Barack Obama gave what is, for him, a fairly routine speech today in Berlin. (For McCain, it would have been a triumph, a speech beyond his capacity to give.) Obama hit all the important rhetorical points, stayed on message, said some inspiring things, had a great crowd, and kept the media attention on himself in a positive way. Already, though, I'm reading some negative coverage of his speech, some people are calling it a disappointment. I guess they were expecting him to outdo both Kennedy and Reagan.
People seem to forget that this guy isn't even the President yet. He's not even officially a nominee for President yet. He is not capable yet of making the kind of speech that people seem to expect every time out, not because he lacks the talent but because he lacks the historical circumstance and gravitas of, say, the end of communism and the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
So it's fine to say that Obama didn't bring his A Game - The time for the A Game has not yet arrived. I would be worried, very worried in fact, if Obama had given some sort of transcendent speech in Berlin, because then where would he go? He can't peak, it's July, and the people he's speaking to won't even get the chance to vote for him come November. So let's all just chill out and enjoy what we have -- A candidate for President who, even on a so-so day, gives a hell of a speech.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Watch this video...McCain is pretty scary.
Watch the following video. Don't ask questions, just watch it. McCain is not a straight shooter. He's just not.
Monday, July 21, 2008
McCain tries to pass off Republican Talking Points as an Op-Ed...FAIL!
Last week Obama write an Op-Ed in the New York Times about his plan to withdraw from Iraq. Today McCain tried to put an Op-Ed in the paper and it got rejected. Of course, the right wing and the McCain campaign will take this as just another example of liberal media bias, and they're already up in arms about it, but the NYT was totally correct not to publish it. It was nothing more than a recitation of Republican Talking Points and innuendo about what Obama must be thinking. McCain doesn't offer a single new piece of information about himself or his plans in the piece. I'm not going to go through it point by point. Jason Linkins already did a great job over on HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/inew-york-timesi-spares-m_n_114117.html
All I will say is that, whenever a candidate starts trying to tell me what the other guy is thinking, or what the other guy's actions MEAN, I cringe and instantly think they're full of shit. It's fine to criticize the guy's policies, but it's not okay to make assumptions about the other guy's motives. And it's not the responsibility of legitimate newspapers to give that kind of bald political posturing a forum.
It's almost funny at this point, because the McCain campaign seems almost incapable of simply explaining any of it's positions. It can only talk about what Obama says or does and try to tell us what that means about him as a candidate. Hopefully the rest of the country finds this as transparent as I do. I can't wait for the debates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/inew-york-timesi-spares-m_n_114117.html
All I will say is that, whenever a candidate starts trying to tell me what the other guy is thinking, or what the other guy's actions MEAN, I cringe and instantly think they're full of shit. It's fine to criticize the guy's policies, but it's not okay to make assumptions about the other guy's motives. And it's not the responsibility of legitimate newspapers to give that kind of bald political posturing a forum.
It's almost funny at this point, because the McCain campaign seems almost incapable of simply explaining any of it's positions. It can only talk about what Obama says or does and try to tell us what that means about him as a candidate. Hopefully the rest of the country finds this as transparent as I do. I can't wait for the debates.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
What dues has Hillary Clinton paid again?
I've been reading a lot of articles lately about Obama's VP selection. In most of those articles, there's some version of the idea that Hillary Clinton's supporters are pissed off because their candidate was snubbed after she "paid some serious dues". My question is, what dues? She married the most savvy politician in the last few decades and rode his coattails into the white house without getting elected on her own merits. Isn't that the exact opposite of paying dues?
I'm sure HRC did pay some dues before that, and since, but how is that different than any of the other thousands of politicians who labor away on a local or state or small national level but never become President? What about Bill Richardson? What about Wesley Clark? What about anybody else? Did they get "cheated" out of the Presidency by the rise of Obama? Or in their case, was it just a case of someone coming along that more perfectly captured the mood and flavor of the rising generation? How come Hillary is the only one who got "passed over"?
Maybe I'm just a misogynist, but a lot of feminist griping about getting passed over strikes me in this way. One article I read said that Clinton's supporters were so die-hard in their anger because the way that she was slighted reminded them of how they had passed over in their own lives by "men they had trained as Junior Executives who became the CEO."
It's hard not to feel that a lot of these complaints are just that, complaints. It's very easy to say that someone got a promotion ahead of you because they were a man - It's an impossible charge to disprove. It's also a much easier pill to swallow than admitting somebody passed you up because they were more talented.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that sexism isn't real. Of course it's real, but it's overblown in today's society. I'm 25, and in my life I've perceived more disadvantages than advantages from being a white male. Nobody has ever handed me anything because of my color or gender, but when I applied for college I didn't get to check any of those nice boxes that let everyone know how disadvantaged I've been. I don't discriminate against people because of their gender or race, but as a white male I get to fight against the assumption that gender and race factor into my every decision.
The one real advantage I've gotten from being a white male is that I grew up in a supportive home with plenty to eat and good parents who valued education. But guess what - So have a whole lot of women, including Hillary Clinton.
When a woman executive is passed over by someone younger for the CEO spot (or whatever spot), it's easy and nearly universal to blame sexism on some level, but they should remember that there are white men passed over for CEO's jobs all the time in favor of younger candidates: They just don't have a ready-made excuse for it. In fact, men, including me, from the time they become teenagers, learn to shrug off rejection without looking for excuses...That is to say, they start trying to get dates.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose the primary campaign because she's a woman. She lost because she allowed Mark Penn to terribly mismanage her campaign, she made false assumptions about an early end to the Primary process, and because Barack Obama ran a disciplined, tenacious campaign and did a better job connecting with the voters. Some media pundits made sexist remarks, but some made racial remarks about Obama. Overall the coverage was consistently crap, as it has been for a long time and still is. Clinton and her supporters should stop moaning about how unfair it all is, and face up to reality: If John McCain wins this election, Roe v. Wade is going to get overturned and abortion is going to be made illegal in this country. Wake the fuck up and watch out for the real misogyny that lurks just around the corner.
I'm sure HRC did pay some dues before that, and since, but how is that different than any of the other thousands of politicians who labor away on a local or state or small national level but never become President? What about Bill Richardson? What about Wesley Clark? What about anybody else? Did they get "cheated" out of the Presidency by the rise of Obama? Or in their case, was it just a case of someone coming along that more perfectly captured the mood and flavor of the rising generation? How come Hillary is the only one who got "passed over"?
Maybe I'm just a misogynist, but a lot of feminist griping about getting passed over strikes me in this way. One article I read said that Clinton's supporters were so die-hard in their anger because the way that she was slighted reminded them of how they had passed over in their own lives by "men they had trained as Junior Executives who became the CEO."
It's hard not to feel that a lot of these complaints are just that, complaints. It's very easy to say that someone got a promotion ahead of you because they were a man - It's an impossible charge to disprove. It's also a much easier pill to swallow than admitting somebody passed you up because they were more talented.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that sexism isn't real. Of course it's real, but it's overblown in today's society. I'm 25, and in my life I've perceived more disadvantages than advantages from being a white male. Nobody has ever handed me anything because of my color or gender, but when I applied for college I didn't get to check any of those nice boxes that let everyone know how disadvantaged I've been. I don't discriminate against people because of their gender or race, but as a white male I get to fight against the assumption that gender and race factor into my every decision.
The one real advantage I've gotten from being a white male is that I grew up in a supportive home with plenty to eat and good parents who valued education. But guess what - So have a whole lot of women, including Hillary Clinton.
When a woman executive is passed over by someone younger for the CEO spot (or whatever spot), it's easy and nearly universal to blame sexism on some level, but they should remember that there are white men passed over for CEO's jobs all the time in favor of younger candidates: They just don't have a ready-made excuse for it. In fact, men, including me, from the time they become teenagers, learn to shrug off rejection without looking for excuses...That is to say, they start trying to get dates.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose the primary campaign because she's a woman. She lost because she allowed Mark Penn to terribly mismanage her campaign, she made false assumptions about an early end to the Primary process, and because Barack Obama ran a disciplined, tenacious campaign and did a better job connecting with the voters. Some media pundits made sexist remarks, but some made racial remarks about Obama. Overall the coverage was consistently crap, as it has been for a long time and still is. Clinton and her supporters should stop moaning about how unfair it all is, and face up to reality: If John McCain wins this election, Roe v. Wade is going to get overturned and abortion is going to be made illegal in this country. Wake the fuck up and watch out for the real misogyny that lurks just around the corner.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
What Campaign Finance Reform?
The headline on Huffpost right now is "$52 Million Dollar Man = Underdog". What's interesting to me is the numbers they give on what sort of personal donations are possible. It makes me wonder about the viability of either candidate claiming they are in favor of campaign finance reform.
The numbers you often hear tossed around are that a single donor can give a candidate $2300 during the primary (meaning until the convention) and $2300 during the actual election. This seems like it would help ameliorate the impact of single donors capable of making huge donations without an impact on their bottom line.
What I was unaware of until today is that each person is also allowed to give up to $28500 directly to the political party. That's a huge number, and it makes Obama's fundraising numbers even more significant. It means that individuals can donate over thirty grand to a political party in a single election cycle, which doesn't say much about the reform of campaign finance in this country. This is, of course, on top of free office space and homes for fundraisers and 527 and other 'unaffiliated' groups with no cap on donations.
What this adds up to is that, despite McCain's bluster about how much he wants to reform Campaign Finance, he's taking the same huge dollar donations from a minority of people in order to convince the lower-middle class majority that somehow tax cuts are good for them, and the Democrats love terrorists.
What this means to Obama is less clear, but I also don't think it's great. While it's true that much of his campaign funds come from small-dollar donations, he also takes maximum contributions from many people, and many such people also give big dollars to the Democratic party. The problem, as we have seen with the "Hillraisers" over the last few months, is that once you let someone put thirty grand into the party, they feel they have a right to say what goes on. Frankly, they have a point. They can say: "I donated a hundred times what some of these other people did, my voice should be heard louder than theirs." It's hard to tell those people they're wrong, because the Democrats NEED those donations.
The only real solution is to restrict, much, much more severely, the ability of single people to contribute. Get rid of the 527's and all this other bullshit. Limiting the ability of a single person to effect the outcome of an election with money is not limiting freedom of speech, any more than it is to censor someone from running an ad claiming that John McCain drinks the blood of children. Until we get some of that, we don't have any real campaign finance reform.
The numbers you often hear tossed around are that a single donor can give a candidate $2300 during the primary (meaning until the convention) and $2300 during the actual election. This seems like it would help ameliorate the impact of single donors capable of making huge donations without an impact on their bottom line.
What I was unaware of until today is that each person is also allowed to give up to $28500 directly to the political party. That's a huge number, and it makes Obama's fundraising numbers even more significant. It means that individuals can donate over thirty grand to a political party in a single election cycle, which doesn't say much about the reform of campaign finance in this country. This is, of course, on top of free office space and homes for fundraisers and 527 and other 'unaffiliated' groups with no cap on donations.
What this adds up to is that, despite McCain's bluster about how much he wants to reform Campaign Finance, he's taking the same huge dollar donations from a minority of people in order to convince the lower-middle class majority that somehow tax cuts are good for them, and the Democrats love terrorists.
What this means to Obama is less clear, but I also don't think it's great. While it's true that much of his campaign funds come from small-dollar donations, he also takes maximum contributions from many people, and many such people also give big dollars to the Democratic party. The problem, as we have seen with the "Hillraisers" over the last few months, is that once you let someone put thirty grand into the party, they feel they have a right to say what goes on. Frankly, they have a point. They can say: "I donated a hundred times what some of these other people did, my voice should be heard louder than theirs." It's hard to tell those people they're wrong, because the Democrats NEED those donations.
The only real solution is to restrict, much, much more severely, the ability of single people to contribute. Get rid of the 527's and all this other bullshit. Limiting the ability of a single person to effect the outcome of an election with money is not limiting freedom of speech, any more than it is to censor someone from running an ad claiming that John McCain drinks the blood of children. Until we get some of that, we don't have any real campaign finance reform.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
We are neither winning nor losing the war in Iraq
It seems to me that much of the recent debate in this Presidential campaign hinges on whether you believe we are winning or losing the war in Iraq. The problem is that none of the Presidential candidates are willing to clearly define (perhaps because they can't) what victory or defeat would look like.
It is fundamentally misleading to use the phrase "we are winning", as Bush and McCain so often do, because this is not a basketball game with a set amount of time on the clock. There's no scoreboard to look at and see where we are relative to the opposition. This is in part because there is no organized opposition, just a collection of small bands of people who hate us.
So what does it mean, we are winning? My understanding is simply that "we are winning" means "we haven't left yet". Such statements make a misguided assumption that there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq, one called victory and the other called defeat. Let me assure you, NEITHER of these outcomes are viable.
Real, unadulterated 'victory' would mean a democratic Iraq free from sectarian violence, free from regional influences (read: Iran), and capable of providing critical services to all of it's people. We are about as far from this goal as the day that we invaded Iraq, possibly farther.
However, 'defeat' is an equally meaningless term. If we 'lose' in Iraq, our way of life here at home won't be effected. We won't lose our land. We won't fall under the yoke of a foreign government. In fact, in a worst-case scenario in Iraq, America itself is not under direct threat, despite what the Hawks might try to say. (Remember, those talking about creating a haven for terrorists are the same ones who said that Sadaam was harboring and sponsoring terrorism before 9/11.)
So I call on the candidates to stop talking in absolutes about winning and losing in Iraq. There are an infinity of possible scenarios to resolve and end this war. They ALL involve us pulling out troops out at some point, and they ALL involve some unpleasant consequences and side effects. Let's decide what's best on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the situation, rather than who can say the word 'winning' in just the right way.
It is fundamentally misleading to use the phrase "we are winning", as Bush and McCain so often do, because this is not a basketball game with a set amount of time on the clock. There's no scoreboard to look at and see where we are relative to the opposition. This is in part because there is no organized opposition, just a collection of small bands of people who hate us.
So what does it mean, we are winning? My understanding is simply that "we are winning" means "we haven't left yet". Such statements make a misguided assumption that there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq, one called victory and the other called defeat. Let me assure you, NEITHER of these outcomes are viable.
Real, unadulterated 'victory' would mean a democratic Iraq free from sectarian violence, free from regional influences (read: Iran), and capable of providing critical services to all of it's people. We are about as far from this goal as the day that we invaded Iraq, possibly farther.
However, 'defeat' is an equally meaningless term. If we 'lose' in Iraq, our way of life here at home won't be effected. We won't lose our land. We won't fall under the yoke of a foreign government. In fact, in a worst-case scenario in Iraq, America itself is not under direct threat, despite what the Hawks might try to say. (Remember, those talking about creating a haven for terrorists are the same ones who said that Sadaam was harboring and sponsoring terrorism before 9/11.)
So I call on the candidates to stop talking in absolutes about winning and losing in Iraq. There are an infinity of possible scenarios to resolve and end this war. They ALL involve us pulling out troops out at some point, and they ALL involve some unpleasant consequences and side effects. Let's decide what's best on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the situation, rather than who can say the word 'winning' in just the right way.
I can no longer hold my silence!!!
I haven't written in this blog for nearly a year. My energy to do so is fed by anger, and around August of last year I moved beyond angry into depressed, so I stopped posting. Now I am angry again! I am going to try and update this blog at least once a day up until the election. We'll see how long my anger can last this time...
Monday, August 13, 2007
Karl Rove's departure is a generally ominous sign...
Karl Rove is set to leave the White House at the end of August, and the news asks more questions than it answers. I don't really understand it, and I don't really like it, although I feel like I should like it. I've been waiting for this guy to be out for five years, but I always hoped it would be under some cloud of suspicion, or as the result of one of his many scandals. This farewell is downright joyful, and the guy (according to Bush et al) is set to go down as some sort of national hero.
Now I know that Bush would say he was a hero no matter the circumstances. Witness Rumsfeld and all the other incompetents who WERE forced out in shame, only to be immortalized by a wonderful speech from Bush. But this departure really does smack to me of Rove simply realizing that there is nothing more that needs to be done with this Presidency. I mean, the guy has less than 18 months left in office, which pretty much means that he can't be impeached. It's just too late, unless somebody finds a 12-year-old boy handcuffed and ball gagged in one of the Lincoln bedroom closets. If the scandals thus far haven't been enough to finish him, nothing will be.
Likewise, it has become pretty clear that we will still be in Iraq when Bush leaves office. If the Democrats haven't sacked up and made the move thus far, it is unlikely they will be able to before they get a Democratic President.
Every other issue on the table has clearly already been won or lost. Immigration is not getting fixed before Jan 09, the tax breaks aren't getting repealed, social security will still be broken, gay marriage will still be illegal, abortion will still be legal, etc, etc, etc.
So Rove leaves with a bit of a victorious smirk on his fat, balding face. Fuck that guy, I hope he has a heart attack and dies tomorrow. He's in a neck and neck race with Cheney for evilest guy in the country.
Now I know that Bush would say he was a hero no matter the circumstances. Witness Rumsfeld and all the other incompetents who WERE forced out in shame, only to be immortalized by a wonderful speech from Bush. But this departure really does smack to me of Rove simply realizing that there is nothing more that needs to be done with this Presidency. I mean, the guy has less than 18 months left in office, which pretty much means that he can't be impeached. It's just too late, unless somebody finds a 12-year-old boy handcuffed and ball gagged in one of the Lincoln bedroom closets. If the scandals thus far haven't been enough to finish him, nothing will be.
Likewise, it has become pretty clear that we will still be in Iraq when Bush leaves office. If the Democrats haven't sacked up and made the move thus far, it is unlikely they will be able to before they get a Democratic President.
Every other issue on the table has clearly already been won or lost. Immigration is not getting fixed before Jan 09, the tax breaks aren't getting repealed, social security will still be broken, gay marriage will still be illegal, abortion will still be legal, etc, etc, etc.
So Rove leaves with a bit of a victorious smirk on his fat, balding face. Fuck that guy, I hope he has a heart attack and dies tomorrow. He's in a neck and neck race with Cheney for evilest guy in the country.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
One Crystallization of our basic problem in Iraq
A huge Shia march is planned for this week in Iraq, and there is significant (and justified) fear about a Sunni attack on the column of pilgrims. One of them had the following to say:
Sami Faraj, a 52-year-old government employee, said they would march nevertheless. "We do not care about the bombings and the terrorists. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for the cause and for the sake of the prophet's descendants," Faraj said.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070807/iraq/
By the way, this guy isn't a zealous preacher. He's the Iraqi equivalent of the fat guy with the lazy eye and hippie beard who takes the bus to work at the Department of Ecology. He's a nobody.
And yet he's talking in personal terms about the basic disagreement of a religious dispute that has been going on for nearly two thousand years. The furor over the succession of Mohammed was THE reason the Shias and Sunnis became the Shias and Sunnis, and this guy announced into a microphone that he was willing to die for it. And he MEANT it. There is a measurable percentage chance that some Sunni nutjob puts a bomb in the middle of that march. That's how personal this conflict is t the average Iraqi.
Ask yourself how many people you know in America would march for their religion. Not even march against abortion or something, just march for being right. Now ask yourself how many people in this country would bomb religous marchers. Finally, think of how many of those few (I assume it is few, unless you live in Utah) people-willing-to-march that you know would STILL MARCH if they knew there were people in the same CITY that were fully planning if possible to, in fact, kill them.
It is beyond folly to think that Sunnis and Shias are EVER going to live in the same physical space. They are fundamentally different than we are. They have not had a revolutionary event (In the Jeffersonian sense) to galvanize them into caring more about Iraq than about Mohammed. Until and IF they do, we have no shot, and it's irresponsible of politicians to pretend otherwise.
Sami Faraj, a 52-year-old government employee, said they would march nevertheless. "We do not care about the bombings and the terrorists. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for the cause and for the sake of the prophet's descendants," Faraj said.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070807/iraq/
By the way, this guy isn't a zealous preacher. He's the Iraqi equivalent of the fat guy with the lazy eye and hippie beard who takes the bus to work at the Department of Ecology. He's a nobody.
And yet he's talking in personal terms about the basic disagreement of a religious dispute that has been going on for nearly two thousand years. The furor over the succession of Mohammed was THE reason the Shias and Sunnis became the Shias and Sunnis, and this guy announced into a microphone that he was willing to die for it. And he MEANT it. There is a measurable percentage chance that some Sunni nutjob puts a bomb in the middle of that march. That's how personal this conflict is t the average Iraqi.
Ask yourself how many people you know in America would march for their religion. Not even march against abortion or something, just march for being right. Now ask yourself how many people in this country would bomb religous marchers. Finally, think of how many of those few (I assume it is few, unless you live in Utah) people-willing-to-march that you know would STILL MARCH if they knew there were people in the same CITY that were fully planning if possible to, in fact, kill them.
It is beyond folly to think that Sunnis and Shias are EVER going to live in the same physical space. They are fundamentally different than we are. They have not had a revolutionary event (In the Jeffersonian sense) to galvanize them into caring more about Iraq than about Mohammed. Until and IF they do, we have no shot, and it's irresponsible of politicians to pretend otherwise.
Petraeus blames bookkeeping for the missing weapons
Check this article on WashingtonPost.com:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701726.html?hpid=topnews
Petraeus blamed record-keeping errors for the loss of weapons in Iraq, then he said something that floored me. With regard to the lack of proper record-keeping procedures during the building of Iraqi forces, he said:
"We occasionally likened it to building the world's largest aircraft while in flight and while being shot at," the general said. "But we gradually started putting those procedures into place."
Really? When did you liken it to that? And who were you speaking to when you did it? I pay pretty close attention to the news, and I'm willing to bet you didn't say it to a reporter. All I seem to remember any administration spokesman saying was how great the Iraqi security forces were doing, and how much progress we were making over there.
See, you don't get to spend five years telling us how great everything is, and then when something goes horribly wrong, turn around and justify yourself by saying how difficult the situation was. I didn't believe you when you said how easy it was, but that doesn't mean you get points for coming clean. Three months ago, maybe, but now the only honesty involved is that which makes your terrible mistake seem more justifiable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701726.html?hpid=topnews
Petraeus blamed record-keeping errors for the loss of weapons in Iraq, then he said something that floored me. With regard to the lack of proper record-keeping procedures during the building of Iraqi forces, he said:
"We occasionally likened it to building the world's largest aircraft while in flight and while being shot at," the general said. "But we gradually started putting those procedures into place."
Really? When did you liken it to that? And who were you speaking to when you did it? I pay pretty close attention to the news, and I'm willing to bet you didn't say it to a reporter. All I seem to remember any administration spokesman saying was how great the Iraqi security forces were doing, and how much progress we were making over there.
See, you don't get to spend five years telling us how great everything is, and then when something goes horribly wrong, turn around and justify yourself by saying how difficult the situation was. I didn't believe you when you said how easy it was, but that doesn't mean you get points for coming clean. Three months ago, maybe, but now the only honesty involved is that which makes your terrible mistake seem more justifiable.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Weapons, journalistic priorities both missing
Here's a link to a disturbing little story:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons.reut/index.html
This story is about how we have lost 190,000 weapons in Iraq, including 110,000 AK-47 Assault Rifles, and how many of those weapons are now being used to fight against American Troops. Awesome. Hope that gets in the progress report we get in September, somehow I would be willing to bet it slips through the cracks.
My question is, why isn't this a bigger story? cnn.com leads with a story of 6 miners getting trapped in a mineshaft. Tragic, but almost a quarter million deadly weapons getting lost in the most dangerous place on earth is a bigger story than 6 miners getting killed, or 60 miners getting killed. How many people will get killed with those weapons?
HuffPost leads with Rudy Giuliani's daughter's facebook page. Seriously. She joined the "1 Million Strong for Barack" facebook group, and now that's a national news story bigger than taxpayer dollars being used to arm out enemies.
Foxnews leads with the coal miners, followed by the facebook page and a twelve-year old "Messiah" getting arrested in France. Ummm...okay. What the hell is wrong with the media in this country?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons.reut/index.html
This story is about how we have lost 190,000 weapons in Iraq, including 110,000 AK-47 Assault Rifles, and how many of those weapons are now being used to fight against American Troops. Awesome. Hope that gets in the progress report we get in September, somehow I would be willing to bet it slips through the cracks.
My question is, why isn't this a bigger story? cnn.com leads with a story of 6 miners getting trapped in a mineshaft. Tragic, but almost a quarter million deadly weapons getting lost in the most dangerous place on earth is a bigger story than 6 miners getting killed, or 60 miners getting killed. How many people will get killed with those weapons?
HuffPost leads with Rudy Giuliani's daughter's facebook page. Seriously. She joined the "1 Million Strong for Barack" facebook group, and now that's a national news story bigger than taxpayer dollars being used to arm out enemies.
Foxnews leads with the coal miners, followed by the facebook page and a twelve-year old "Messiah" getting arrested in France. Ummm...okay. What the hell is wrong with the media in this country?
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Obama might just be my guy
Saw this article today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/01/obamas-terrorism-speech_n_58815.html
The article chronicles Obama's efforts to break from the democratic interest groups, including: Promising to go into Pakistan is they refuse to root out the terrorists hiding in their mountains (obviously still getting us out of Iraq), Raising the social security age without privatization, putting teachers on a merit pay system, and chastising black men who abandon their children.
Apparently a lot of people are trying to say this will hurt him. I've got news for those people. It won't hurt him with me. This guy is more right on every time he opens his mouth. I'm still technically undecided with regard to my primary vote, but I'm leaning towards Obama with an option to fall at any time. This guy is saying the things I've been waiting for a politician to say for a really long time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/01/obamas-terrorism-speech_n_58815.html
The article chronicles Obama's efforts to break from the democratic interest groups, including: Promising to go into Pakistan is they refuse to root out the terrorists hiding in their mountains (obviously still getting us out of Iraq), Raising the social security age without privatization, putting teachers on a merit pay system, and chastising black men who abandon their children.
Apparently a lot of people are trying to say this will hurt him. I've got news for those people. It won't hurt him with me. This guy is more right on every time he opens his mouth. I'm still technically undecided with regard to my primary vote, but I'm leaning towards Obama with an option to fall at any time. This guy is saying the things I've been waiting for a politician to say for a really long time.
Rove testimony may be the lynchpin...
Remember those contempt subpoenas issued by Congress against Josh Bolten and Harriet Myers lat week? Well, now they're considering going after Karl Rove, and I am just delighted. Bush is trying to block Rove's testimony pretty hard...good call, Bush. For some reason, I have a gut feeling that Rove testifying would degenerate pretty quickly, for two reasons. One, the guy has his finger in every pie in the world, the level of dirty tricks he has committed is basically the same as the total number of dirty tricks played and secreted by this administration. Second, and perhaps more important, Rove is a smarmy asshole who thinks he is smarter and better than everyone else, including congress. I'll bet he would happily stoop to perjury, or at least get up there and act like he had a perfect right to choose which questions to answer and which questions not to answer. God that is a scene I would love to see on C-Span, Harry Reid screaming at Karl Rove and Karl Rove just smiling back up at his with his bald head gleaming, calmly saying something about executive privilege. Happy days.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Ted Stevens Home becomes historic site with latest huge embarrasing scandal.
Ted Stevens home was raided today...He's the "The internet is a series of tubes" guy who got elected as senator from, you guessed it, Alaska or Florida. My questions are: When will some of these guys start having to leave office, and how many of them have to be forced out before we can impeach the President?
The answer to the first question is unknown and probably disappointing. The answer t the second question is. If anyone knows the answer to this question, please contact me immediately.
The answer to the first question is unknown and probably disappointing. The answer t the second question is. If anyone knows the answer to this question, please contact me immediately.
Friday, July 27, 2007
I'm really hoping there's some language/translation problems between my ears and the Iraqi parlaiment
Check this article on the absenteeism of the Iraqi parliament in the days leading up to their month-long vacation in August:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-missing27jul27,0,4508518.story?coll=la-home-center
First of all, it's just shocking that they would take a month-long break right now. That's already been beaten to death in the media and on blogs for months. They had to cancel the first month of that vacation under heavy protests. But now I read, in this article, that a lot of the delegates don't show up for the sessions, at least in part because they are resistant to US pressure in setting them an agenda to talk about. That's fucking balls, right there.
The reason I reference a translation problem is because the quotes from these delegates makes them come off like Paris Hilton. It's absurd how they sound. Consider:
"The Americans don't understand," (Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker) said. "The more they insist, the more there will be opposition and we will never pass it."
Uhhh...what? Are you a five year old sitting on the at the dinner table refusing to eat something he likes just because his mother told him to eat it? The US isn't trying to ram some ridiculous proposal down their throats, it's trying to make them take steps that represent the only hope for their fledgling country.
Let me just say that I HATE US policy in Iraq. I hate it. And I acknowledge that it isn't Othman's (or any of the other delegates) fault that this situation was created. It is our fault, America's fault. We should have left Saddam Hussein in power, evil as he was, but we didn't. This is the situation now. And the simple fact that those delegates have accepted the positions they have (and the $65,000 a year, by the way. More than twice as much money as I make), makes them responsible, not for the situation, but for trying to find a way out of it. To shirk that responsibility by failing to work hard, as a response to perceived US influence, borders on the criminal.
Also, let's remember what is actually at stake here. It isn't the security of the US, at least not directly. The latest wargames estimates show that Al Qaeda won't take over in Iraq if we leave. We'll probably be better off, actually, because once we leave we can go to Pakistan and take care of the real enemy in short order. Now there's an invasion I could get behind.
All that will happen if we leave is that Iraq will burn itself to the ground. Tens of thousands of people will die, if not hundreds. Torture, religious, and ethnic cleansing will be the order of the day, and sometime far down the line, a rough, three-state scenario will emerge.
That's all we're trying to prevent. The Iraqi Parliament had better wake up and help us, because I can unequivocally say that the patience of this country is running out. We ARE leaving, and the amount of work they are able to get done before we do will directly influence the amount of Iraqi blood that is shed in the next ten years.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-missing27jul27,0,4508518.story?coll=la-home-center
First of all, it's just shocking that they would take a month-long break right now. That's already been beaten to death in the media and on blogs for months. They had to cancel the first month of that vacation under heavy protests. But now I read, in this article, that a lot of the delegates don't show up for the sessions, at least in part because they are resistant to US pressure in setting them an agenda to talk about. That's fucking balls, right there.
The reason I reference a translation problem is because the quotes from these delegates makes them come off like Paris Hilton. It's absurd how they sound. Consider:
"The Americans don't understand," (Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker) said. "The more they insist, the more there will be opposition and we will never pass it."
Uhhh...what? Are you a five year old sitting on the at the dinner table refusing to eat something he likes just because his mother told him to eat it? The US isn't trying to ram some ridiculous proposal down their throats, it's trying to make them take steps that represent the only hope for their fledgling country.
Let me just say that I HATE US policy in Iraq. I hate it. And I acknowledge that it isn't Othman's (or any of the other delegates) fault that this situation was created. It is our fault, America's fault. We should have left Saddam Hussein in power, evil as he was, but we didn't. This is the situation now. And the simple fact that those delegates have accepted the positions they have (and the $65,000 a year, by the way. More than twice as much money as I make), makes them responsible, not for the situation, but for trying to find a way out of it. To shirk that responsibility by failing to work hard, as a response to perceived US influence, borders on the criminal.
Also, let's remember what is actually at stake here. It isn't the security of the US, at least not directly. The latest wargames estimates show that Al Qaeda won't take over in Iraq if we leave. We'll probably be better off, actually, because once we leave we can go to Pakistan and take care of the real enemy in short order. Now there's an invasion I could get behind.
All that will happen if we leave is that Iraq will burn itself to the ground. Tens of thousands of people will die, if not hundreds. Torture, religious, and ethnic cleansing will be the order of the day, and sometime far down the line, a rough, three-state scenario will emerge.
That's all we're trying to prevent. The Iraqi Parliament had better wake up and help us, because I can unequivocally say that the patience of this country is running out. We ARE leaving, and the amount of work they are able to get done before we do will directly influence the amount of Iraqi blood that is shed in the next ten years.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The very thought of a Gonzales Perjury investigation makes my stomach churn
I should have been ecstatic over the prospect of a perjury investigation into Alberto Gonzales like the one proposed in this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070726/congress-gonzales/
Instead I am lukewarm at best, and deep down I am dreading it because I already know nothing will ever come of it. The problem is that we've let these obvious liars and villains reach such strongholds of power, they can't be investigated or stopped by any traditional means.
For example, Congress has issued Contempt of Court citations for Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, two of Bush's top political aides, for their refusal to even APPEAR to testify with regard to the politically motivated firings at the Justice Department. That doesn't matter, though, because that same justice department has already said they will refuse to enforce the citations. So the ones we are trying to investigate are the same ones whose help we need to execute an investigation. How well is this going to work?
In a similar way, how are we going to try Alberto Gonzales for perjury? The guy is the top of the heap as far as prosecutions are concerned. He is supposed to be the most gung-ho prosecutor in the entire country, yet now he is blatantly violating the laws in a ridiculous effort to defend the leader of the free world. What are we supposed to do?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070726/congress-gonzales/
Instead I am lukewarm at best, and deep down I am dreading it because I already know nothing will ever come of it. The problem is that we've let these obvious liars and villains reach such strongholds of power, they can't be investigated or stopped by any traditional means.
For example, Congress has issued Contempt of Court citations for Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, two of Bush's top political aides, for their refusal to even APPEAR to testify with regard to the politically motivated firings at the Justice Department. That doesn't matter, though, because that same justice department has already said they will refuse to enforce the citations. So the ones we are trying to investigate are the same ones whose help we need to execute an investigation. How well is this going to work?
In a similar way, how are we going to try Alberto Gonzales for perjury? The guy is the top of the heap as far as prosecutions are concerned. He is supposed to be the most gung-ho prosecutor in the entire country, yet now he is blatantly violating the laws in a ridiculous effort to defend the leader of the free world. What are we supposed to do?
Michael Vick...worse than a child molester?
This is a sampling of one article on the Michael Vick dog-fighting case that I chose more or less at random:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/vick.dogfighting/index.html
The thing to notice here is that one of the lawyers involved said of the protests going on outside the courtroom that they were the most extreme he has ever seen. Really? The most extreme he's ever seen? I'm pretty sure that guy has been around some HUMAN murder trials, pedophilia trials, etc, in his time.
Now I'm not making the slightest excuse for Vick. Animal cruelty laws are on the books for a reason, and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of them. But this is a striking trend that I've noticed happening in a number of animal-related cases.
For example, when I was in High School in Oregon, a kid in the area tied a cat to the roof of a shed and set it on fire. Now that's awful. The local papers and the kid's lawyer (full disclosure: the kid's lawyer was my dad) received hundreds of letters suggesting that the kid, a victim himself of systematic abuse, should be burned to death in turn. The outpouring of hatred and bile in the direction of this kid was incredible. That same week, my Dad took a case involving a five and a three year old kid. Those kids' parents were meth heads, who made extra money by inviting people over, and forcing the kids to run back and forth across the living room while paying customers shot at them with paintball and pellet guns. There were no letters sent in this case, no press coverage, no nothing. The parents got off on a technicality.
What does this have to do with Michael Vick's case? There is a war going on right now that claims innocent human lives every, single day. Atrocities are committed on people all over the world with shocking regularity. In our own country, children are abused EVERY SINGLE DAY. Where is the public outcry for this? I look out my window, or I turn on the news every night, and I don't see people protesting the War in Iraq (I have gone to a few protests myself). Why do we in this country seem to love animals and hate people so much?
I realize that Vick's high profile makes this a national case (shouldn't, but does), and I realize that dog-fighting is a bad thing. It's cruel, it's inhumane, and it's criminal. At issue here isn't whether Vick ought to be let off the hook or not. Nobody is suggesting he should. My point is that, with all the horrific things going on in the world, I think people with extra energy to burn on protests could find better outlets.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/vick.dogfighting/index.html
The thing to notice here is that one of the lawyers involved said of the protests going on outside the courtroom that they were the most extreme he has ever seen. Really? The most extreme he's ever seen? I'm pretty sure that guy has been around some HUMAN murder trials, pedophilia trials, etc, in his time.
Now I'm not making the slightest excuse for Vick. Animal cruelty laws are on the books for a reason, and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of them. But this is a striking trend that I've noticed happening in a number of animal-related cases.
For example, when I was in High School in Oregon, a kid in the area tied a cat to the roof of a shed and set it on fire. Now that's awful. The local papers and the kid's lawyer (full disclosure: the kid's lawyer was my dad) received hundreds of letters suggesting that the kid, a victim himself of systematic abuse, should be burned to death in turn. The outpouring of hatred and bile in the direction of this kid was incredible. That same week, my Dad took a case involving a five and a three year old kid. Those kids' parents were meth heads, who made extra money by inviting people over, and forcing the kids to run back and forth across the living room while paying customers shot at them with paintball and pellet guns. There were no letters sent in this case, no press coverage, no nothing. The parents got off on a technicality.
What does this have to do with Michael Vick's case? There is a war going on right now that claims innocent human lives every, single day. Atrocities are committed on people all over the world with shocking regularity. In our own country, children are abused EVERY SINGLE DAY. Where is the public outcry for this? I look out my window, or I turn on the news every night, and I don't see people protesting the War in Iraq (I have gone to a few protests myself). Why do we in this country seem to love animals and hate people so much?
I realize that Vick's high profile makes this a national case (shouldn't, but does), and I realize that dog-fighting is a bad thing. It's cruel, it's inhumane, and it's criminal. At issue here isn't whether Vick ought to be let off the hook or not. Nobody is suggesting he should. My point is that, with all the horrific things going on in the world, I think people with extra energy to burn on protests could find better outlets.
I'm back
Okay, I've been at a family reunion since Friday, so no updates. I'll be back at it tomorrow full bore...stay tuned, there have been serious developments.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Shocking News from the capitol
In a shocking development, and one that I in no way predicted two days ago in a post on this very blog, the senate has filibustered the vote on ending the war in Iraq. Turns out that despite the all nighter, the Dems didn't have the votes. Oh well, at least I didn't waste my time and stay up until 4 am watching meaningless debate.
Damn that's a lotta C-Span
I've been watching C-Span for a really long time. This is by far the most C-Span I have ever watched in one sitting. It's in first place and the race isn't even close. Here are a few thoughts:
First, I don't think John McCain or anyone else who supports the war should be able to refer to "the opinion of the generals" ever again. Let's just look at a little history lesson. Remember when there were other generals, before Petraeus, who said the surge was a shit idea? Then remember when you got rid of those generals and put in Petraeus, because he subscribed to the neocon strategy? Okay, at that point you stopped being able to refer to the opinion of the generals as a way to prove that we should do what you want to do. In fact, it's dishonest to refer to "the opinion of the generals" as if that opinion is one unified thing. There are a whole bunch of generals that agree with the democrats. They think we should end this war as soon as possible and get all our troops out or Iraq post haste. So don't sit here and try to say that we need to respect the opinion of the generals, because they don't really have any idea of what is going on either.
Second, the Democrats need to get off their ass and stop being such slaves to decorum. Some dipshit GOP senator got up and gave some bullshit, swiss cheese justification, and then Hillary got up there (she looked like warmed over death, by the way. Clearly these people are not used to being up until 5 am.) and started off her spiel with "I'd like to thank my friend and colleague from the great state of blah blah blah... Screw that. If you're going to stay up all night and keep my ass up all night, at least have a goddamn DEBATE. Get up there and point out the ten obvious flaws in his argument. It's not hard. I was sitting here in my living room doing it in real time. And you should be smarter than me.
Third, I'd just like to say that the procedures followed in the damn senate are at least 75% fluff. They have spent the last 20 minutes doing a "Quorum call" and some sort of procedural vote to GET ALL THE SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER. What?!?! We're taking up time with all this debate and the other senators are out of the chamber? Are they getting high? (Okay, obviously Ted Kennedy is getting high, and drinking a bottle of blue label, but still...) Get their asses in there and let's have us a real debate, or better yet, let's get a vote going. I can't take this shit anymore, I'm going to bed. I'm not getting any money out of this, I'm not going to be a live blogger for C-Span while nothing is happening...
First, I don't think John McCain or anyone else who supports the war should be able to refer to "the opinion of the generals" ever again. Let's just look at a little history lesson. Remember when there were other generals, before Petraeus, who said the surge was a shit idea? Then remember when you got rid of those generals and put in Petraeus, because he subscribed to the neocon strategy? Okay, at that point you stopped being able to refer to the opinion of the generals as a way to prove that we should do what you want to do. In fact, it's dishonest to refer to "the opinion of the generals" as if that opinion is one unified thing. There are a whole bunch of generals that agree with the democrats. They think we should end this war as soon as possible and get all our troops out or Iraq post haste. So don't sit here and try to say that we need to respect the opinion of the generals, because they don't really have any idea of what is going on either.
Second, the Democrats need to get off their ass and stop being such slaves to decorum. Some dipshit GOP senator got up and gave some bullshit, swiss cheese justification, and then Hillary got up there (she looked like warmed over death, by the way. Clearly these people are not used to being up until 5 am.) and started off her spiel with "I'd like to thank my friend and colleague from the great state of blah blah blah... Screw that. If you're going to stay up all night and keep my ass up all night, at least have a goddamn DEBATE. Get up there and point out the ten obvious flaws in his argument. It's not hard. I was sitting here in my living room doing it in real time. And you should be smarter than me.
Third, I'd just like to say that the procedures followed in the damn senate are at least 75% fluff. They have spent the last 20 minutes doing a "Quorum call" and some sort of procedural vote to GET ALL THE SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER. What?!?! We're taking up time with all this debate and the other senators are out of the chamber? Are they getting high? (Okay, obviously Ted Kennedy is getting high, and drinking a bottle of blue label, but still...) Get their asses in there and let's have us a real debate, or better yet, let's get a vote going. I can't take this shit anymore, I'm going to bed. I'm not getting any money out of this, I'm not going to be a live blogger for C-Span while nothing is happening...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)