Parting Shots...

This seems like a good time to close this down. The Trinity Administration has been split-up. By now, any claim to foreign policy expertise Republicans could have claimed over Democrats should be thoroughly discredited. Closing comments:

I'm going to try to turn the tone around. The poisonous, malignant environment permeating American politics cannot remain. My rationale for this belief is simple. Americans are just as responsible for Iraq and America's free-fall in international status as the Trinity Administration is. We voted for these clowns (the implication being that we knew what these people were about and yet we picked them anyway). I'll take this a step further. Democrats are not without blame, especially in 2004, because we picked a candidate who was unappealing to a vast majority of Americans, and who offered few fundamental differences when it came to principles (Kerry's vote for the war was a political decision, disconnected from principle).

I obviously hold strong personal opinions about this Administration, but given the seriousness of our country's plight, now is not the time to engage in finger-pointing. There will be plenty of time for that once our brave men and women in uniform are out of harm's way. For the forceable future, I think it behooves everyone to look for solutions, not scapegoats. Of course, this statement comes during a week in which our President is trying to make the Iraqi President a scapegoat, but my admonition is to those of us who still have our ethical credentials intact. We can expect continued arrogance, incompetence, deceit, and corruption from Republicans, but the country is counting on Democrats to seize the opportunity we've been given to lead with clarity, vision, and insightfulness. Let the President continue his politics of division and deceit. I'm stepping out of the role of opposition and taking things to the next level. Bush and Cheney are lame ducks, the Holy Spirit has departed from their midsts. Let's change the whole game...

One More Thing

This blog will soon go dead. I'm too afraid of my opinions preventing me from doing the things I want to do. I'm looking to restore America to its full democratic glory, but to do that I may need to fraternize with the people destroying her. They may not look favorably upon my musings, so this may very well be the last public post. I may continue writing and make things public again once I'm more certain of my career path. 'Till then, Google spiders, Goodnight.

Renewed Faith

News has been coming so fast and so furiously it seems pointless to dwell on it because the next bombshell always seems to drop before I've thoroughly digested the last one. This latest outing of a prominent right-wing leader, the Rev. Ted Haggard, is just too miraculous to ignore, however. It's as if Satan was trying to inject his influence by tripping up everyone's favorite flip-flopper, but Jesus was right there to say, "Hold it, you're not gonna get away with that again." It's as if he's taking pains to emphasize how far from his favor the so-called "Christian Conservatives" are. He keeps dropping them one by one, exposing the evil hypocrisy that is this movement's hallmark: the exploitation of good, decent people, manipulating them to vote for charlatans who openly mock the cause of Christ with their very existence the moment they are out of the public eye (and I'm not referring to their closeted homosexuality). The cynical anti-American, anti-Christian rhetoric espousing the superiority of one category of people over another that The Son used last week to "rally the faithful" continues (through ongoing revelations like the latest one) to be exposed for exactly what it is: preying on the prejudices of the masses in order to scare them into ignoring what's good for them. But Hallelujah! It's as if Jesus himself has entered this battle to proclaim his disdain for everything the Trinity Administration stands for. I'm only half serious, of course, but perhaps if I were a person of greater faith I really would believe this. If Christians, having seen all the widely available evidence chronicling this Administration's cynical manipulation of people of faith, continue to embrace the Republican agenda of fear, tyranny, bigotry and racism... well I won't know what to say.

I will make a prediction, however. I think post-Presidency, The Son's guilt over his involvement in The Father's covert plans to overthrow America, in his direct responsibility for creating thousands of widows and orphans, for sending hundreds of thousands to an early grave, will bring him back to his 30-something habits, and his demise will be behind the wheel of an automobile while under the influence of his old demons. That's how I think this guy will go out. Just my opinion, of course.

Politically Timed Disclosures

I've found it amusing how every issue brought to light in recent weeks, from Republicans making sexual advances on teenagers, to Republicans covering up Congressmen making sexual advances on teenagers, to the death toll of Iraqi civilians being in the 350,000 - 950,000 person range, have all been painted by the party in power as being partisan political attacks, not actual problems in need of resolution. So today when I read that the military is planning to keep troop levels the same for several more years, I can't help but wonder what The Holy Spirit means here:

Rumsfeld declined to speculate on plans for troop levels or how the U.S. military services might supply troops for a lengthy stay in Iraq, saying that he is evaluating a series of briefings on the matter.
"We're looking around corners, up ahead, and asking ourselves how we would do things," Rumsfeld said.

James Baker has been going around speaking of his role as an advisor, mentioning the possibility of his committee recommending "strategic changes" to the Trinity Administration, but only after the upcoming election, so as not to "politicize" their report's results.

Am I dense, or is this Administration trying to hide their real plans from voters until after the elections, because they intend to make dramatic shifts in policy, al-a The Son's earthly father G.H.W.B.'s famous read-my-lips gaff, that he knows would completely ruin any chances for Republican's to win anything this year. Are we about to witness a flip-flop from our famously resolute Commander-In-Thief? I dunno, but I'm curious. I still believe he wants to invade Iran, but that Israel's loss to Hezbollah this summer put the kabash on that for the moment. Where will this all go?

Tags:
Iran, War on Terror, Iraq, Bush, Politics, Scandal, Mark Foley

Mea Culpa Guv'nor

So there's no better illustration of the power of some good old fashioned education to cure my ignorance than this week's NY Times Magazine article about Howard Dean. I recently implicated Governor Dean as being aligned with the forces of evil: Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, et al. This article is the answer to my oft wondered question, "What the fuck happened to Howard Dean?" My favorite part of the article explains:

[...] Dean sat down with the party’s Congressional leaders, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who had tried, ineptly and with almost comical desperation, to find a candidate who could stop him from becoming chairman. Reid and Pelosi promised to work with Dean, but they asked him to resist speaking out on key policy positions and acting as if he were the party’s public face. In other words, Dean would be doing everyone in Washington a favor if he would just stay out of sight and raise money.

So essentially, Dean's been working his ass off to make the Democratic Party viable again, and all the asshole Washington Democratic insiders who've been running around with one finger in the air trying to see which way the wind is blowing and the other up their ass have been working nonstop to keep him on a tight leash.

Well, my apologies Governor. I underestimated your resolve, and I applaud your efforts to save the party. I was boycotting your organization because I thought you were in cahoots with those who railroaded the campaigns of our best candidates. Turns out I was wrong, and so I'm making an apology you'll never read for saying things you never knew I said. Hell, you've never even heard of me lol. Still, I wanted to make public the reason for my recent contribution (that link is there so others will chip in. Come on, $20 to kick a Republican out of office is a friggin' bargain, no?). I'm back on board the Dean machine. Now if we could just get you talking policy and leadership again...

Tags:
Howard Dean, Democrats, DNC, Politics

Conflicting Emotions

Man it’s tough just to keep your wits about you sometimes. I know there are some American greats who have moved past race, but I certainly haven’t. It colors so much of how we view the world. I’ve studied Middle Eastern politics, am studying Arabic, and still, I find myself essentially terrified of people wearing all that shit on their heads. Not really Sikhs, they always seem hip. But for example, I was driving home and about a block from my house was a young-ish guy with some kind of Afghanistan-looking contraption on his head sitting in a Scion xB. He’s probably a conservative, polite, religious fellow who would be a pleasure to know. But all I could think was, “dammit I don’t feel like getting blown up today.”

I’m just being honest. I know I can’t be the only person who battles with pre-programmed stereotypes. I KNOW it’s ignorant, but dude I can’t help the fact that they scare the shit outta me. Even the women.

I know how to address the problem, though. In my experience, most irrational fears can be cured by knowledge. I got to know this really sweet Muslim girl in one of my last classes. I initially felt somewhat, I’ll admit it, hostile towards her. I really believe the hijab is a means of subjugating women, and it pisses me off to see women voluntarily proclaiming themselves as inferior. Yes that’s my opinion that’s why I said it (I saw someone use that line on a message board and thought it was funny). I understand it’s in deference to God. But then why don’t men have to cover their faces? OK, anyway, my point was that my attitude towards this girl totally changed after having a conversation with her. I still disapprove of women covering themselves up, but it makes a huge difference to understand other people’s point of view. Of course one or two conversations isn’t enough to overcome a lifetime of negative stereotypes, but it’s a start.

So my point was, as individuals, both Muslim and non-Muslim, we need to seek out opportunities to get to know each other. I immediately got the vibe from this girl that there were a lot of negative stereotypes of non-Muslims that she held too. This I believe sums up the bulk of our country’s problem. You’ve got two groups of people who know very little about each other taking actions against one another based on misinformed stereotypes. I was surprised by the remarkable similarity between this girl’s world-view and that of a western Christian fundamentalist. I don’t mean that negatively either. I mean that her primary concerns were with morality and the negative influence of the media and American culture on people’s spiritual development.

OK, so I wanted to get that off my chest. Why? Well because this image got me pretty pissed off this morning. It’s hard not to hate these people when they kill someone like this. Just outta West Point. Beginning a successful career, killed before she even got her foot out the gate. Fucked up. R.I.P. Lt. Perez. Your country loves you, and appreciates your sacrifice. May God help us honor your memory.

Tags:
Islam, War on Terror, Emily Perez, Hijab, Racism

First Principles

So I’m pretty busy these days studying Arabic, but I wanted to get this post out there before the issue is over. I keep hearing that Dems might cave to Republican pressure to throw out habeas corpus for people turned in to US forces in exchange for money and subsequently detained without trial. The rationale is that in an election year, Dems don’t want to look “soft” on terror. The implication is that it’s better to be soft on morality, soft on justice, soft on human rights, soft on democratic principles, hell, soft on principles of any kind.

So I want to talk about First Principles. In this instance, the fundamental reasons we are having this discussion. Somehow no one seems to talk about the situation that got us talking about whether or not detainees should be treated as human beings. The fact that the White House has managed to frame the discussion in this light is a major victory, and I cannot fathom how it happened.

The Trinity Administration has, from the beginning, sought to expand the reach of Executive power. This is their guiding principle. In the terms of the current debate, the detainees are not the primary concern for this Administration. The real issue is staking their claim to the right to trample over all the safeguards on Executive power that were put in place after Watergate. That’s the real battle being fought. The Administration lost that battle in the Supreme Court, so now they need to retool their argument. They have crafted this compromise that remains vague enough to give them the ability to continue their extra-legal machinations away from the purview of our legal system. Let me state this again to make myself perfectly clear: The President and Vice President want to codify in law their right to act outside the law. They want to formally negate the system of checks and balances put in place specifically to prevent people like them from doing the things they are doing.

As usual, the Democrats have allowed the real issues to be co-opted from them. Rather than stepping out and taking a leading role in the discussion, they are left to defend their positions on the terms given to them by Republican talking points.

I’m fairly confident this is a strategic move. The Dems want to lay low until after the elections and then unleash hell. But by trying to play everything sooo safe, they risk giving the Republicans ammunition for their campaigns. This is seriously some Theo Epstein shit. Look at the numbers, determine that the course of action that on paper looks best is to do something stupid, and then be shocked when shit goes down in a totally predictable manner. WTF? We need LEADERS NOT SHEEP. Take the initiative and lead for once. Don’t just follow the poll numbers around like you’re their bitch.

The fact that for days every mention of the detainee treatment bill has involved only the names of Republicans is an indictment of the Democratic Party. They SUCK. The lone glimmer of hope in this mess? Bill Clinton. He so masterfully outlined the myriad problems with the President’s agenda it was breathtaking. You can hear his comments by listening to the interview NPR did with him last week. Peace.

Tags:
Detainee Abuse, War on Terror, Bill Clinton, Bush, Politics, Torture

Why We're In Iraq

So I had an epiphany the other day. It was the culmination of a long process, most recently being guided by discussions I've been having with my classmates. One person taking the same two courses knows Paul Wolfowitz, and commented to me on how supremely intelligent he is. We began discussing how it could be possible that someone so bright could actually believe that relying on intel you're getting from someone you're paying $200,000/month and promising the presidency of Iraq to is a good idea. Or that a confession you've obtained during a torture session can be used as a justification for war. Or that you can waltz in to foreign country and "bring democracy." All of these scenarios, to the average student of government/public policy/mid east history, sound completely asinine. Yet here was this supposed genius talking about how the war was going to pay for itself through oil revenues.

To add further fuel to the lunacy, this man then goes on to get a promotion, as most of the fuck-ups in the first term received. It's enough to make your head spin. But whatever, this is old news. The epiphany is that all of this seemingly baffling behavior makes perfect sense. I'm about to come to a conclusion that at first blush will sound like all the other conspiracy theories out there. But let me explain my rationale, so that the the Google spiders (my only readers) reading this will understand that this explanation is the only way the actual facts can be made to actually make sense.

As I mentioned, Wolfowitz himself, before a Senate Committee, mentioned the wealth in oil revenues he expected Iraq to begin benefitting from after its "liberation." Several facts were widely understood by those in the Trinity Administration about the situation in Iraq. First, Sadaam Hussein was no longer the US ally he once was. Second, he was sitting on tremendous oil reserves. Third, he was more friendly with Iran and Russia than he was with us. Fourth, America (meaning me, the people who wrote the code for the spiders reading this, and everyone else in the country who drives an automobile) is going to experience a very real oil shortage that will dramatically impact our way of life unless something drastic is done. Now, "something drastic" could be mandating better gas mileage in automobiles, or encouraging people to cut down on their driving, or lifting gasoline subsidies (raising the price to bring about less driving), but the Trinity Administration's preferred methods were drilling in Alaska and gaining control of another nation's oil resources. We know that there were plans for an invasion of Iraq long before 9/11, but it was that event that gave our government the cover to embark on a wildly ambitious imperialistic campaign to take over another nation for the sole purpose of maintaining our fundamentally unsustainable lifestyle, what the Trinity Administration once called "blessed."

Looking at the situation from a geo-strategic point of view, this puts the whole situation into context. To those currently in power, this war really has no ill-effects. Their main interests, that is, their financial interests, are well-served by the continuing conflict. The Carlyle Group is making a killing with its investments in our military-industrial complex, Haliburton is reaping the benefits of lucrative contracts to provide services for our military, and long term, there is no way that Russia or China is going to get their greedy paws on more of Iraq's oil than we are (as long as we remain firmly entrenched as an occupier of that country). The downside is that Americans need to give up some of our freedoms, because when you subjugate an entire region of the world by a continuous campaign of torture, bombing, slaughter, and support of authoritarian regimes, you tend to make some enemies. So yes, America becomes a little less free and a little less safe, but we have to look at the bright side: if you're feeling a little nervous, you can go right out to a dealership and drive home a Hummer, just like the kids in Iraq are driving! Those kids, by the way, are going to be there for a LONG time, but as long as no Congressmen's kids are affected, expect the status-quo to remain. In fact, I anticipate that it IS going to be Hillary Clinton facing a similarly pro-war Republican candidate in the Presidential election. The Democratic leadership will find a way to once again assassinate whoever emerges as the populist. I am not yet willing to believe that the neo-cons who dreamed up this imperialist agenda are the only ones who support it (so yes, I'm saying that Howard Dean has been completely co-opted by the Democratic machine. He's more machine now, than human. Twisted and evil).

As Americans, none of us seem willing to accept the reality of our situation: our way of life is fundamentally unsustainable. I've been to both Monticello and Mount Vernon this month, and one thing that both Washington and Jefferson were both passionate about was self-sufficiency (as long as they had free forced labor to draw on). They went to great lengths to make their properties self-sustaining. They weren't 100% successful, but they came very close. We as a people have come so far from their ideals (which other than buying and selling human beings were quite admirable). It seems that in the same way Christ would find unrecognizable the religion that bears his name, so too would our Founding Fathers find this nation to be a complete bastardization of their ideals. But there is something even more profound that bears pondering. Would they be upset? Or would they feel that making war on an entire region of the world, destroying their hopes for self-autonomy, violating their human rights, refusing their pleas for self-determination, is the right of the most powerful nation in the world? After all, as Americans we can safely sit in a coffee shop and surf the internet on our laptop computers without fear of being blown up. True, our emails may be read by the government, and our phone calls monitored, but as long as the evils done in our name remain unknown to us directly, who gives a shit really?

My only response is to bring back the ideal of sustainability. It's the same thing the Palestinians plea for as Israelis steal the West Bank's water supplies for their swimming pools. If we continue to build our way of life around unsustainable practices, eventually the mechanisms we need to put in place to support this unsustainable lifestyle will fail, and the consequences will be severe. Now, we've heard Ken Mehlman, the head of the Republican Party, talk about how technology will always be there to rescue us, how we can overspend today because in the future we can cover our ass with technology. This is being done today in many areas. Take agriculture for example. Sustainable farming keeps plants and animals on the same farm, using animal waste to fertilize soil, and a myriad of other symbiotic methods to ensure that our food supply is obtained in an ecological, ethical fashion. Industrial farming puts thousands of animals together in pens one on top of the other, just big enough to back the animal in and out. They shit on each other, and as a consequence develop a plethora of diseases. Our answer? Copious amounts of antibiotics. Corporate corn and soybean farms, meanwhile, not having any animals to use, require large amounts of artificial fertilizer to maintain their yields. Both of these situations, thousands of pigs shitting and fertilizer-polluted runoff, are causing major pollution problems for surrounding communities. Our solution? Walk-a-thons to raise money for cancer research, and other band-aid type solutions. Obviously I'm simplifying very large and complex issues, but the main point I'm driving at is that when our entire nation is run to the tune of Wall Street, all we care about is this quarter. No one is stopping to say, wait a minute, maybe there's a way to continue to enjoy the best aspects of our lifestyle without killing thousands of women and children to do it.

In sum, the rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction was nothing but a pretense. Whether they were there or not was immaterial. This war was not about WMD, nor is it currently about "spreading democracy." Those are slogans meant to pacify the sheep. They provide just enough cover so that our real agenda, US supremacy over oil supplies worldwide, can continue apace. We needed a justification so that we could plausibly deny our imperialist ambitions, but make no mistake, we are the imperialists and the Iraqis fighting us are resisting a military occupation that our own troops are unknowingly partaking in. Sadaam Hussein was the perfect pawn. His posturing made him the perfect foil for our propaganda campaign. Never mind that we sanctioned his gassing of Kurds, he's a madman who can't be trusted! Never mind that he ran a completely secular government whose very existence was perhaps even more threatened by Muslim fundamentalists than our own, he supports terrorism! It's fucking disgusting.

Of course, if we as a people continue to buy into the rhetoric that says Muslims are evil and should be wiped off the face of the planet, then our Crusade to keep us wealthy and the Middle East in the throes of turmoil doesn't seem wrong. If we continue to place more emphasis on obscure passages in Revelation indicating that the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt in Haram Esh Sharif in order for Christ to return rather than Christ's own words, "Blessed are the meek" given in his Sermon on the Mount, then sure, let's continue funding the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and demolish the Dome of the Rock. I don't subscribe to these ideas. I am a Christian. I care about justice and equity. I seek to love others as I love myself. There is such a thing as right and wrong. To continue supporting the killing of innocents so that we can drive to Wal-Mart is evil, plain and simple. Just like our President. And our Vice President. And our Secretary of Defense. And our Secretary of State. And our Attorney General.

Tags:
Iraq, War on Terror, Middle East, Bush, Politics, Paul Wolfowitz, Oil

Depressed, Frustrated, Saddened, Grieving

I've been taking this class on the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict, and I have to confess to being overwhelmed by the amount of sickening information I've been exposed to. I'm unsure how to appropriately convey my sense of profound disappointment with the American government and media. My disgust is not with the Trinity Administration alone, but with Congress and the despicable Resolutions they have passed advocating Israel's latest massacre of innocents. I wrote my Senators in early August this letter:

Senator,

I am writing to express my disagreement with your submission of Senate Resolution 534. By unconditionally supporting Israel’s actions in Lebanon you are playing fast and loose with the facts and history of this conflict. If we are going to call ourselves friends of Israel, we need to start acting like their friends and not their accomplices. A friend shows concern and gives advice and admonishment when a friend goes astray. Turning a blind eye toward a corrosive policy, one threatening the very survival of Israel as a democracy (namely, their continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip), does not help our friend. America does not share the values of hatred and bigotry that are becoming a mainstay of Israeli culture. This conflict has for years been slowly eating away at Israel’s democracy, and we are doing our friends in Israel a grave disservice by giving our unequivocal support to however drastic an action they desire to take. I understand the pressures brought to bear on you by the realities of campaign fundraising, but I encourage you in the future to not lose sight of the fact that your duty is primarily to America and her security. Continued blind allegiance to outdated models of American Middle East strategic policy is harming our nation, especially when the rest of the world understands the severity of Israel’s human right’s abuses. It’s time for America to be a friend, not an enabler, and I pray that the next resolution on this issue will show some genuine leadership. The situation is crying out for a fair, even-handed broker to enter the fracas and establish a lasting peace between two peoples who lived peaceably for centuries before the last several disastrous decades. I implore you to work for peace, not to encourage unmitigated carnage and brutality at the expense of American security as Senate Resolution 534 has done. Thank you for your service to our country.

-Paul Rodriguez

Both Sarbanes and Mikulski responded with Israeli talking points pulled straight from an AIPAC press release. Both mentioned UN Security Council Resolution 1559, neither mentioned 242 or 338. The "state-sponsored terror" of Syria and Iran were mentioned, but Israel's state-sponsored terrorism was not. How have we as Americans allowed ourselves to become so pathetically brainwashed? I do not expect anyone who may read this to understand what I'm talking about, because as an American unless you fully dive into this conflict and understand its complexity you cannot possibly comprehend just how barbaric the Israeli military occupation of Palestine is. If there is anyone who desires to know more about what I'm talking about, you can start with this documentary.

Tags:
Israel, War on Terror, Palestine, Lebanon, Politics

American Politics: Fascism Vs. Marxism?

I watched John Dean talking to Jon Stewart about his new book (Dean is a former Nixon Administration guy, you know, like Chuck Colsen). Anyway, his point was regarding the Conservative Movement's swing toward fascism, and the danger that poses to our nation. It was mentioned how there is a root of fascism at the core of modern conservatism and one of marxism at the heart of liberalism. So, deep down, that means American politics is really Hitler vs. Stalin. That scares the shit out of me, mostly because there is an element of truth to it. We have so lost sight of the lessons of history that we seem doomed to repeat its mistakes. The demonization of corporate America by the left certainly has anti-capitalist sentiment at its core, and that is because our regulation mechanisms have so failed Americans, it appears to the average liberal that the free market is to blame when our markets are anything but. We live in the land of monopolies, and it's killing us.

I've made my beliefs regarding the Trinity Administration widely known, so I won't comment on the comparison of the ascendency of the modern Republican party to the rise of the Third Reich. I think I already did :)

Tags:
America, John Dean, Jon Stewart, Bush, Fascism, Stalin, Marxism, Conservatives, Liberals, Politics

R.I.P. Democracy and Freedom

Just a quick recounting of where we're at:

1. A never-ending war on an idea with no official Declaration of War made by the Congress and no specific enemy, but necessitating a wholesale infringement on individual freedoms in order to protect the public from this unseen enemy.

2. Suppression of the press through threat of prosecution and imprisonment when they report on the mechanisms employed illegally in waging the above-mentioned "war."

3. A President who has given himself the power of a line-item veto so that he can unilaterally rule pieces of legislation he doesn't like "Unconstitutional," effectively usurping the role of both the Legislative and Judicial branches, and therefore nullifying the Will of the People.

4. A Congress willing to forgive and/or ignore all of the above, except in specific instances where Executive encroachment may interfere with their ability to hide their own illicit activities.

5. An opposition party willing to ignore whatever illegal activities its opponent may have used to rig the election process.

6. A situation where only a third of the population at best actually votes, making the majority of the public captive to the minority.

7. Widespread jerry-mandering that makes ousting incumbents realistically impossible.

8. A regulation infrastructure for the most part run by the industries it is supposed to be regulating, in many cases stifling smaller companies/innovative technologies that may be disruptive to the status quo, i.e. hurt the bottom-line of existing monopolies.

9. And let's not forget, a President who lost the POPULAR vote but won the Presidency anyway. More Americans voted for his opponent (Al Gore) than for him, but he won regardless.

This is a Democracy? Under what definition? How are we different from Putin's Russia?

Tags:
Voting, War on Terror, Jefferson, Bush, Politics

Post-World Cup Impression of Football

So the hoopla is over, but there remains the on-going row over France's Zidane. I just wanted to chime in with my blatantly American sentiments, which are quite possibly hopelessly buggered (I'm trying to throw in all the UK slang I've picked up from the BBC). Basically, the World Cup turned me off to the sport. I kept hearing about how athletes routinely fake injury or fouls, relying on the fact that often referees aren't able to see exactly how bad of a foul took place. And then this whole incident with Zidane. The question I'm left asking is, why hasn't anyone scrutinized the player who was hurling insults? I understand that reacting with violence to verbal abuse is not appropriate or sportsmanlike, but employing a strategy to provoke the opposing team's star into getting red carded is complete and total bullshit. It's the height of un-sportsmanlike behavior.

Reflecting on the entire sport, it seems to me that it's more about zealous nationalism than about sport. The football culture seems to accept an "anything goes as long as you're not caught" attitude as appropriate, and it's fueled by a nationalistic fervor that seems completely unhealthy. For crying out loud, players have been killed for making mistakes that lead to their opponents scoring. It's completely out of control.

I may be wrong, but I suspect that the Italian player who was taunting Zidane was doing so in a very unprofessional and unsportsmanlike manner. You know in a situation like the World Cup, these players are already adrenaline and testosterone-filled. It doesn't excuse Zidane's behavior, but I'm sure that his tormentor was making completely inappropriate remarks in an attempt to obtain the outcome he did. I believe that in sport, the only correct and ethical way to shake your opponent's confidence is to outplay them. Hurling racial or ethnic slurs is, in my opinion, a worse offense than a head-butt.

Of course I'm biased, but one of reasons I love baseball so much is that part of the game is respect. That's in the game's DNA. Certain behavior is not just uncalled for, but against protocol and will cause your reputation among your peers to diminish. Look at Julian Tavarez. His one wrong move this spring still haunts him every time he hits a batter. There simply is no place for unsportsmanlike behavior. I know that all sports have their ugly moments, and I know that in baseball benches clear, and that my heroes have been party to less than respectable behavior (our feud with the Devil Rays and the Yankees come to mind). And I realize that this was a very important game, and tensions were running high. I remember the famous game where A-Rod ran out of the baseline when Arroyo was about to tag him. That was a totally gay moment.

I'll cop to my biases, but I've got to be honest. I don't like the anything-goes culture that seems endemic in professional football culture, and I don't understand why the Italian player was allowed to get off scott-free. I've yet to become a fan.

Tags:
Sports, Soccer, Football, World Cup, Zidane

It's Addington... He doesn't care about the Constitution

Well said, Colin "house slave" Powell. He's referring to David Addington, AKA The Man Who Betrayed America. Thanks to Jane Mayer’s article in the July 3rd issue of The New Yorker, Americans finally have the integral missing puzzle piece we have been searching for. I’m about as hardcore an amateur political aficionado as you’re likely to find: Government & Politics major, live in D.C. metro area, watch CSPAN and listen to NPR, but even I had no idea who the fuck David Addington was before reading this article. Recall my brief polemic against Alberto Gonzalez, placing the blame for our nation’s decline largely on his shoulders. Well Alberto, I think I owe you an apology. As Mayer explained on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross, Gonzalez, like the rest of the lawyers in the Trinity Administration, is little more than Addington’s stooge. For those who haven’t yet copped the article, David Addington is The Father’s chief of staff and legal advisor. How on earth could the Vice President’s chief of staff possibly be at the helm of the dismantlement of the freedoms so many brave Americans gave their lives for? That’s the million dollar question, baby.

The chief question I came away from Mayer’s article with was, “If these guys dislike the Constitution’s system of checks and balances so much, why don’t they leave?” Look, this is America. If you don’t like it, get the fuck out. For such a miniscule number of ideologues to be able to dismantle 230 years of hard-won liberties is revolting. The only other action in recent times that rises to this level of vomit-worthiness I can think of is Congress’ inaction on the topic.

This piece has so many OMFG! moments it’s hard to assemble highlights, but particularly instructive was a quote by the Navy’s chief JAG, Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who described how even the military’s expertise was scorned for ideological extremism: “We were warning them that we had this long tradition of military justice, and we didn’t want to tarnish it. The treatment of detainees was a huge issue. They didn’t want to hear it.” This is further confirmation of what so many former generals have been saying. This Administration, so chock-full of chicken-hawks, was unwilling to listen to the previous Administration, unwilling to listen to their military advisors, unwilling to listen to Democrats, unwilling to listen to anyone not in lock-step with their extremist ideological positions rooted firmly in a belief system disrespectful of reason, logic, and common-sense. Their guiding principle has been unadulterated ideology. They should all be lined up and shot. Trying to understand how such a tiny group of people have managed to so blatantly destroy the fundamental underpinnings of so many decades of combined wisdom is akin to trying to understand how the German people were made complicit in the rise of the Third Reich. We will be implicated in this debacle. Although some may try to rationalize, saying that this President came to power not through the will of the people but by manipulating the election process twice, our failure to investigate that fraud fully means that we still remain complicit.

How it came to be that so many seemingly respectable and ethical people have allowed this atrocity to be perpetrated is a case study in the ills of human nature, and it seems we need new legislation to prevent the kind of groupthink and ass-covering that seems to have silenced any real dissent. Let’s face it: Republicans like their power. I’m certain many dislike what they see happening, but their loyalty to their party and their unwillingness to accept the consequences of doing what is right has silenced dissent.

Perhaps we need automatic triggers, akin to many states’ three strike rules. A mechanism must be in place to force action in the face of zero political will. These issues must be dealt with, but I’m afraid of what might happen if we simply switch extremes. If Democrats win back Congress, and then the Presidency, might we end up with the same problem all over again?

LOL that was a good one. A Democrat wins the Presidency. Hah!

Tags:
Jane Mayer, Addington, David Addington, Cheney, War on Terror, New Yorker, Bush, Politics, Military, Wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, Torture, Secret Prisons, Third Reich, Treason, Impeachment, Constitution

Best John Stewart Quote

"The country is run by extremists because moderates have shit to do."
-John Stewart of The Daily Show

Love that.

If Only He Was A Real Republican

So Michael Bloomberg is hero for a day. He gives a rousing defence of science, skewering his parties' policies in the process. So many politicians, so few with guts...

Tags:
Michael Bloomberg, Science, Republicans, Evolution, Politics, Stem Cell Research, Education

Gonzales or Bin Laden: in 2006, Who's America's Biggest Threat?

Promoting torture, lying to Congress, initiating clandestine surveillance programs, setting up secret prisons, railroading potential revealing court cases, sifting through library records, lowering the bar for reasonable search and seizure, impinging on the powers of the legislature, and now pressuring ISPs to retain data in order to enable greater monitoring of American's online habits. I dunno, who's the greater threat to our liberty at this point? The jury is still out, but I don't see how Alito could be worse than this guy. Perhaps the fact he was passed over for the S.C. was a blessing in disguise. For me at least, mentally I was giving him a pass for a while because he's Latino. Fuck that. This guy's an asshole.

Tags:
Gonzales , War on Terror, Technology, Bush, Politics, NSA, DOJ, Patriot Act, Supreme Court

The Tragedy of Dubya

There has been so much happening in recent days, it's been hard to keep up with, much less comment intelligently on. Today's story in the New York Times, "All the President's Books" brings to light the fundamental tragedy of George W. Bush's tenancy in the White House. Here is a guy who grew up watching major political events unfold before his eyes. His father was the head of the C.I.A., then Vice President to a beloved President, and then President himself. The halls of power were known to him. He must have seen his father agonize over major decisions, and heard him comment on how frustrating it was to deal with the Washington bureaucracy. It's not hard to imagine him saying to himself that if he had the chance, he would drown that bureaucracy, destroy it, so that America can go about the business of being great without all the headaches and bellyaching of pencil-pushing know-it-alls, who don't understand what it means to lead. Surely he shared many of my own sentiments, that politicians had become beholden to polls, making them followers of the followers rather than leaders who set the agenda. All of these ideas are commendable. They make sense "in your gut." So what went wrong?

I think George simply got mixed up in the wrong crowd. He mistook experience for wisdom. By all accounts, Dick Cheney is a nice guy when you sit down with him. Surely he comes across as knowledgeable and someone you can trust. George was the Presidential equivalent of Michael Brown. He was little more than a political appointee. He had no experience, and little intellectual knowledge of what was required to be President. He watched his dad and Reagan do it, but from the sidelines. I've watched my father do his job all my life. I have an idea of what's required, just by nature of hearing him and my Mom discuss various issues related to his work. But were I to actually sit in his chair and try to fashion a crown (he's a dental technician), I wouldn't know what to do. I've seen him do it, but I don't know how he does it. Similarly, George knew what the lifestyle entailed, but he was elected largely because of his name. He had no actual credentials. He had never been abroad. This was a man who knew nothing about the Middle East, nothing about Russia, nothing about South East Asia. He was suddenly thrust into a position, and he knew generally how he wanted to govern, but governing the entire US is a lot different from governing Texas. It's only natural that he would find kinship in older statesmen whom he respected growing up, and that he would rely on them to fill in his considerable gaps in knowledge. Even better, they shared his disdain for bureaucracy.

Herein lies the danger of electing someone you deem to be more 'likable' than the other candidate. George W. Bush had a broad outline of how he wanted to govern, but no specific strategy of how to go about it. He was planning to figure it out as he went along, but then came 9/11. He was completely unprepared for this event. With no knowledge of international relations, he had to rely on the people he had surrounded himself with, who commenced an operation to radically reshape America according to their own agendas. George didn't stand a chance. He was fundamentally, intellectually incapable of managing a crisis of this magnitude, so he had to rely wholly on the people in his cabinet. Those who spoke loudest and most forcefully, those who had most fully adopted his philosophy of leading via fiat were the ones who gained his trust. Colin Powell, who was advocating multilateral solutions, seemed to be steeped in "pre-9/11 thinking," a term implying that he wanted to give the terrorists the ability to tie America's hands behind its back with its own bureaucracy. The President wanted none of that, feeling that what was most needed was decisive action.

The lesson that we must all take away from this dramatically failed Presidency is that the Washington bureaucracy serves an important function. Our nation is strong because of its laws, not in-spite of them. We can never again allow ourselves the fantasy of thinking that a monarchy is preferable to our republic. While our democratic processes, our judicial processes, our legislative processes, are slow and cumbersome, they are so for a very good reason. Far from being an Achilles heel, they protect the rights that are the foundation of our country. Every single mistake this President has made has come with enormous costs to life, property, liberty, security, and happiness. Katrina, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq, NSA wiretapping, secret overseas prisons, revenge on Joe Wilson, lying before the U.N., lying in the State of the Union Address, Administration officials lying before Congress while under oath (Alberto Gonzales), deliberately disobeying American laws, deliberately shirking the responsibilities of enforcing laws (EPA regulations), etc. etc. All these fiascoes have come with real price tags. They have hindered the cause of liberty and freedom, yet most of these crimes were perpetrated with the best of intentions. The intention was to "get things done," to "remove roadblocks to implementation," to "secure our nation." Now we're trapped by our own lack of foresight. We can't release Gitmo prisoners because that could be a worse human right's disaster than keeping them is. We can't get out of Iraq because we destroyed the entire country's infrastructure. We couldn't prevent torture because we didn't have adequately trained soldiers available to carry out their duties (including well-trained, well-prepared interrogation teams with respect for international law). This lack of respect for the laws of the land lead to the bypassing of Geneva Conventions regulations. It lead to creating a secret surveillance operation. It lead to poorly vetted intelligence, like the Nigerian documents and the oversimplification of Iraq's political situation.

George W. Bush did not intend to become America's worst President. He set out to reform Washington, to tame its abuses. It was a noble goal. Those of us who were concerned with small details like experience and intelligence could recognize that he was not Presidential material, but his down-to-earth demeanor fooled many Americans. Looking to win power at all costs, the Republican Party nominated him over his obviously better-qualified rival John McCain, due to this perceived electability (the Democrats made a similar mistake). Thrust into a position he was inadequately prepared to handle, he had no choice but to follow the lead of those advisors who seemed most credible. Unable to discern credibility from aggressiveness, he found himself having to appear strong in order to mask his weaknesses. I think this is the position he continues to find himself in today. Any sane person would have fired their entire team, all of them, Rummy, Condi, and Cheney, a long time ago. The reality is that he has staked his legitimacy on their ideals. They steer this country. He couldn't do it by himself, and he feels that at this stage they're all in this ship together. It's going down, and they're all going to sink as one.

So I guess my point is that you can see this President as Jim Jones. World-Wide Suicide, indeed. That's the tragedy of George W. Bush.

Tags:
Iran, War on Terror, NSA, Bush, Politics, Plamegate, wiretapping, Washington, Current Affairs, Cheney, White House, Impeach

Fighting Against Themselves: Gay Republicans

I've read two interesting pieces today on gay republicans and the struggles they face. One was a report from a recent meeting of Log Cabin Republicans, the other discussed a new book by Mary Cheney, Dick and Lynn's daughter. I was fascinated to read about the exclusive clique that is the Log Cabin crowd: rich white men who use their credit limit as a pick-up line. Even more interesting was the account of the Cheney household. Apparently, Dick and Lynn have accepted their daughter and her partner as a couple, and they all function normally as a happy family. I'm looking at that last statement with some awe. I'll admit to not liking Lynn Cheney. I've never met the woman, but I attribute to her all the characteristics I despise about self-righteous Pharisee right-wing hate-mongers. Can you tell the very thought of her gets me riled up? But here is a story of her extending a loving gesture to someone you'd assume she'd otherwise hate...

People are obviously exceedingly complex creatures, and I'm not in any position to play armchair psychoanalyst to the Cheney family. What I will say, though, is that these stories highlight the fundamental evil at the heart of today's Republican Party. The policies being pursued by Karl Rove are motivated by a desire to exploit other's unbridled prejudice. The millions of people rallying behind the call to "protect marriage" are doing so out of hatred for people different than themselves. They've never sat down and broken bread with someone who has struggled to come to grips with their sexual identity. Today America is still in a battle over how to discuss sexuality. Christians are still trying to determine if they think contraception is OK! Shit, Brokeback Mountain got pulled from some theaters! We've gotten to the point where it seems only people who live in urban areas, who have had a chance to interact with actual gay people, have any idea about what they're actually like. The vast majority of middle America seem to be OK with denying these people access to basic legal rights like health care, parenthood, custody, or inheritance.

Like with contraception, the issue remains whether we ignore it or not. Young people have sex. Poor women get pregnant, and have abortions because they are unprepared/ill-equipped. Likewise, gay families exist. They love one another, children form bonds with their parents, and lives are torn apart when these families come up against legal barriers reinforced by hatred.

Why do Log Cabiners, why do the Cheneys, insist on fighting against their own families? Why do they help the people who hate them? Surely Lynn Cheney sees the reality of her daughter's life. Surely by now she understands that her daughter didn't choose to be gay, to undergo the trauma and pain that comes from being different from everyone around you, from having to 'disappoint' your family. Surely she must know that the issue that put her husband and his minion in power is the same issue that threatens her daughter's way of life. Likewise, for Log Cabiners, why do they fight for a party that doesn't want them?

I imagine that there is a hope among these groups that if people only knew how nice LGBT people can be, if James Dobson could just see how nice a family meal at the Cheney's can be, that they'd let go of their murderous hatred for anyone not a heterosexual. This line of thinking is downright preposterous. Republicans are in power specifically because their hatred of gay people got them there. Without gay people to hate, their agenda would be lost. Similarly, with birth control, they've tied the issue to abortion, their other ace-in-the-hole. The fact that decreasing access to birth control is increasing the rate of abortions is immaterial. Those dead fetuses of poor women are fueling their Caribbean golfing expeditions. Let's be frank: being a Log Cabin Republican is like being a Jewish Nazi. No matter how hard you try to fit in, at the end of the day you're still headed to the gas chamber, but before you go they're gonna come around and take the gold out of your mouth.

In the end, it appears that the Cheney's care more about power than they do about principle, or even their own family. Not a surprise, but disappointing just the same.

Tags:
GLBT, Cheney, Dick Cheney, Bush, Politics, Log Cabin, Republicans, Same-Sex, Contraception, Abortion, Gay, Lesbian, Adoption, Same-Sex Marriage, Marriage

Nuking Iran at Heart of Straw's Departure?

More disturbing news: this CBS News story indicates that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw may have been sacked because of his resistance to America's plans to nuke Iran. Read it for yourself. These people are fucking lunatics.

Tags:
Iran, War on Terror, Nuclear, Bush, Politics, Jack Straw, Britain, UK

Voters Still Have the Power

I wrote last week about my decision to cut off support for John Kerry. I'm writing now to advocate that all voters take it a step further. I don't know how many people remember Howard Dean's early campaign video, advocating everyone giving $20 in order to help defeat the large corporate-sponsored candidates. I've decided to cease any giving to the Democratic National Committee. There have been too many instances this year of them railroading candidates who had popular support but who they couldn't fit into their one-size-fits-all mold. Paul Hackett, my personal hero, had the rug viciously pulled out from under him in his bid for Ohio's open Senate seat earlier this year by the same people (Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid) who had encouraged him to run in the first place. They wanted him to enter the Congressional race instead, despite the fact that he had promised the people in those races that he would not interfere. Likewise, in the Florida race for Katherine Harris' old seat, the all-knowing Dems decided to back Christine Jennings instead of Jan Schneider, who in 2004 held incumbent Katherine Harris to the smallest margin of any House of Representatives election in the State of Florida. Jennings had a personal fortune to put behind her campaign, while Schneider has a large grassroots organization dedicated to hers. I'm not naive enough to think that you don't need money to run a successful campaign, or that the ability to raise money doesn't indicate a better organization, but knowing that in both these races there are pre-existing candidates with proven track records and large bases of support, and especially in Hackett an amazing candidate with a candor reminiscent of Howard Dean, it looks to me like the Democratic leadership is once again looking for the status-quo, and we all know how well that worked out last time.

Today the two most prominent leaders in the Democratic party are John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. They may be the party favorites for the 2008 presidential race, but as Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos explains in today's Washington Post Editorial, they are the two worst possible candidates we could have. If voters want to be able to vote for a candidate they believe in, now's the time to come out in support of the people WE want. A good start, IMHO, would be supporting PACs that have more than petty political favoritism as their criteria for candidate selection. I really like the goals of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC, who are dedicated to supporting qualified candidates who are veterans of America's current wars. I firmly beleive that getting candidates who appeal only to big corporate sponsors is the real goal of the two major political parties. They don't care about supporting candidates who have the backing of regular Americans, because regular Americans can't offer them lucrative consulting contracts upon their exit from office. Regular Americans can't fly them to meetings where they'll discuss the trade imbalance over an 18 hole game of golf. The American people are no longer their core constituency, and I submit that's partially because we haven't understood our primary role to be financial donors. That's exactly where I think this political game is going, however. If Americans want to be taken seriously by the political machines, we need to start pony-ing up the cash. Don't just blindly give it to the powers that be, though. Find the races run by the mavericks (and I don't mean those mavericks famous for eating their salad with a spoon) and give them $25. If we all do our part, we become a powerful force for change. In today's world, the voters' primary role has moved from voter to financeer. That may seem like a bum rap, but if we suceed in electing people who care about America more than Carribean golfing trips, maybe we can get a public financing law to pass. That would restore the voter's role to voting, and strip corporations of their ability to run our country. We have the power, we just need to use it.

Tags:
Voting, Democrats, Veterans, 2008, Politics, Campaign Finance Reform, Election, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, DNC

Seanez + Tavarez != Arroyo

Am I imagining things, or do opposing teams hit home runs everytime Seanez and Tavarez come in to pitch an inning? I'll concede that Wily Mo Pena is looking a hell of a lot better than he did earlier, but it still seems to me that Theo's spreadsheets have betrayed the Nation bigtime. These two clowns suck. I know Schilling thinks they're "a pitch away from being great," but you know, so are most pitchers who suck. Couldn't we give them both to Cincinatti and get our boy back?

Tags:
Red Sox, Sports, Baseball, Arroyo, Pitching

Reflections on Genocide

There has been a lot of talk on my campus about the situation in Sudan and the role America should be playing. It's nice to hear that peace talks are progressing, but many will remain skeptical until there's evidence that the situation is actually changing. So discussion continues, and my desire for America to solve the situation with military action remains, but I'm pretty sure that desire is borne of a peculiarly American mix of fantasy and ignorance of how the world works. Let me explain.

I know I'm not alone in the pride I feel for America's Armed Forces. I know they did their best in Somalia, despite having their mission handicapped by Washington (Rumsfeld isn't the first to deploy our troops ill-equipped). It's therefore natural for a civilian to feel that saving hundreds of thousands of lives from brutality is a reasonable mission to give our military. However, that knee-jerk reaction, the desire to bring justice to evil-doers, despite being motivated by the best of intentions, could very well create an even greater disaster than the one already underway in Sudan. What are American troops going to do when they arrive in Darfur? What will the militia groups do? Might it be possible that the militias will ratchet up the violence to show their strength? Are we going to ask our soldiers to simply defend civilians or will they hunt the militia groups? What effect will invading an African nation have on the rest of the world? Are we ready to officially be the world's police force? Are we going to topple the government of Sudan? If not, how do we know the violence won't resume once we leave? Are we going to replace the government? With what? Where will we get the troops to send to Sudan? Will they come from our force in Iraq? Would that undermine the work we've already accomplished there?

I think Americans want desparately to believe the lie continually perpetrated by President Bush, that America is in the business of bringing freedom to the oppressed. We want to beleive that we were justified in invading Iraq because we were taking out a brutal dictator. But what gives us the right to invade another nation? Why do we think we have the right to take an action like that?

I think the answer is that we understand what it is to be free, and we assume that others share a desire for the freedom democracy can bring. I think that belief is one Americans need to recognize as fundamentally flawed. For example, when given the opportunity to vote, who did Iraq's Sunnis overwhelmingly vote for? A cleric-led government! Bush and all of America have been deluded by a FANTASY. Islam is not JUST a religion. The Koran depicts the ideal government as being an Islamic one. It's true that there are many different variations on what that means, but even at its most benign, it involves the repression of women. Allow me to put it bluntly: Muslims do not want to be free. Not in the way Americans understand the word. Any attempt to bring "freedom" to a foreign country that doesn't share a liberal Western heritage is doomed to fail.

Sudan brings a whole other set of issues into the equation. In Africa, we have to deal with post-colonial governments. Americans do not understand how much the legacy of colonialism has warped the cultures it's come into contact with. The evils done by the European powers on the continent of Africa are still reverbarating today. The nations responsible for the situation in Darfur need to be held accountable for their pasts. As Americans, we'd like to believe that we have the power to go in and make things better, but there is no evidence that our military could effect any positive change. If it were as simple as going in, killing the militias, and getting out, there's no doubt that we should do it immediately. I'm afraid that's not an accurate assessment of the scope of the mission necessary, however.

A friend mentioned an idea to directly engage China. His plan is to ask China to enforce sanctions against Sudan. We would offer to replace whatever amount of oil they usually buy from the Sudanese with our own supplies. The theory is that the sanctions would starve the government of funds, making it impossible for them to afford any more Russian kalashnikovs. While an imaginative idea, I find it difficult to imagine being politically viable. Americans are already spending a ridiculous amount to fund a war that was intended to supply us with more oil, but instead are dealing with all time high prices for petroleum. Sharing our already constrained supply with the Chinese in order to save some Africans doesn't sound like something many politicians could get behind.

I'm beginning to believe that the ethical issues Americans are faced with regarding this current genocide need to be part of a larger discussion Americans should be having. There are millions of innocent men, women, and children around the world living in fear. Many do desire freedom, but have no chance at ever tasting it. Every American directly supports the regimes responsible for this oppression through our lifestyle. We buy goods from China and the Middle East. We are culpable. Add to that our country's previous transgressions, having installed and supported dictatorships in order to protect our own interests, and you have an international situation that is complex and misunderstood.

Americans treasure our freedom, so we find it difficult to fathom how it could be possible others don't share our enthusiasm. The simple answer is that our freedoms are not free. Others pay a cost for the way we live our lives. Many Americans espouse personal responsibility as a core American virtue. Before we attempt to take the spec out of our neighbor's eye, perhaps we should take the plank out of our own so we can see what the fuck we're doing.

Tags:
Sudan, Darfur, Genocide, Foreign Policy, Politics, China, Middle East, Islam, Muslims, Human Rights

Cheney the Diplomat?

Hey check it out: Cheney managed to give a speech with substance every American can be proud of. He specifically called out Russia for its moves away from Democracy. Russia increasingly seems to be descending into chaos. Amnesty International just issued a report saying that racial slayings are "out of control" in the country. Apparently non-whites have been slain in the street in broad daylight in cities like St. Petersburg, within close proximity of police stations. I've known people who've had to take precautions while visiting Russia because of the rampant racial violence. I'm no fan of this Vice President, but it was refreshing to hear him doing something other than scaring Americans into supporting his agenda. The coverage I've read made his speech sound statesmanlike, which I honestly didn't think the guy was capable of. Hats off Dick. Thanks for not being an ass.

Tags:
Cheney, Russia, Racism, Foreign Policy, Politics

Finally! A Democrat Takes A Stand!

Well thank God it turns out my previous fears were completely unfounded. There is still one Democrat who is not ashamed to stand up for principal. So tonight's "Tip of the Hat" goes to House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, who had the courage to defend our President from the classless Stephen Colbert. In the midst of one presidential scandal after another, at a time when a genocide is under way, and as the American death toll in Iraq approaches 2500, this man has the good common sense to ignore these vital issues and save his indignation for that scurrilous nuisance that is Stephen Colbert. Way to go, Congressman. About time someone did something about one man being allowed to ruin the President's night with unabashed candor. Just look at the guy:

Who does he think he is, George Clooney?
Here's Stephen with The Decider eyeballing him (from the new NYT article):

Tags:
Congress, Stephen Colbert, Steny Hoyer, Bush, Politics, Democrats, The Decider

Breakin' the Law! Breakin' the Law!

So... I've been waiting all day for someone to react to yesterday's Boston Globe article detailing the Executive branch's usurpation of our Constitution by institutionalizing the blatant disregard of any law or portion thereof the President decides he doesn't like. So far, this is all I've come up with: three Democrats. Three. WTF? I scanned the websites of my Senators and Congressman, plus those of Schumer, Clinton, and Kerry. No press releases of any kind mentioning this issue. Republicans seem to have completely ignored this latest indictment of their party leader. Am I outrageous to deem these charges as worthy of impeachment? I know Rolling Stone is nothing more than a Michael Moore sympathizing far-left moonbat media outlet, but their article about the Bush presidency accurately highlights the differences between Bush's flaunting of the Constitution and Lincoln's. Lincoln did not take drastic action under a cloak of secrecy. This is in stark contrast to Cheney's office, which thinks it's exempt from rules designed to increase government transparency. Heck, these guys have even created a new classification for documents that aren't classified but that they don't want Americans to have access to. They're called "Sensitive but Unclassified".

Bah, don't listen to me. I drank too much Michael Moore/Susan Sarandon kool aid. I must be so full of blind, irrational hatred for this President that I'm unable to make any argument against him without resorting to ad hominem attacks bereft of any substance or merit. Remember, the press is working full time to spread lies, making Iraq look much worse than it truly is. The left has refused to acknowledge that there were legitimate reasons for this war because their blind, irrational hatred of the Administration doesn't allow them to let go of ridiculous, unsupportable claims that Americans were lied to by their government. That's what the post-modern politically correct shackles of communist theory have done to the Democratic party, turned them into America-hating wimps who should all be rounded up and tried for treason for not supporting our Commander-in-Chief in this time of war, right? So go ahead, call the DHS and let them know there's yet another commie blowhard who needs to be given a one-way ticket to Guantanimo Bay. That's the American Way, right?

Tags:
NSA, War on Terror, wiretapping, Bush, Politics, Cheney, Impeach, Scandal, Congress, Washington

Once Again, Comedy Central Pundit Comes to the Rescue

You gotta love these guys. Everyone remembers CNN's Crossfire program's swan song: The Daily Show's John Stewart comes on and gives Tucker and Begala an earful of something they're not used to: candor. Everyone, including, I think, the show's hosts, agree with his assessment: arguing polarizing partisan talking points endlessly on television is bad for the soul.

Today, we have reports that Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert killed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Dude, I wish I had those balls. Way to go, man. You continue to perform an essential function for your country in its most desperate hour: speaking truth to power (and yes, I know it's a much bandied cliche. Ripping the leader of the "free" world a new asshole FACE TO FACE fits the description, however). Hats off, and thanks Stephen.

Tags:
Colbert, Stephen Colbert, White House Correspondents' Dinner, The Colbert Report, Bush, Politics

You're booing the wrong guy.

Anyone going to Fenway Park tonight to boo Johnny Damon is an idiot with a small 'i'. If fans are looking for someone to boo, it's pretty obvious who the target should be: Theo Epstein. With his Baseball Prospectus membership and infamous stats spreadsheets, Theo has been at the forefront of tossing aside common sense for the gospel of mathematical calculations. The end result? Kicking out every member of our championship team, with entirely predictable results. We can start with Doug Mirabelli. Talk about clutch hitting. The guy was practically a part-timer, but every time he came up to bat you knew anything could happen. You can forget about Bard's passed balls, the real issue is that when Wake pitched, you'd lose Varitek's bat, which meant we now had only six capable bats working. If we were facing a lefty, we'd lose Nixon, bringing our hitters down to five. Who had the bright idea to remake an American League Championship team into a National League clone? What is this kid smoking?!?!

But hold on, stop the presses! DOUG'S BACK!!! Literally as I'm typing this post, it looks like our snotty manager managed to actually manage. Obviously an acknowledgment that numbers DO lie sometimes, we've got our ace knuckleball catcher back in the lineup.

Well, maybe Epstein had a bit of a premonition that his by-the-numbers style wasn't working. But bringing Doug back isn't going to cure all our woes. Anyone take a look at Pedro's and Arroyo's records lately? Two pitchers from our Championship team, both let go, both excelling in their careers. Willy Mo has one more homer this season than Arroyo. When that deal was made, everyone, including Wells, knew it was STUPID. And I want to say something about loyalty. It matters. Not in a Bush, "it doesn't matter how much you suck I'm going to keep you around" way, but in a "hey you're a valuable contributor to our team and we're going to do right by you unless you really fuck up" kinda way. The Nation remembers how Arroyo got us into the playoffs last year by getting us wins early in the season when everyone else in our lineup was SUCKING. Why on earth would you give up a guy like that? For what? A guy who throws a better right hook than a change-up? A guy so fat his knees can't hold him up? Ridiculous.

I can sympathize with those upset by all the whining from Damon over the season's first couple of weeks, but the reality is, he wanted to stay, but just like with Pedro, Epstein insulted him. It was Theo's intransigence that made Damon go over to the dark side. We needed his bat, and the worse possible thing Theo could've done was to let it fall into the hands of The Enemy.

I could go on, after all, where is Orlando Cabrera now? And how did the Angels do against the Yankees? Why does our young wunderkind insist on playing the short-stop shuffle? Why hasn't anyone called him on that?

Look, I'm all for the ability to play short ball, but this isn't the National League. I understand we got our asses handed to us last year by an over-reliance on the long-ball, but fer Chissakes we didn't have to go throw the baby out with the bathwater. We needed better pitching, and we had it with current lineup + Arroyo + Pedro (we prolly coulda made it last year if we still had Martinez). If we had Orlando and Damon with us, we'd be unstoppable. This isn't 20/20 hindsight, this is COMMON SENSE. Our GM needs to get with the program. If this season goes the way it looks like it's going, I hope the fans start to realize what I'm saying. He might be largely responsible for getting us the Championship, but he's on track for being on the hook for two consecutive failed seasons. Cheer Johnny. Every time he's up. If you wanna boo someone, save it for Theo Epstein. But you can let him off the hook tonight. Thanks for bringing Doug back, and giving us a fighting chance after your disastrous Excel-heavy off-season performance, Theo. But seriously, man, get your shit together.

Tags:
Red Sox, Baseball, Yankees, Sports, Mirabelli, Doug Mirabelli, American League, Johnny Damon, Theo Epstein

My Letter to John Kerry in 2002

I recently re-read the letter I sent my two Senators from Massachusetts before the Iraq War. It rekindled the feeling of disgust I had at the time for John Kerry. Thousands of citizens of Massachusetts sent such letters, yet he ignored his constituents' position on the matter and decided to vote in the manner he felt would be most politically advantageous to him. After his vote, I voted against him in his Senate re-election campaign, and I voted against him in the presidential primary. It was only in the general election that I grudgingly hopped on the Kerry bandwagon and began supporting him. As recently as Feb. I gave his PAC money to help other Democratic candidates. Today I'm officially severing the ties. Anyone who can willfully ignore our national interests, who is willing to sacrifice our country for their own political ends, does not deserve my support, no matter how furiously they backpedal. I'm going to lend my support only to candidates who have demonstrated a willingness to put principals before politics. So, I guess I'm never going to vote again in my life.

Seriously, I'm going to come out now in support of Barack Obama. The political consultants, the image consultants, they all say he's unelectable due to his skin color and ethnicity. I'm sick of the pessimistic cynicism that has infested this party. It's a cancer, and I know what it takes to beat cancer. You can't hide your head in the sand and hope it goes away. You need to poison it, and the process is extremely painful. Eating vegetables, consulting acupuncturists, all that hippie bullshit, it does NOTHING. This is a battle for the soul of our party, and there will be casualties. In the end, however, the parts of the body that were lost are regained, and come back to a healthy whole. John Kerry and all those who support the current machine are the cancer. The therapy is an overdose of truth and optimism. America can be better than a silent majority held captive to James Dobson's hatred. The 60% of Americans who don't vote are infected with the disease. We need to bring them back, to kill the diseased cells that have choked them into submission.

I wrote that letter to Kerry on September 20, 2002. If your interested, it's available here.

Know Peace

Tags:
Barack Obama, Kerry, DNC, War on Terror, Democrats, Voting, Politics

Colin Powell Returns!

So, fresh evidence that once again, our African American Secretary of State has been ostracized from the Bush Administration's Inner Circle, proving conclusively that the Trinity is Protestant (no celibate woman can claim to be part of the godhead). Yes, as you may have heard, Rummy rolled his eyes as Condi spoke. It took our intrepid godhead a tad longer to finish their favorite game of "marginalize the minority" this time, perhaps because she's a minority squared, but make no bones about it: when Condi says, "Iran is not Iraq" you can safely ignore her. That's just typical State Department coddling of terrorists. You won't hear any such nonsense coming from the lips of any member of the Trinity. To us mere mortals, we see two words separated by differing final consonants, but in the divine language of kings, both are spelled with a single three letter word, and it rhymes with the material my hat is made of.

And by the way, shame on you reporters who insinuated the word "tactical" had something to do with the military. Dr. Rice explained clearly that when she referred to "thousands of tactical errors", not only had she meant the comment figuratively, she was using the word "not in the military sense." I'll leave it to my astute readers to determine how else one can interpret that word.

God Bless.

Tags:
Iran, War on Terror, Washington Post, Bush, Politics

The Road to the Iranian War

Many have been postulating that this new war the US is getting ready to wage will provide political cover for the Administration and the Republican Party. The rationale is that after the coming mid-term elections, if the Democrats take control of the Congress, they will have subpoena authority and begin investigations into the myriad scandals/crimes the Republicans have been committing. If Bush can get us into a war before then, he can renew his title of "war-time" President and more effectively deflect criticism/impeachment.

The obvious question, however, is how could he possibly get us into a new conflict? The latest leak from Britain of his discussions with Tony Blair pre-Iraq indicate that he considers Gulf of Tonkin-like measures to be fair game, so it is possible he could manufacture a military action by Iran and therefore justify military strikes. Or, he could simply roll new air-strikes into his existing mandate to fight the "global war on terror." He believes his current war-time authority gives him the ability to nullify existing US law (NSA wiretapping), so it stands to reason that he could cite any number of Iranian transgressions (their support of Iraqi "insurgents") as reason to extend the global war on terror to Iranian soil. I see this last option as the most realistic, because it seems reasonable to assume that any attempt to manufacture a reason would be heavily scrutinized (CIA attempts to silence whistle-blowers notwithstanding).

In addition, if the action consists solely of air-strikes, it becomes much easier to justify, since one can assume American casualties from such an action will be limited. He can talk-up the merits of our "smart bombs" and how we are doing everything possible to minimize collateral damage. There are several inconsistencies with these theories I'm expounding upon, however, and I'd like to address why I don't believe they impinge the credibility of my argument.

To the rational observer, if one were to try to gain political cover from a new campaign (to "Wag the Dog"), it seems reasonable to assert that a bombing campaign will only provide cover for a short period of time, after which it'd be back to business as usual. That's why it seems likely the war will begin in late August. Many people are on vacation, so few are paying much attention to politics. By the time the campaign is well underway in September, Republicans can make a big deal of "standing behind our Commander in Chief" and not backing down for the sake of our troops' morale. We don't want to switch horses in mid-stream. This action will provide cover for just long enough to eke out a marginal victory and keep a tiny majority in Congress, stripping the Dems of any opportunity for punitive measures. The Dems, consulting their political consultants, image consultants, pollsters, and inside the beltway out-of-touch colleagues, will once again fail to stand up and have courage to speak the truth and broaden the dialog. They'll be successfully painted as unpatriotic flip-flopping wimps, and Americans will once again be sold a bill of goods by opportunistic Republicans.

And that's the how/why America will enter Iran. Hoo-ah.

Tags:
Iran, War on Terror, Military, Bush, Politics, Midterm Elections, Republicans, Truth

Nuclear Ambitions

If you haven't read Seymour Hersh's article on the Administration's plans regarding how they're going to conduct the military strikes on Iran, you need to. The use of nuclear weapons is a live option. Generals asking for this option to be removed are being rebuffed. Quoting a "former senior intelligence official" Seymour writes:

"Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout--we're talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don't have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out"--remove the nuclear option--"they're shouted down."

Look, I'm no fan of Iran. And if this were a different administration we were talking about this would be a different discussion entirely. Unfortunately we seem to be on the precipice of the most dangerous time our country has ever known, and I don't make that comment lightly. The newly crowned Trinity of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are not friends of America. Leaders who care about our great country would show contrition for their actions that have so irreparably harmed her. Instead, they continue blindly down the same paths they set out upon six years ago. Time and catastrophic failures have not deterred them. Lets be crystal clear: No American should vote for ANY Republican this coming year, because any Republican, no matter how moderate, will come under the leadership of a party hell-bent on taking our country to the brink of disaster. We know, that is, we have empirical evidence of their contempt for diplomacy and multi-lateralism. We have proof of their gross ineptitude when it comes to foreign policy. Americans must understand that our leaders' actions have direct consequences on our lives. If we pre-emptively use nuclear weapons, voters in other nations around the world, friend and foe, will step away from us. Why should we care? Because they have the power to elect governments hostile to America. We've seen this happen already in this President's term. South America is quickly turning into an adversary. We need access to their resources, but we're driving them into the arms of China with our bluster and hostile rhetoric.

The bottom line is, Americans cannot trust this Administration. At all. We know that they have messianic ideals. They have, as Richard Clarke so aptly put it, "received knowledge." It's as if they are the Judas of the newfound Gospel. We all know them to be Satan incarnate, but they insist to actually be doing the Lord's will on the down-low.

If Americans want regime change in Iran, they need to be willing to use conventional military tactics. We should be willing to sacrifice our men and women in a cause we feel merits it. This Administration is comprised entirely of cowards. Hersh quotes a "government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon" as describing Bush's ambitions thusly: "the President believes that he must do 'what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,' and 'that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.'" As usual, Bush is in his own private fairy tale land. We know from other sources that he is preoccupied with his legacy, that he has been studying past President's legacies and how some left office looking bad but in the end were justified by history. We heard the Secretary of State repeat this nonsense last week. This man is determined to do SOMETHING right, despite his complete inability even to discern hostility from kindredness when face to face with another (remember how he "looked into Putin's soul" or some such nonesense, right before Putin began dismantling Russian democracy? Oh wait, maybe Putin was his inspiration...). This man genuinely has no clue, and this Trinity LACKS the COURAGE to do the job properly. If you want to overthrow a regime, we should have learned in Iraq that you can't do it by flipping switches. Sending "smart" nukes does not guarantee there won't be scores of innocent Iranians killed, Iranians who as of right now lean pro-America. Start raining nuclear fallout on them and they'll strap a bomb to their chest and run into a crowd of westerners faster than a Dane can draw Mohammed doing the same.

If America wants to dismantle the Iranian regime, heaven knows there are many rational reasons one can list to support such a decision. The new Trinity we have in the White House are not the people we want running such a campaign, however. Democrats need to completely retake the House and Senate and impeach this President before he can cause our nation any more trauma. God help us.

Tags:
Iran, War on Terror, Military, Bush, Politics, Nuclear War, Judas, Truth