15:40:00.000-07:00

Bush just isn't improving at all in his public opinion polls. The dude hasn't done crap to save his 2nd term, which is currently in a tailspin, and in danger of losing any chance at salvaging his agenda for the last couple years. The latest blow, Karl Rove's connection to the Valerie Plame leak, has done nothing to help. A recent poll from AP-Ipsos reveals what Americans really think of Dubya. On the plus side, Congress is doing a little better than ten months ago......

1. Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?
_Right direction, 36 percent
_Wrong track, 59 percent

2. Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
_Approve, 42 percent
_Disapprove, 56 percent

3. And when it comes to handling the economy, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 42 percent
_Disapprove, 56 percent

4. And when it comes to domestic issues like health care, education and the environment, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 42 percent
_Disapprove, 56 percent

5. When it comes to handling foreign policy issues and the war on terrorism, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 51 percent
_Disapprove, 48 percent

6. When it comes to handling the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 40 percent
_Disapprove, 59 percent

7. When it comes to Social Security, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?
_Approve, 35 percent
_Disapprove, 61 percent

8. Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Congress is handling its job?
_Approve, 35 percent
_Disapprove, 60 percent

Nice "mandate," Bush.

still dying while Bush is lying

2005-07-15T12:26:00.000-07:00

last throes, my eye.

White House briefing....briefly

2005-07-13T19:17:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Scott McClellan gave his third press briefing in as many days. He began by discussing the cabinet meeting that had taken place yesterday morning. He started strong, saying that Rumsfeld briefed everybody on the dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan....and didn't elaborate. He mentioned that the energy bill was discussed.....aaannnd didn't elaborate. Actually, he didn't elaborate on a lot. But it's cool. He stayed out of the crapper. And even mentioned Bush being at a bipartisan meeting. Ooh, brownie points! And then McClellan made a fatal mistake: he opened the floor to questions. You won't see more sweat on a man if he's in a sauna being sat upon by Fat Bastard of Austin Powers fame. Let's review (note, none of these are direct quotes, but they're pretty durn accurate to the content):

Reporter: Why did the President not voice confidence in Karl Rove at today's cabinet meeting?
McClellan: Well...uhh....he's done it before, and I can assure you that he has confidence in his whole administration.
Reporter: Well the President has never been restrained in voicing his opinion, he just says what he wants. And if he wanted to voice confidence, he would have.
McClellan: Uhh....he uh....wasn't asked about his support or confidence for Karl--
Reporter: That didn't stop him from voicing confidence of Al Gonzales without ever being asked (crowd laughs)
McClellan: um....uh....gaahhh......bblblblblblb

Reporter: Scott, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given answers like you just gave in referring to the fact that everybody who works here has the confidence of the President, Republicans woulda hammered them as having a legalistic and sleazy defense. You're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. Does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or didn't he?
McClellan: No I'm not, we've been going around and around for two days now, and--
Reporter: When discussing an operative, a member of the administration had better be darn well sure that the operative is not under secret cover. Does the President agree with that or not?
McClellan: We've answered this over and over again, and I'm not gonna answer....uhh.....
Reporter: You're not answering my question. It's not about the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior offical to speak in any way, shape or form about a covert operative, without first finding out whether the person is operating under secret--
McClellan: Uh....round and round....umm....not gonna....uhh....pbhthththt

Reporter: You stated in September of 2003 that it was totally ridiculous that Karl Rove had been suggested as the individual who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. Do you still stand by that claim?
McClellan: Well, I can't answer any questions relating to an ongoing investigation.

Reporter: At Sea Island in June of 2004, President Bush said that any administration member involved in this leak would be fired. What were the parameters? Was it a knowing leak, with the intent to do harm, or ---
McClellan: Again, this is relating to an ongoing investigation, and I'm not gonna answer that directly. I'll answer question about another topic. Ongoing investigation....uhh...talked yesterday....briefings online....

Reporter: I'm gonna go to another question. Similar subject. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from the Whit House about the effect of the leaks on this family?
McClellan: We've gone round and round on --
Reporter: No, this isn't about the investigation. This is about a family and the effects of this leak on that family.
McClellan: Again, this is about an ongoing investigation, and I'm not gonna--
Reporter: No, this is about a family. An American family that works for the government, and the executive branch let this family down. Is there any regret from the White House that this family was affected?
McClellan: Doesn't change what I just said. Next question. Go.

I saw an interesting comparison made between this scandal and Watergate. In press briefings, then-press secretary Ronald Ziegler also refused to answer any questions about Watergate, offering such inspired excuses as "I have to ask for the next question" and "further discussion of Watergate could very well prejudice the rights of the accused and disrupt the judicial process." Hmm....striking similarities.

whosaidit?

2005-07-13T16:39:00.000-07:00

Alright, it's time to play "Name That Quote!" It's pretty durn simple. I give a quote, you guess the speaker of that quote. Answers appear at the bottom of the post.

1. "It is simply not true." (that Rove leaked a CIA operative's name)
2. "The only way to defeat worldwide terrorism is for the world to unite against it and overcome differences in support of that greater good. Maybe the London killings will help in that effort."
3. "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our [agents]. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
4. "Give Karl Rove a medal....because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody, and nobody else had the cajones to do it."
5. "I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington" (the fictional Neuman is famous for his line "What, me worry?")
6. "It's totally ridiculous." (that Rove leaked a CIA operative's name)
7. "...if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

1. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan (Sept. 23, 2003)
2. FOX "pundit" Bill O'Reilly (July 11, 2005)
3. George H.W. Bush (Sept 29, 2003)
4. Insightful FOX ideaman John Gibson (July 12, 2005)
5. Hillary Rodham Clinton (July 11, 2005)
6. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan (Sept. 16, 2003)
7. President George W. Bush (September 20, 2003)

How'd you do? Oh, in case you were wondering if Bush could get away with that "if the person has violated law" thing, "According to Title 50, Ch. 15, Subch. IV, Sec. 421 intentionally revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent is punishable by 3-10 years in prison or $15-50k in fines or both." (thanks to Daily Kos)

what happened to Iraq?

2005-07-13T14:58:00.000-07:00

Interesting, that Iraq seems to have disappeared from the spotlight, now that they've had their elections and the "war" is going so horribly. I just went to whitehouse.gov and found no mention of the Iraq War on the main page, though they do still have a link to "Iraqi Elections." Now it's the "war on terror" that dominates Bush's talks, because if he doesn't mention terror when talking about Iraq, he knows he hasn't got a prayer. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

explain it, Mr. Bush

2005-07-13T14:47:00.000-07:00

Yet another excellent article, this one asking the President to go explain himself to high schoolers in Seattle who are preparing for boot camp. This article points out many of the contradictions in what Bush says and what he does. Examples include (drum roll please):

Maybe the president can discuss his statement that “terrorists respect no laws of warfare or morality.” Did not this administration violate international law and it’s own policy against pre-emptive strikes when it invaded Iraq on false pretenses?

Since the president thanked the soldiers and military families for their service and sacrifice, I’m sure the students would be interested in learning more about just how grateful the administration is. Is it grateful enough to provide all of the troops with tetranike vests and up-armored tanks? Is it grateful enough to help the thousands of military families who’ve had to apply for food stamps to feed their children?

No, but it's grateful enough to give Rumsfeld (Rumsfeld? Maybe Cheney? I don't remember) a super armored car when he visits. I'm sure that inspires the troops, that their leaders won't even use the vehicles they give to the troops.

Speaking of citizenry, perhaps he’d like to discuss the Iraqi citizens that have died during this war; many more than were killed during any comparable time frame of Saddam Hussein’s reign. The tens of thousands of dead Iraqis dispel any pretense whatsoever that this war can ever be called "moral.” Yet, it was President Bush’s moral values that got him elected to a second term. I’m sure the Seattle high schoolers would like to hear an explanation of how a moral person justifies it when he creates, rather than alleviate, suffering.

No excuses that this is a "long term" fix and we can't expect it to be sunshine and rainbows right away. We went in for WMDs, then argued we removed Saddam to save the Iraqis from unjust and cruel deaths, now apparently we're staying for "a shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East," because the first two failed miserably.

Then the president could talk about democracy, explaining how, counterintuitive though it may be, it actually can be imposed. The president could tell the kids that when he said a totalitarian regime is one that “despises dissent,” he wasn’t referring to his administration.

Sorry, I just can't help thinking of Rove's relatiatory leak here.

After reviewing the national polls showing that at least half the U.S. population wants troops withdrawn and 60% believe the war in Iraq wasn’t worth fighting, the president could specify which country he was talking about when he referred to a “Constitution that upholds the will of the majority.” Because the children should be forgiven if they want to know how we can presume to do that in Iraq when we seem unable to do it here.

Actually, never mind. Don't bother reading the article. This was pretty much the whole thing =) Thanks a million to Stacy Bannerman and the website CommonDreams.

can him!!!!!

2005-07-13T11:27:00.000-07:00

Well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but new evidence points to Karl Rove being the administration official who leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative, thus forcing her to resign and endangering her and her entire mission. Ironically, her mission involved investigating WMDs, the supposed reason for our Iraq invasion. Yet I guess more important than her work with WMDs, is making sure people are taught a lesson: don't question Bush, it'll be the last career move you ever make. This is good. Now nobody will want to work for the government, because we can't even guarantee protection for our top secret officials.

President Bush, who has many times indicated he would not tolerate a leaker within his own administration, now is failing to act on this new evidence. He says he's waiting for the conclusion of the investigation. That's cool. I'll give him that. But if they finish and find that Rove is guilty of this leak, it will be one of Bush's worst mistakes to keep him on board. Loyalty is one thing. Backing an individual who threatened the safety of a governmental worker by releasing confidential information, thus showing his immaturity and irresponsibility? That's just plain insulting to the American people. I wish people would grow some balls and learn to stand up to Dubya for this crap. Tell him we won't have it. Tell him we won't tolerate a political advisor who feels it's more important to retaliate against a political writer than to protect the identity of somebody working for his own government.

Code Rove, an article from alternet.org, discusses the sad political aspects of this case. Talks about how pathetic it is that the focus has switched from "Karl Rove endangered America" to "Democrats are playing partisan politics" and other equally despicable attacks. I don't even know what to say right now. I'm so pissed at congressional Republicans for their political games here. All we're asking is for Rove to take responsibility, and for Bush to take action and back up his words. Is that so hard? Can he just once prove that he cares more about his country than his friends? I doubt it. That's why he's a lousy excuse for a president, and that's why we're going to hell in a handbasket as long as Bush and his cronies are in charge.

Yell at me. Throw profanity. I don't care. You don't like my criticism of Bush? Too bad. Start supporting a Republican leader with morals and an agenda for the USA, rather than for himself and his corporate backers. I've had enough of Bush, Frist, DeLay, Rove, McClellan, and all their die-hard defenders. When your party's success becomes more important to you than your nation's honor and decency, then I've lost all hope for you.

Shame on you, Karl Rove. Shame on President Bush. Shame on anybody who continues to support Rove after this. It should not be tolerated, and I accept no excuse. This was a cowardly act intended for selfish gain, employing the excellent schoolyard tactic of "he hit me first!" Whatever. It's pathetic.

published again!

2005-07-12T11:39:00.000-07:00

This time I got a letter printed in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. I wrote a letter about how awesome it is that the Spanish government and the United Church of Christ both voiced their support of gay marriage.

Loving neighbors

The Spanish government and the United Church of Christ, have made public their support of gay marriage ("UCC synod backs resolution endorsing same-sex marriage," July 5).

Spanish President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero gave an inspirational speech regarding his government's decision, saying "(T)heir triumph is everyone's triumph . . . because it is the triumph of liberty. Their victory . . . makes society better."

In this time of divisive politics and growing hatred, we should look to these as examples of true liberty and unity. I commend UCC for its ability to love all of its neighbors, just as Christ taught, which is too rare among Christians today.

Philip Grupe
St. Louis

Ironically, the letter following mine was a criticism of the UCC for their support of gay marriage, asking "How can a church do that, moving in the opposite direction of Biblical teaching? I wonder whether it still claims to be a Bible-believing church?"

Interesting. So which chapter of Matthew was it where Jesus said "let he who is sinless cast the first stone. You know, except for the fruits. You can throw whatever you want; I don't care about them. That undying love? Yeah, it doesn't apply to them" I must have skipped over that passage last time I read through the Bible.

new look for the blog

2005-07-08T16:08:00.000-07:00

I changed the look of my blog. Partly because it looked so similar to K-ris' and since I did this because of him, I had this nagging feeling that I was just trying to imitate his blogs. This alleviates that concern. Partly because it was so dark, which I felt made it difficult to read, especially on the longer posts. Partly because I just like this overall layout better, and it's easier to see where one post ends and the next begins. It's cheerier too, and I like that. So yeah, if it bothers you, just let me know, and I'll be sure to apologize.

A Francophile through and through

2005-07-08T16:02:00.000-07:00

So John Gibson of FOX News has spoken his mind, and what's on his mind is the terrorist attacks on London. But it's not sympathy he offers. Instead, he suggests a different target for the attacks: France. That's right, he is sick and despicable enough to suggest that Paris, not London, should have been picked for the 2012 Olympics, because then France would be the scene of these attacks. No words can describe my loathing of him right now. Read this if you care to, but don't expect sunshine and rainbows.

The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics – let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

God Bless America, eh? Screw everybody else? Yep, Christian nation we are.

Unbelievable.

G-8 not so great

2005-07-08T14:53:00.000-07:00

At the G-8 meetings over in Europe, the leaders of 8 of the most powerful nations in the world have gathered to discuss several issues, most notably aid to Africa and a stance on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions.

In a shocking move, President Bush has signed off on an agreement by all eight nations to double aid to Africa by 2010. Not as much as he had been asked for by Americans and the other leaders, but it's one of the first times I've known him to compromise.

Another surprise is his agreement to language in a statement that basically states burning fossil fuels is a contributor to global warming, a position his administration has consistently attempted to downplay and debunk.

WAIT!!! Hold on, I'm continuing to read the article, and I'm not so cheery anymore. Apparently this aid agreed to by Bush doesn't represent any new money to Africa, just summing up additional aid already promised. And he blocked an attempt by Tony Blair to define specific goals for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Never mind. Bush is still an arrogant stick in the mud.

I will give him a little credit for agreeing to support efforts to secure $3 billion for Palestine to help them work stuff out as Israel pulls out of the Gaza strip. Nice that we're finally not just supporting Israel, no questions asked. That, more than anything else we've done in the last five years, will get us more support and respect in the Middle East. However, the administration has already said it'll look to other nations for the money for that, so we're still not sacrificing any of our prosperity to really help other nations.

Dang, I spoke too soon. Once again, Bush has successfully blocked true progress in environmental and humanitarian efforts, in the name of American business and economic growth. What a joke. Maybe he should stop supporting the corporations that send all their jobs overseas. Well, we tried, but you can't change stupid.

nothing but love for the British

2005-07-08T10:29:00.000-07:00

I still haven't read up much on the terror attack in London a couple days ago, but what I've seen is shocking and horrible. For anybody to do anything like this shows only a complete ignorance and disregard for the sanctity of human life. What kind of a God do they think they're following, that murdering so many innocents will supposedly earn them a reward? My heart goes out to those affected by these attacks and I admire Tony Blair's strength in this crisis.

Now K-ris said he was about to start ranting about how people claim that this attack was our fault, so I'm not gonna go that far, despite the fact that I'm the flaming liberal in his group of blogging friends. However, I will point out how this attack shows that sending our full force in Iraq does NOT protect us from terrorism. If anything, it makes us more succeptible. First of all, because we've sparked a new wave of terror recruits who are even more pissed about our presence in the Middle East. And all that crap about Iraq becoming a shining beacon of democracy over there? What a load of crap. There will always be resistance, as long as there are Muslims who believe we're trying to set the stage for an Israeli takeover of that area. The second reason we are more succeptible is that the bulk of our military strength is over in Iraq, so if an attack were to happen in the United States, we don't have the forces here at home to deal with it. Kind of silly that Bush has spent so much on Iraq, yet he hasn't spent nearly enough to secure our own borders at home. We're not keeping terrorism off our soil by occupying Iraq. That's one of several dozen nations containing terrorists, and it only has them because our presence has attracted them.

I do not attempt to justify what these people did in any way. I think it was an act of cowardice, and they should be sought out, captured, and tried for high crimes. But how much will it take for us to really reevaluate our role in the Middle East? Is this something we want to put up with for another 12 years, as Dick Cheney suggested the time frame might very well be? We certainly aren't making ourselves safer, and Iraq, though free from Saddam's cruel reign, is in shambles since our takeover. Who exactly are we helping? They're living with more fear and uncertainty now than they were three years ago. Judging by the fact that we just raised the terror alert to orange for mass transit systems, we're not doing too much better over here, just without all the car bombs. Oh, if we could go back and avoid this invasion, how much better off would we all be......

What he hasn't done in four years

2005-07-07T14:45:00.000-07:00

Because he's so proud of rattling off all of his accomplishments over the last four years, I thought I'd offer a short list of the things that Bush has been unable to do since he first entered office.

win an election convincingly
eliminate terrorism
gravely wound terrorism
put a dent in terrorism
do anything to terrorism besides influencing its growth
capture Osama Bin Laden
find Osama Bin Laden
scare Osama Bin Laden
remove the "enemy" in Afghanistan (Taliban, terrorists)
create a safe and secure Afghanistan
exact revenge for 9-11
call upon the memories of 9-11 for anything but political gain (the two weeks fllowing the disaster don't count--even John Ashcroft could have done that)
find WMDs in Iraq
back up his "mission accomplished" speech
root out terrorism in Iraq
recruit more successfully than Al Qaeda
locate a felon within his own administration (see: Cooper, Miller and the CIA)
come through on "I'm a uniter, not a divider"
give schools the assistance they need to meet his unattainable education standards
give students they assistance they need to attend the college they deserve
fix that ridiculous speech problem
show us what he meant by "compassionate conservative"
win over Congress enough to enact a single bipartisan decision (again, the weeks surrounding 9-11 don't count)
protect our environment from his corporate buddies
reduce the national deficit
decrease spending
decrease government size (one of his 2000 campaign platforms)
honor state and individual rights provided for in the Constitution (see: Patriot Act, gay marriage amendment, abortion issues, detention of terror suspects, Terri Schiavo, etc)
honor the Geneva Conventions so often used by America as the standards for the rest of the world to follow
stabilize Iraq
pronounce a single Middle Eastern name correctly
SAY NUCLEAR!!!!!
lose that arrogant smirk
increase public support during periods of normal activity (i.e. without events such as 9-11, Iraq invasion, capture of Saddam) ((don't believe me? check out his approval ratings here or here)) --- compare to Clinton, whose approval rating never dropped below 51% in a single poll during his second term; it was actually in the 60%-70% range most of those four years.
protect our borders from terrorism
hasten the upgrading of our national coast guard, which is still using a fleet we had in Vietnam
show us what the crap those tax cuts accomplished
clean our air
clean our water
close corporate loopholes
create a single net job
convince me that he has a clue what he's doing in office
earn the titles of "President" and "Commander in Chief"

A bit harsh? Yep. Thus far, he hasn't given me a reason to be anything else.

gays and leaks

2005-07-02T23:42:00.000-07:00

Ooh, shocking title! Got your attention though, I hope.

The Spanish government recently passed a law legalizing gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples. Speaking in defense of this law, the Spanish president delivered this inspiring speech which all of us could take to heart. Just sit and let the words soak in. =)

"It is true that they are only a minority, but their triumph is everyone's triumph. It is also the triumph of those who oppose this law, even though they do not know this yet: because it is the triumph of Liberty. Their victory makes all of us (even those who oppose the law) better people, it makes our society better."

Second bit of news, involving the two reporters who refused to reveal the source of a leak regarding the identity of a CIA operative. The documentation has been released to federal court, and it is believed that the source will be revealed in the next couple weeks. An MSNBC analyst claims to know who leaked this information, and he says that the name is Karl Rove, political advisor to President Bush. Wow. What if he's right? If Rove leaked that name, it could be even worse news for the Bush administration. It's one thing for Bush to back his advisor after Rove's comments that liberals are in favor of supporting terrorists and harming our soldiers, but could he still support Rove if it's found that Rove intentionally gave away the names of this CIA operative? Food for thought.

A legend steps down

2005-07-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a letter to President Bush, today announced her decision to step down from her position. The first woman appointed to the nation's highest court, Justice O'Connor has served for a remarkable 24 years, and has earned America's respect and gratitude. She has been an ever welcomed voice of reason and moderation in a court deeply divided in its ideologies. Her successor is likely to be one of the most important appointments of our time, and this appointment could make or break Bush's chance at getting his top choice if/when Chief Justice Warren H. Berger retires. Here's hoping for another moderate, one who swings neither right nor left, so that the court can remain an even-minded, level-headed voice of the people, not the political tool of a conservative group of legislators.

I wrote a letter to the New York Times, which should be published soon, as I received an e-mail with an edited version of the letter. Hoping they don't edit it needlessly, I'm excited to be published in the NY Times!!!! Here's a copy of the edited letter, as it was sent to me for approval, and as it should (knocks on wood) appear in the New York Times in the coming days:

To the Editor:

The resignation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor marks a crucial point for both Democrats and Republicans.

The Bush administration needs to be careful, as a vicious brawl over Justice O'Connor's replacement could cost President Bush support in the future for any nominee he chooses to replace Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, should he step down. But if the Democrats push back too hard on Justice O'Connor's replacement, they may lose some ground in the future if Justice Rehnquist decides to
retire.

America is in desperate need of strong, bipartisan decisions in this time of political turmoil. This is a case where cooperation would benefit both Washington and the whole nation.

Philip Grupe
Los Angeles, July 1, 2005

Yeah, I couldn't change it to St. Louis, since I'm in L.A. right now. But oh well. I think I'm gonna be in the paper. Effin' eh.

This is what I'm talking about!!!

2005-06-29T16:09:00.000-07:00

effin' eh......