Incorrigible

Telecoms, Blue Dog Democrats, and W

2008-02-12T20:45:00.003-07:00

I am so f-ing mad! As Glen Greenwald has illustrated, a large number of Democrats in the Senate are nothing but Republican, Neo-Con, Bush patsies, and they deserve to be voted out of office as soon as possible. Being from Colorado, Ken Salazar is on the list. He went along with the other 18 Democratic Senators in voting through the Telecom Amnesty Bill, or as it is should be called, the "Flush Our Privacy Down the Toilet While Multimillion Dollar Telecoms and the Bush Admin Laugh In Our Fracking Faces Bill". These pathetic idiots that dare to call themselves Democrats helped to push through a bill that gives telecoms and the Bush administration immunity from breaking the law. The Bush admin says no laws were broken! But then why the need for immunity!

If you are one of the few people who read this blog, please, go to this link and sign the petition to urge the House to stand up and force their own superior bill through. Force Bush to veto this bill, then send it again! If FISA is so important, he'll eventually have to sign it. Or maybe he never does, but maybe we force him and his acolytes in Congress to respect the rule of law.

Oh Bill...

2008-01-20T17:51:00.000-07:00

Bill tries and tries, but still he is an idiot...

Two Front Runners, One Vote

2007-12-16T17:10:00.000-07:00

Let me be upfront in saying I don't like Hillary. Maybe I'm tainted by all the right wing smears on the Clintons over the years, but she is through and through a politician. I believe she will do anything to get elected, and will say anything to win over voters, more so than the other candidates. While this is the reason I don't like her, this is also a reason to vote for her. We need experience in the White House, experience that Hillary can bring that Obama or Edwards cannot. She knows the game and plays it well. Obama and Edwards are very adamant in telling us that they know the game but are not willing to play it. The game is beltway politics, and we need an expert in this game to be able to form and mold it in a way that can propel this country forward again towards progressive ideals. My greatest fear is that she is a DINO like Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller: Democrats In Name Only. Her vote for the AUMF that led to our war in Iraq tells me that she very well could be, and her justifications for that vote are a good example of her willingness to cloud the issue without actually confronting it. While I may vote for her if she gets the party's nomination, I hope she loses the primaries. If I were a registered Democrat, she would not get my vote.

When I think of Obama's candidacy, I say to myself, "I want to believe". Just think of this possibility! A black man winning the presidency 40 years after Martin Luther King Jr. Was assassinated. A man who lived abroad with a unique vision of America from the other candidates, president of the USA at a time that we desperately need international leadership, and strength in dealing with Islamic states. A young man, without the stigma of "the 60's", and the illogical responsibilities that every other candidate reared from that generation has had to deal with. And I like him. Unlike Hillary, I think he is genuine and wants to lead us, not for power but because he believes in the dream that is America. We all have had that dream from time to time. Some of us may have forgotten what the dream is, or have decided that a utopia like the American Dream is unattainable. But Obama believes in the dream, and that is why I think so many believe in him. If he gets the nomination, I will vote for him.

Some might wonder why I do not give equal time to Jon Edwards. I want to, and he may be the sleeper, but unless he wins Iowa or South Carolina, which I don't think he will, I do not see him going very far into 2008.

Propaganda at its worst...

2007-08-07T12:26:00.000-06:00

If you've ever wondered what blatant propaganda looked like, or had simply forgotten, read this translated article from Watching America! It's a doozy!

Excellent comments on "Executive Priveledge"

2007-07-20T14:20:00.000-06:00

From David Kurtz at the TPM Blog...

This could be a big issue... Stay tuned.

A Progressive Libertarian Stands For...

2007-07-20T13:47:00.001-06:00

- self-determination
- a welfare system that works to get people off welfare by enabling recipients to succeed
- a strict separation of church and state
- the preservation of ALL civil liberties
- the idea that the reach of government (including into our bedrooms) must be restricted
- the idea of personal privacy as a constitutional right
- the idea that owning a gun is a constitutional right
- the idea that government "for the people" must be fully transparent
And most of all, progressive libertarians understand that while the free market is an outstanding economic system, it is essential that such a system be well-regulated by the government to protect us all from the ravages of an untamed free market.

The Al Gore Smear Party Continues...

2007-07-20T13:37:00.000-06:00

Because conservatives lack any kind of intelligent argument on global warming or protecting our environment, they have to resort to smears of Al Gore, the environmentalism poster boy. ThinkProgress has a good example, and explains how their smears are, again, unfounded.

JetBlue Caves!

2007-07-20T13:31:00.000-06:00

Wingnut Slime Merchant, Bill O'Reilly, using his usual brand of B.S. smears, convinced JetBlue to remove itself from the YearlyKos event, but they are still sponsering the event, just not advertising the fact that they are sponsering the event(punks!). They have no problem advertising on Fox though, and supporting the likes of O'Really and Ann Coulter. Read Kos' response here.

Has the War on Terror Been Successfull?

2007-07-11T08:11:00.000-06:00

America has not been attacked from inside our border since 9/11/2001, as far as we know. Say what you will about the competency of President Bush, or the Machievelli-ness of Cheney, the mere fact that we have not seen a terrorist attack inside the United States for the last six years should give us a reason to give thanks to our government. The Presidents phrase of fighting the terrorists "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here" would seem to be a great truth. Perhaps the 650 billion dollars spent towards the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the blood we have spent, has been worth it, in order to preserve our way of life? Perhaps. BUT, there are a few things that simply do not add up.

1) Border Security - We've been having a vigorous immigration debate since 2001, due in large part to the idea that terrorists could simply walk across the border anytime they wanted. Is our current security effective, or are immigrants from Canada and Mexico still able to cross over without much problem? The President has pledged billions of dollars over the years to enhance border security, but has this led to more guards, or better technology?
The bi-partisan 9/11 Commission found our overall border security poor, and in some cases "shocking", four years after the attacks. The most shocking part was the "lack of urgency" expressed by the Bush Administration or the Congress to improve security. I suggest everyone read the report, it is shocking. But this lack of urgency towards border security is confusing when we match it up with the amount of homeland attacks, i.e., zero. If the horse thieves are outside the barn, and yet the barn door is unlocked and unguarded, why are the horses still in the barn? Could it be that the horse thieves are not outside the barn? But then, where are they? This question leads to the second thing that does not add up:

2) Is Al-Qaeda, and their affiliate organizations, only in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or the "We Need to Fight Them Over There, So We Don't Have To Fight Them Over Here" argument. This would make sense, and would answer why we have had relative peace in the states during our two wars over seas. But the most recent National Intelligence Estimate tells us that Al-Qaeda is growing stronger, in recruiting and finance, due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the NIE released recently also tells us that the main reason we have not been attacked is due to a "worldwide" counter terrorism effort, that has made the US Shores less available. This "worldwide" effort has disrupted several plans of al-Qaeda, according to the estimate. So, while al-Qaeda is worldwide, we have made the US homeland less of a target.
There is much to be critical about regarding the land wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but in regards to the war on terror, the Bush Administration seems to be kicking ass. But the NIE also tells us that the Iraq War is breeding new recruits for al-Qaeda, and other organizations like them, by our efforts on the ground in this war. So while we are cutting off the heads of the beast, two or three more heads grow to replace the one we just cut off.
We're winning the war, but can we win it for good. Bush and Co. believe that we can, but that we must stay in Iraq for an undetermined amount of time (Patraeus says 9 years). The rub of course is that our presence in Iraq is the reason for the upsurge in recruitment and funding to al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while adopting the name, isn't affiliated with bin Laden's group. In fact, al-Qaeda is not a monolithic organization with a traditional hierarchy, but a hodge podge of factions with different goals, but all intent on fighting western culture. Yes, the one thing that unites the extremists around the world is their hate of American culture, which they veiw as a threat to Islam. It's not a threat to Islam (we have 12 million Muslims in the U.S. right now, that are living their lives without threat from Americana), but a threat to extremist Islam. I would contend that extremist Christians feel the same way about Americana, which is why Fallwell and Roberts blamed 9/11 on "secularists and homosexuals".

As I have posted before, I do not believe we can win the war in Iraq militarily, or we already would have done so, but we have to use diplomacy in a more strategic way. The Bush Admin and the rest of the neo-cons seem to think that the only leverage we have is our dominant military, and so they use the threat of military force above all other things. America is much more than a powerful military, we are the world's foremost economic force as well, and most importantly, we are the the most giving of countries. We give more to help those in need around the world than anyone else. Economy and charity should be used to greater advantage in our talks with Iran, and our dealings with al-Qaeda. How exactly, I don't know, but relying solely on bombs and blood is not doing the job. Hopefully we can pose this type of question to our current presidential hopefuls in the coming months, and hopefully our next President will be able to use American innovation and utilize all our assets, not just one.

Who are we fighting in Iraq?

2007-06-27T12:56:00.000-06:00

"We must fight them over there, so we won't have to fight them here", is the Bush slogan for the Iraq war. It is the justification that he and his staff fall back on when their other justifications fall flat. Now that the support for the war is in freefall, the propaganda machine is gearing up again. As Glenn Greenwald has documented, the administration has begun to use the term al-qaeda when referring to anyone they are fighting in Iraq. Today, General Batiste provided reasons for caution in throwing around the word al qaeda, speaking against the current propaganda. The fact is that al qaeda is a threat and a peice of the puzzle in Iraq, but they are not the main source of the violence and unrest in the country, the prize for most threatening would be given to the Shi'a-Sunni civil war. Al qaeda is a worldwide organization and they are not relegated to the middle east. This makes the Presidents slogan patently false, and like all other reasons for this war, it falls flat as well.
-The Kid

My Merry Band of Incorrigibles

2007-06-26T10:32:00.000-06:00

Its time to expand! Inspired by my buddy Greg at My Soapbox, I am currently looking for other contributors to this blog. While you don't have to be as incredibly charming and handsome as me, I am looking for people who love politics and who love to write. I would prefer if you were a Progressive Libertarian like myself, but if not, that's o.k. Send me an e-mail and we'll chat about what you would like to bring to the blog.

A Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice

2007-06-26T10:24:00.000-06:00

Here is a good blog post from the Cato Institutes very own weblog. I think it is very important to join with the ACLU in this Day of Action. Habeas Corpus is important, and we need to provide it to everyone, even the scum of the Earth, in order to ensure it for everyone. Please read the petition, and if you are inclined, sign the petition as I have done.

Cheney: The De-Facto President

2007-06-25T11:14:00.000-06:00

A little while ago I stated that Bush was simply a puppet, being told what to do and say by his closest advisors. Of course I knew I was right, but this article in the Washington Post is startling. The article contends that Bush worries about the broad strokes of policy, whereas Cheney concentrates on the organizational aspect, but the history that this article brings out argues something different.

"Waxing or waning, Cheney holds his purchase on an unrivaled portfolio across the executive branch. Bush works most naturally, close observers said, at the level of broad objectives, broadly declared. Cheney, they said, inhabits an operational world in which means are matched with ends and some of the most important choices are made. When particulars rise to presidential notice, Cheney often steers the preparation of options and sits with Bush, in side-by-side wing chairs, as he is briefed.
Before the president casts the only vote that counts, the final words of counsel nearly always come from Cheney."

The final words always come from Cheney.

"His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance."

And he is serious. The VP is not part of any branch of goverment, at least according to the VP. Gonzales has been asked to review the legality of this statement, but has been sitting on the request since January. Now Waxman is going to investigate the "legality", but anyone with a passing knowlege of the Constitution will know that Article 2 states implicitly that the office of the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch.

Has the de-facto President gone too far in his power grab? Perhaps he forgot that the Dems are now in power and there are actual checks and balances now. Or perhaps he doesn't care. Constitution be damned.

1 Million Kids Use Personal Trainers!

2007-06-25T08:07:00.000-06:00

Oh My God! I can't find fault with the parents putting up the money for the personal trainers, they're just trying to do the best thing for their kid, but this trend definantly says something about our society. When I was six, I was the picture of health, and the only personal trainer I needed was the pirate ship in my back yard (actually a picnic table) and my band of merry pillagers (the other neighborhood kids). When I was ten, I lived on the baseball field. In my teen years I was harldy a jock, but I was always playing tennis, basketball, or swimming. When I hit college I got more and more sedentary, and the picnic table didn't have the same draw that it did when I was six, so a personal trainer may have been useful, but not when I was a kid.
The technology that we all love is the primary reason for our childrens chubby butt cheeks! I hate to say it because I love my Xbox, but kids have more reasons to stay in their rooms, then they do to go out and play.

The Latest War Propaganda

2007-06-25T07:35:00.000-06:00

Take a look at this blog entry by Glen Greenwald. Glen is always illuminating, but he hits it out of the park again on how the admin is trying to re-sell the war.

SiCK 'O Michael Moore

2007-06-22T15:26:00.000-06:00

Michael Moore has a new "documentary" coming out, and I'll probably go see it, but only because I want to know what the extreme left is saying. I'm not a big fan of universal health care, so I'll be interested to see how Moore spins this issue. His documentaries are usually persuasive, until you are able to check his sources and how he edits around the pertinent facts.

Are We Losing the Iraq War? (Updated Below)

2007-06-14T07:41:00.000-06:00

Over and over again I hear the same question and it's starting to drive me nuts. Are we losing the Iraq War? No! We won the war, past tense. In 2003 the US military had an opponent, the Iraq Army. That opponent no longer exists. We thoroughly and completely dismantled that army and won the war easily. The Baathists were driven from power, the dictator was smoked out of his hole, and the Iraqi people were "liberated". Our military did what it was trained to do, and did so like no other fighting force on Earth. I for one, am very proud of the job they did, and I continue to be proud of the sacrifice they continue to make in the name of duty.

The situation we are in right now is not a "war" in the traditional sense. The Shia vs Sunni conflict existed before we got to Iraq. It existed before Saddam. It existed before the British. It existed before the Ottoman Empire. By toppling Saddam Hussein, we got rid of a ruthless dictator, but we also created a vacuum which even our great military could not fill, because it was a theocratic political vacuum. The hard fact is that the conflict in Iraq cannot be solved militarily. If it could be, our military would have solved it by now.

The Iraq War was won. We were victorious. The Iraq Civil War is still raging, and we are caught in the middle, but it is not our war.

Update:
I feel compelled to also explain why we are "in the middle". Of course, the reason we are still in Iraq is for oil. I know, it seems too simplistic. We would like to think our leaders got us into Iraq for a reason more noble, but they didn't. They sold us a bill of goods and we bought it. Shame on us. But now we're in a tragic connundrum. In order for Cheney to secure his investment, we have to stay in country and ensure that the civil war doesn't hinder our efforts to get our hands on the oil. The Profit Sharing Agreements have yet to get through the Iraqi congress (which is truly the benchmark the White House is paying attention to), and that same Iraqi congress has recently voted that US forces should leave the country. We have to stay in country for as long as it takes to ensure the oil flows unempeded to our shores, which could take a generation. I'm all for sticking it to OPEC, but this was not the way to go about it.

Health Care for Colorado - Let's Be FAIR

2007-06-12T12:20:00.000-06:00

I encourage everyone to take a look at the FAIR plan, proposed by Brian Schwartz, Ph.D. to the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform. It gets us away from socialized medicine, which has not proven to work for Canada or other countries, and more towards market driven care. I'm still reviewing the proposal, but from what I see so far I certainly hope it gets a fair look from the commission. Time to write my rep!

The Diamond in the rough

2007-06-06T10:05:00.001-06:00

Watching the Republican debate last night was aggravating. Almost none of these guys are worthy of the highest office... Almost.

For a couple of years now I've been aware of Ron Paul, but he continues to impress, and when I looked into this guy a little more, I am almost sold... Almost.

I don't really care to call him a paleo-conservative or a Goldwater conservative, but I will say he is not a Bush conservative, or a neo-conservative. I will say he has peaked my interest and will be someone I hope stays in the race. He may not have the funding to complete with Rudy or Romney, but he has the integrity and vision to be a great leader. I will support him for no other reason than to support his message on the issues, and to support his honesty and integrity and hope it transcends to the other candidates, both Republican and Democrat. Who knows, maybe he can gain some traction and be a contender. I almost wish I were a registered Republican so I could vote for him in the primaries... Almost. :)

Power Play

2007-05-30T11:50:00.000-06:00

Is the Cold War coming back?

Russia's top diplomat accused the United States of launching a new arms race as the two nations traded barbs Wednesday over U.S. plans to erect a missile defense system in countries formally under Moscow's influence. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov complained that the U.S. rationale for the shield is thin and suggested that U.S. assurances to Russia amount to a brush-off. "All they are saying is, 'Don't worry it's not aimed at you,'' Lavrov said. He called the plan a threat to Russia and added, ``the arms race is starting again.''
...On Tuesday, Russia tested a new multiple-warhead, intercontinental ballistic missile, and Putin warned that the planned U.S. missile shield would turn Europe into a ``powder keg.''

Or, is Russia, and by Russia I mean the old Soviets like Putin, simply tired of being out of the game.

Dictator Bush

2007-05-24T10:52:00.001-06:00

On May 9, 2007, President Bush signed a directive with little publicity or fanfare. Hardly anybody knew it was done.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.

Click on the link and read what this means. Some highlights for those who hate politico speak:

"National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
The president, and he alone, will determine when a catastrophic incident has occurred and he can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."
This directive supersedes the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position. In essence, the President has taken the oversight of Congress out of the equation.
This directive makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
The President makes the determination as to when an incident exists that qualifies as catastrophic, i.e. 9/11 or Katrina, and also decides when the danger is over thereby relinquishing his near dictatorial powers.

Bush can declare this anytime, for any reason he wants (all he has to do is decide something is catastrophic and poof), without Congressional oversight, with the ability to control all government and private institutions until he deems the danger is over.

Historically, can anyone provide an example of a leader being granted this level of power and then relinquishing them? The last leader that I know of to be granted this power was Castro when he argued that until the threat from the USA was over, he would assume emergency powers. He has yet to relinquish those powers.

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;" This can be interpreted many ways, and "extraordinary levels of mass casualties" could mean the amount in 9/11 or the amount in the recent Tornado devastation in Kansas, its up to the President to decide.

Bush once said that being a dictator would be easier. We all thought he was joking, well I guess the jokes on us. Let's all hope we don't have a "Catastrophic Emergency". Ever. Or else our freedoms are history.

2007-05-22T20:23:00.000-06:00

The Price of Being Green

2007-05-22T19:33:00.000-06:00

I moved recently from a townhome to a ranch-style house, and I love it. Though, the benefits of the townhome became immediately apparent when I had to mow the lawn for the first time. Yard work of any kind was alien to me in the townhome, and before the townhome I rented an apartment, so it had been a good 15 years since I had to mow the lawn, or pull weeds, or hire some guy to come out and spray the dandelions dead. Due to all the rain we've been getting, I've been mowing every four days and with gas prices the way they are, I wondered if an electrical mower would be viable.

I had used an electrical mower on my grandmothers yard many, many years ago, and I hated dragging the cord around. I wanted a battery powered mower that was as powerful as a gas powered one, and I wanted something that was a mulcher. After searching the web tirelessly, I found it. The Neuton Mower was battery powered, powerful, had a mulcher attachment, and has a trimmer! And it was easy on the environment and quiet, so I was in love! Then I got to the price: under $2,400 for the base model. Talk about wind out of the sales. You can get a pretty affordable gas powered mower, but I wanted an electrical because I hate paying 3.34 a gallon even if it is for a small tank. But can you imagine paying $2,400 for a mower!

This got me thinking about other products out there marketed to being "green". I've got progressive roots, and I like to think I'm doing everything I can to be environmentally conscious, but it has dawned on me that the reason so many people look at progressive liberals as "elites" is because you have to be pretty rich to be "green".

My wife thought she would buy environmentally safe diapers for 'lil Dude. The environmentally conscious crap goes for 30 bucks for 60 diapers, while you can get 100 diapers of the main brand for the same price.

Have you ever shopped at those "healthy" grocery stores? You know, the ones where you can smell the pretentiousness the moment you walk in the door. There is a reason one of the chains is called "Whole Paycheck" by those that shop there. You easily pay double in those stores as you would at Safeway or Wal-Mart.

Honda is coming out with a hydrogen fuel cell car. The car will get incredible gas mileage, and is the future of automotive engineering, but in 2011 it will be ready for consumers with a price tag of $1,000,000. That's not a typo. I'm sure the price will go down. I hope it will go down. But even the Toyota Prius and other Hybrid cars start at $20,000! They are not marketing to me, that is for sure.

I recently have been told by the doctor that I need to start eating better. No more burritos, hamburgers, soda, or anything else that tastes good. I have to eat veggies and all that crap, and I can't eat anything white like white bread, rice, pasta, etc., it has to be whole wheat. AND, I can't have anything with trans-fats in it, which takes a lot of stuff out of your diet. But to get rid of all the bad stuff and add all the good stuff is extremely expensive. Eating bad is much easier on your budget, sad to say. Eating healthy is expensive, and I'm tempted to agree with John Stossel when he says the whole "organic" craze is a racket.

Being green is easier said than done. For right now, it is for the rich. It's easy for Bush to have an environmentally super-duper home, and for Leo DiCaprio to ride around in a super green car, because they have the money to do it. The rest of us have to do what we can with a budget. I take a van pool to work, and I recycle as much as I possibly can, and I walk to the store instead of drive. And yeah, I feel like I'm doing my part, but don't give me this crap about how we need to buy flex fuel vehicles and eat only organic food, and wear hemp. Please.

Finally, a wise woman once compared the current fad of buying carbon credits to offset your carbon footprint akin to religious zealots paying the church for absolution, and she is right. I'm not worried about my carbon footprint, I'm just trying to pay my mortgage and keep my family safe and fed. If I were rich, maybe I would feel the need to buy some green absolution, but for right now, I think I'll go buy me a gas powered mower and say the hell with it.

Free the Film

2007-05-06T18:02:00.000-06:00

For those who don't know, there is a documentary out there called Islam vs. Islamists that PBS is refusing to air. They have their reasons, but some bloggers have called cryed foul. Most notably right wing bloggers. They have taken this issue as another example of the liberal PBS programmers refusing to tell people the truth, their truth of course. I have to wonder if they have looked at the subject matter of the film, and what is actually being said, because I would think if anyone would want to prevent this film from being shown, it would be the lunatic fringe of the right wing (you know, the ones in power). But the one carrying the torch for the film is non other than Michelle Malkin, a right wing lunatic if there ever was one.

I guess no one told Michelle of the fact that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is headed up by a Bush appointee, Ken Tomlinson, who has been suspected of influencing programming for three years towards a "Republic" slant.

Also, informing Americans that not all muslims are blood thirsty jihadists seems like a strategy that would work against the current administrations policy of fear and intimidation. Providing a touchy feely view of muslims seems almost, dare I say, progressive.

I personally feel it is our best interests to understand Islam as much as possible, the good and the bad. Our government should have been trying to understand them years ago, say six.

Please go to http://freethefilm.net/. Please sign the petition to have this documentary be seen, either on PBS or another station. Let your voice be heard.

Direct TV vs. Comcast

2007-05-06T17:52:00.000-06:00

I have had Comcast cable and internet for many years and have loved the service. I hated the price, but I have learned recently that you get what you pay for.

I have now switched over to Direct TV through Qwest, and I use Qwest High Speed. I don't have a problem with the high speed, but the Direct TV and Tivo I have are sad alternatives to Comcast Cable. The menu screen is too small for one. I guess they assume you will have a big screen TV to be able to read the menu. Nope, I'm on a budget, so no big screen. Comcast has a nice big menu and was wonderfully legible.

Second, the fast forward sucks on Tivo. Whether I'm using the 30 second fast forward or the 1st or 2nd speed fast forward, the damn thing loops continually! It is aggravating! The fast forward on Comcast was very responsive and I never had a problem. I now sometimes watch the commercials just to avoid the stress.

But, Direct TV costs less. I guess I have to live with the inferior technology and the reduced amount of free movies, because I am on a budget. Less I forget, the next step is to get rid of cable altogether and install the antenae on my roof. Egads!

Out Of Context

2007-04-30T15:31:00.000-06:00

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of the term, "Out of context"? It seems to me to be a way of saying, "I said something stupid, but you can't hold me to it!" Because now it is a question of defining what context the quote was said, and how it was then used by the quoter. Oh, so much minutia.

I'll post a few examples of the "Out of Context" phenomenon when I have more time. If you have any examples yourself, let me hear them!

-Aaron

Buying the War

2007-04-25T20:22:00.000-06:00

From Glenn Greenwald:

"Actual Journalist Bill Moyers has a 90-minute PBS documentary tonight, entitled "Buying the War," which airs at 9:00 pm Eastern. Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher -- in an informative preview -- calls it "the most powerful indictment of the news media for falling down in its duties in the run-up to the war in Iraq." Moyers is a superb journalist and documentarian and I have no doubt that it will be a well-spent (if not depressing and infuriating) 90 minutes. In addition to PBS stations, the program can be viewed here. "

I encourage everyone to read Mr. Greenwalds entry for 4/25/07 as well. I can only commend Jessica Lynch for being as forthright and honest as she has been in all this muck. While her rescue may have been fantasy, her integrity seems to be in tact.

Rove to be investigated? Don't hold your breath.

2007-04-24T20:24:00.000-06:00

It was an interesting day on the blogosphere, as always, but one story caught my eye. The Office of Special Counsel has turned its attention on Karl Rove and possible infractions of the Hatch Act. Now, on the surface this sounds legit, but when you dig deeper, things get a bit more complicated. It turns out that the head of the OSC is Scott Bloch, a Bush appointee, who is himself under investigation for intimidating and threatening his own employees. When I first heard about this investigation, It seemed fishy, and it may turn out to be a way for the White House to protect Rove from any further investigations in the near future or after Bush leaves office.

I guess we'll have to stay tuned to see if I'm right.

Is De-Evolution Possible?

2007-03-28T14:15:00.000-06:00

Reading this story, I have to think it might be...

The Military Commissions Act of 2006

2006-10-04T16:02:00.000-06:00

I don’t want to be a “fear monger”. I don’t want to be an alarmist. The last thing I want to do is jump to a far-off conclusion. But with the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, A.K.A. the “torture bill”, we as a nation have slid down a slope of moral ineptitude, and destined our children for a future on the moral low-ground. We have forfeited our claim to being just and fair, and succumbed to the fear that many will accuse me of “mongering”.

Now, many legal analysts out there are claiming different things about the possibility of the act allowing the president to imprison and detain US Citizens forever. I don’t know about the validity of this charge. I would hope that the US Constitution would protect us from this Act, but I guess time will tell.
No, I’m more concerned with the fact that we are justifying the use of torture, and ignoring our tradition of Habeus Corpus, in order to stay safe from the “evil doers”. I am more concerned with the fact that we are willing to throw away our values as it pertains to ‘aliens’, in order to feel more safe.

Currently, Rep Mark Foley and Foley-gate have dominated the media. I’m sure that the neo-cons consider that an early Christmas gift as it is detracting from scrutiny of this bill. But even without Foley-gate, the main stream media would probably not be covering the details of this act.

I know the argument for this bill. I know why some Democrats voted for it. I don’t agree, but I know the argument. We need to get information, they say. They are our enemies who want to destroy us, so they don’t deserve the same rights as we have, they say. Hogwash! The techniques used, like waterboarding and sensory depravation, are techniques that our have been military trained to resist for years as they were effective in BRAINWASHING the prisoner, so that they would say or believe anything you tell them. These techniques are not used to get information, but to force statements from the prisoners. We learned these techniques during the cold war where they were used by the Soviets for exactly that reason.

We are being tested, people! We have an election coming up where we have to win, because it is another chance to tell the world that we do believe in justice. We do believe in human rights, even if we despise the human. We do believe in the American Way, even if the neo-cons and the theo-cons have lost their way.

The other day a schoolhouse in Pennsylvania became the residence of evil for a day. A gunman, himself haunted by his own demons, shot and killed children. For no other reason than they were children, and that made them fair game, I guess, if you’re an evil SOB. A grandfather of one of the girls who was killed stood over his daughter and told the other children that, 'We must not think evil of this man.” Imagine that. In one comment, this wise man turned this hellish moment into a moment of enlightenment, and showed us all the true meaning of faith. I pray that we could carry this kind of faith to our policies around the world and with our attitude with our allies and enemies.

America has at its best and greatest export the ability to be strong in the face of injustice, and just in the face of tyranny. We have exported neither of those attributes for the past five years. For our future and our children, I pray that we remember the faces of our fathers, and begin anew with a November election that reflects the values we hold dear, and to once again make “The American Way” mean something good again.

Good Food for Thought

2006-10-02T15:27:00.000-06:00

I find this site humorous.

http://onegoodmove.org

I Need A New Party!

2006-09-29T10:35:00.000-06:00

Alright, I'm not a registered Democrat, and I guess that is a good thing as they have finally pushed me over the line. Can they find their spine? Can they find their brain? Can we find it for them?

The torture/Detainee bill passed the Senate yesterday, and it passed without much fight from the Dems. Could they have at least filibustered the damn thing. Couldn't they do something to show us that they still have our (US Citizens) best interests at heart?

This bill provides the President with unprecedented powers to detain indefinantley anyone one he chooses. Now, this bill was passed with "enemy combatants" in mind, but it extends to US citizens as well. So I guess we are going to have to trust Mr. Bush in that he doesn't abuse this newfound power.

Two different days in one

2006-09-11T12:19:00.000-06:00

I may post later regarding the 9/11 anniversary, but until then here is a good article to think on.

Banana Republicans

The Theo-Con End-Game

2006-08-24T17:08:00.000-06:00

Have you read the Project for a New American Century? No? Well, its good reading. It centers around a proposal that a group of Neo-Cons sent to President Clinton in the late 1990's that would secure America's power in the post cold war world.

Clinton didn't act on it as it went against his foreign policy. You know, actual diplomacy.

So the Neo-Cons bided their time and waited for a President who shares their view of the world.

Enter George W. Bush.

Within the PNAC proposal, the wish, for lack of a better term, was for a "Pearl Harbor" type of event that would allow their plans to be accelerate faster.

9/11.

Not to intimate that the Neo-Cons had anything to do with that tragic day, but it is an eerie coincidence that a "Pearl Harbor" type of event did exactly what they wanted it to do, which was accelerate their plans to overthrow Saddam and establish a power position in the region beyond that of Israel.

Now we are eyeing the rogue state of Iran. This seems to be a continuation of the Neo-Con aim, and I fear it falls in line with the Theo-Con aim. You see, fanatical Christians and Muslims dream of the same goal, the destruction of Israel. Both for different reasons, but the goal is the same. For Theo-Cons of the Christian ilk, the destruction of Israel will bring about the return of Christ, and all of the faithfull will float up to heaven. For radical Muslims, the Zionists are illegally on holy land in Palestine, and their presence is a blasphemy to them.

Which comes to the meat of the issue. The Neo-Con dream of a Pax Americana was used by the Theo-Cons from both the Christian and Muslim extremists to create a legitimate threat to Israel and create a conflict in that region that could unravel everything. Dick Cheney, the founder of PNAC, and the rest of his co-horts dreamed of a stronger America, while religious extremists used their hunger for power and created a crisis which seems will end in Israel fighting Hezbullah, Syria, and Iran. Europe will come to Israel's aid, as will the U.S.

World War III.

The conservative talking heads have been talking up the possibility of WWIII since the Israel-Hezbullah conflict began, and you can almost see the saliva dripping from their mouths. The sad thing is that they actually want this to happen! I equate it to listening to a Fundy Christian talk about Armegeddon. They may talk about it with an sense of foreboding, but you can tell they are looking forward to it. And why not, they are going to heaven, right? Make no mistake, Armegeddon and WWIII and the Middle-East Crisis go hand in hand for Theo-Cons.

Pretty Scary.

A Case of Trying Too Hard

2006-07-28T15:21:00.000-06:00

I'm not one to criticize progressive blogs very often, but Think Progress just laid into "W" for holding a PR event with the American Idol kids after his Mid-East Press Conference, intimating that the President is not taking the Mid-East crisis seriously because he met with the Idols immediately after the event. Should he have postponed the event for an hour later? Two hours? Granted, the President seems to be confused about which direction to go with Hezbollah and Israel, but I doubt a few pictures with celebs is going to hurt the process.

Lets stick to the meat of issue, please, and leave the empty rhetoric to the right. Thanks.

Super Power? Why?

2006-07-28T13:51:00.000-06:00

After the fall of the Soviet Union, we as a nation reveled in our triumph, and celebrated the supremacy of capitalism and democracy over communism. We looked to the world and exclaimed that, "we are your Super Power, follow us and everything will be well." And the world looked to us for leadership, allowing us great latitude and providing unprecedented cooperation in the Gulf War. The '90's were a continuation of that theme, with our economic might tripling over the decade, and our influence unparalleled in our nations history. The greatest crisis we had as a nation was whether or not the President was being unfaithful to his wife. At the time that may have seemed important, but it was simply entertainment.

Under the bravado of the '90's, there was a hate that had been boiling for thirty years. We knew about it, but didn't realize the scope of the hate until that September day. As a people we were caught off gaurd and stunned that this could even have been contemplated.

"We're Americans. The good guys! Why the attack?"

The answer to that question could fill volumes, but suffice it to say we were living in our excesses and not seeing the barbarians at the gate. It seems that we are reliving the downfall of every empire, where those outside the walls of the great city plot to destroy it out of jealosy, fear, or power. So, why be an empire? Why be a Super Power? I would rather we would use our power and influence, such as it is anymore, to ensure that no country is considered a Super Power ever again, and to become a member of the international community again.

No, I don't want a single unified world government. I don't think we are mature enough for that, but I don't think we need one country to be the designated police force either. Granted, we would've gone into Afganistan with or without international support, and Iraq was less about being a world policeman and more about Neo-Con wet dreams of a global power play. But with the current crisis in the mideast and the crisis with North Korea, and the impending showdown with China, we seem to be the fall guy when things go wrong.

Being a Super Power has only made us a big target, and it is not what America is all about. America is not about force and power, but about freedom and liberty. I say we become a union again, and leave the empires for the history books.

The Failure of George W. Bush

2006-07-28T11:32:00.000-06:00

When historians review the track record of past presidents, they usually will wait many years after he has left office before drawing a conclusion and the same will be done with George W. Bush I suspect. But even now, two years from his departure, we can only conclude that he has failed as the leader of our great nation. He has failed as the leader of free nations and he has failed freedom in general.

Is this too harsh a rebuke? Is this going over the line? Hardly. It may sound harsh but for this president it is accurate. Are his failures any worse than any other President? For that we will need time to pass to see for sure. But it is safe to say that the world is much more chaotic and uncertain than before he stepped into the oval office. It's easy to put all of this on the terrorists and 9-11, but that one terrible day did not create the failure of Katrina, or the quagmire in Iraq, or the absolute FUBAR in Afganistan.

The one thing Bush and his minions have gotten right is getting votes. Gay, Guns, and God. That should be the GOP tag line, because it is all they have. But it is all they have needed as well. The country and the world need much more.

February Wrap-Up

2006-02-28T14:11:00.000-07:00

February 2006; what did we learn?

* Switchgrass is a fuel substitute
* Birdshot to the face from 30 yards won't kill you (at least not if you're a lawyer).
* We do business with some countries that support terrorism and do not recognize Israel (the UAE), but only the real rich ones.
* Civil War is a good thing...if you are a delusional, stupid, or a FOX news commentator.
...more to come...

Oh Cindy...

2006-02-01T09:19:00.000-07:00

It looks like Cindy Sheehan was invited to attend the SOTU last night, but was arrested for showing up! Now, they are saying that she was arrested for protesting, but this is a lie. She was wearing a t-shirt that tallied the number of US soldiers dead in Iraq. Does wearing a shirt constitute a protest? They escorted her out of the chamber without asking her to cover up the t-shirt first. It continues to look like her son died for a country that is slowly disolving. Freedom of speech? What is that?

Switchgrass!!!

2006-02-01T09:17:00.000-07:00

One word sums up the whole speech: "SWITCHGRASS"!

It is ironic that an oil man such as Bush, who has done his best to help out his oil men friends (like the Bin Ladens), and who has done more to curtail our ability to explore alternate fuels than any other president in the last 30 years, can bring himself to talk about such things as ethanol and switchgrass.

Bin Laden: The Neo-Con's Dream Enemy

2006-01-23T11:19:00.000-07:00

Imagine, if you will, an enemy that is impervious to capture, commands a lethal force of soldiers who can strike anywhere, anytime, and anyway they want, and who seems to say all the things your political enemies say... verbatim. Wouldn't that be the perfect enemy?

Now imagine Osama bin Laden in a cave in Pakistan, hooked up to his portable, solar powered dialysis machine (I can only imagine it is not powered by a gas powered generator), trying to concoct a speech that will rally his faithfull lemmings, and at the same time send a message of fear to the President. And what does he say? Exactly what Karl Rove would have scripted him to say. Does anyone else think this is weird? Osama set up the bait and the hacks that pass as "jounalists" bit and bit hard.

After reading his comments, and comparing them to the statements of the administration over the last four years, it is obvious that Bin Laden wants the conflict to continue. His offer of truce was little more than posturing for his Muslim audience. I guess offering a truce before a battle is brave act in Islamic tradition because Muhammad did this before a great battle. The majority of his comments play like a talking points memo for the presidents political critics.

If anything, Osama's rant will go to serve Bush and the GOP more than hurt them. As we head into this election year, be careful to notice how Democratic challengers to Senate seats steer clear of any rhetoric that may resemble what Bin Laden has said. With that said, I have to wonder if Osama is part of the K Street Project as well.

McClellan echoes the Gonzales inaccuracy

2006-01-17T14:01:00.000-07:00

McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless
physical searches, and he cited an the Aldrich Ames case. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the
inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.
"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.

Read the full article here.

Again, the key for this administration: state a lie enough and it suddenly becomes truth.

2006-01-17T12:09:00.000-07:00

What's happening today...

The liberal blogosphere is buzzing in regards to Al Gore's speech yesterday. Mr. Gore has called for the attorney general to begin an investigation into Bush's domestic spying activities. Gonzales has quickly retorted that:

I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it’s my
understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity
regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an
example.
I can also say that it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney
general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent
authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a
warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the
former vice president was saying today.

Think Progress has a good rundown on why this is an inaccurate statement from our Atttorney General.

How Should We Support Our Troops?

2005-08-23T11:16:00.000-06:00

In Crawford Texas there is a difference of opinion on how best to support our troops. At Camp Casey, the epicenter of the country's anti-war movement, we are told that the best support we could provide is to bring the troops home. A few yards away at the presidential ranch, we are told that the best way to support our troops is to support the job that they are doing, and to support the president. Of course, both of the above solutions of support are simplistic and make for great partisan soundbites but do little to offer actual solutions for a resolution to the war.
In these types of issues, soundbites often take the place of actual dialogue, and emotions replace reason.

At the heart of this national debate are two American mentalities that are as different as the Shia and Sunni. In red corner, we have the "good soldier" mentality, largely made up of conservative Republicans and conservative independents. The good soldier may question the rationale for war, and may even question the strategy of the war, but will never get out of step with the chain of command. "Support our troops" goes hand in hand with "Support our President", and any deviation from complete loyalty is unacceptable.

The good soldier mentality is perhaps best manifested in actual soldiers themselves, of course. Our soldiers are trained to respect the chain of command and follow orders. Our volunteer armed forces are deeply nationalisic with a belief in country that borders on the religious. These are not bad traits for a soldier as loyalty, discipline and nationalism make for a very effective weapon to have at the ready. Is it any wonder that most of our armed forces and their families voted for Bush in 2004?

The good soldier mentality is carried over to the public through veterans and families of veterans, and those who have family in the military. To the good soldier, Cindi Sheehan is disgracing her sons memory and what he stood and died for, as she is being disloyal to the chain of command. The good soldier sees the anti-war protests as a threat to America itself, as any disruption in morale is a threat to the soldiers effectiveness.

With this in mind, the argument can be understood that says we must support our President and his policy and thusly support our troops. Understanding doesn't imply agreement, but it can be understood. While the mindset of a soldier requires unflinching loyalty to the chain of command, discipline to follow the orders of a superior officer, and a strong nationalistic belief, Should it be required of a nations citizens?

Which brings us to the blue corner and the "Professor" mentality. Here we have liberal Democrats and independents who are largely passifist in nature, though not entirely, and who feel the need to question everything. Completely opposite from the good soldier, they do not trust those in charge and feel it is in the best nature of the nation to question authority. They feel that Cindi Sheehan is honoring her son in the best way possible by questioning the reasons why the war was started. They feel that the best way to support the troops is to get them out of harms way and away from a war that they feel was started unjustly.

Again, the argument can be understood, if not agreed with.

So how should we support our troops? In my view, the protesting and insults flung back and forth between the "good soldiers" and "professors" is meaningless and neither honors the sacrifices of the men and women who serve. Soldiers will serve, for the most part unwaveringly, and will die in the service of their country if that is what they are called to do. This is a tremendous asset and should not be messed with. "Support Out Troops" becomes an offensive catch phrase when we see how our troops our served themselves when they come back home. Veteran benefits have been cut, and tours in Iraq continue to stretch on.

If you really want to support our troops, give them the same respect we give our professional politicians, along with the same health care, education, and retirement benefits. Support our troops by making sure they are getting the assistance they need when they get back, both financially and mentally. In the end, I see a lot of partisan bickering about how to support the troops, but this does nothing to support them in the way that means the most.

Ward Churchill: Scholar or Not?

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

Nationally, the furor over Ward Churchill may have died down and people may have assumed that the embattled University of Colorado Professor had been run out of town, or had lost his tenure, or had maybe quit. But, oh no, the battle is ongoing!

CU has surrounded the alleged Native American Professor, and so has the Denver press, and we could be looking at Churchill's Last Stand here in the Rocky Mountains. Now, the concern is not over his ludicrous essay, but about whether he is making facts up in regards to his books and essays!

In the beginning of this situation, I hated what Churchill wrote in "Concerning Roosting Chickens", which was probably his intention for the reader, but I didn't have a problem with him writing the essay as speech is free, but the consequences of that speech come with a price sometimes.

He's starting to pay that price now with the current investigation into his scholarship. In an article today in the Rocky Mountain News it certainly seems that Prof. Churchill is the king of fabrication. The News' detailed report shows that the sources he has used in regards to a smallpox epidemic in the late 1830's that decimated an entire nation of native Americans were at best inaccurately reported, and at worst completely made up by Churchill.

It is obvious that an example is being made of Ward Churchill. But is this a bad thing? At first you have to question the precedent that this would set by going to such lengths to challenge tenure, but this precedent could be good for academia. Good in that it could get rid of some "teachers" who are in the university system simply to hide from the real world.

I always prefer to believe in people, and trust that they are inherently good. And while this may be naive, I'm willing to be naive in order to keep my faith in humanity. But when I find that a person has willingly been deceitful, I find it hard to be forgiving. Challenging tenure may not be something we see a lot, or this Churchill situation may be the spark that sets a fire of challenges, if it is the latter I welcome it as a chance to divide the cream of the crop from the chaff. It is about time we find out who are real scholars are, don't you think?

False Prophet

2005-05-23T18:48:00.000-06:00

We have been warned for generations to be on the lookout for false prophets who will lead astray. While the world has been on the lookout for one individual, a team of false prophets has led us away from the promised land.

I am a spiritual person. My relationship with God is one of the many things I am very content with, though if you know me you wouldn't figure that is the case. As a spiritual person I am befuddled by the tennis match being played in American politics with spirituality and religion. Last week, the President spoke at the commencement of a religious college (he asked the college if he could speak there) and was met with a diverse faculty that disagrees with his use of Christianity for his own political ends. It was refreshing to see some of these Christians stand up and say that this President doesn't represent all of us.

The Presidents commencement speach went off without much ado, but the message was put out there for a little while, at least, that one political party does not have a monopoly on God. But do you think that Frist and Co. will get the message?

I just saw a political ad in the paper by the Focus on the Family PAC which was directed against Ken Salazar and his stance on the whole filibuster issue. Focus on the Family has some good people working there (I've known a few), but am I the only one that feels that such direct political campaigns by a religious organization sullies the reputation of that institution? You expect religious organizations to be above the fray, staying out of politics and guiding their flock through spiritual counseling, not legislative maneuvering.

You also expect the government to keep a distance from religious inclusion so as not to alienate those who do not share their religious zeal. Granted, the Bush administration owes the election of 2004 to their Christian base, but as a Christian do you really want to be associated with any politician?

Religion should go beyond politics, and should deal with the soul. If your message is so weak that you must have a PAC which "lobbies" an agenda, how strong is your faith, in the end?

The Newsweek Scandal: I'm Not Buying It

2005-05-17T07:50:00.000-06:00

This week, the May 9 story in Newsweek has erupted into quite a scandal. After reading Newsweeks response to the scandal, I am forced to read between the lines. Regarding the allegation of flushing the Qu'ran down the toilet, "...their information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur'an charge." Which basically means that the officials confirmed the allegations by their silence. Then, after the firestorm, "Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. " Convenient that the original source changed his story after the White House began to apply pressure.

Gnostic Deism

2005-05-05T13:54:00.000-06:00

For many years now I have have been struggling with my "label". What am I? What word or words define my set of beliefs? For a long time I've been content to stay away from labels as I believed them to be to readily "closed". Not closed-minded, but as soon as you label yourself with something you also paint a picture in the mind of others as to what that means.For example, if I were to say I were a Christian each of us would immediately have an impression as to what "I am", fairly or unfairly depending on your perception. If I state that I do not have a label of my beliefs, this would also provide an impression of what "I am" But now, I feel that a closed label would not inappropriate as long as the underlying beliefs are open. I've come up with a term I like, though I'm not sure if my defintion jives with traditional defintions.

Gnostic Deism is something that seems suitable. Gnostic is used to explain my undersanding that every religious text and spiritual teaching is more than the literal explanation, and that these works and traditions were/are intended to teach us something deeper about ourselves as people, as about ourselves individually. Gnosis in my view, is the "search" for an experiential knowledge of truth, which requires study, meditation, and calm. Deism is used to explain my understanding of the universe. Pantheism could apply as well, but looking at the two models there is a grey line that I skip over constantly. In Deism, you revere the tangible and the empiracle, but you also pay attention to the intangible and intuition and feeling...to a point. In fact, Deism for me is the belief that you must strive for a balance between reason and spirituality in yourself, less you be dominated by one over the other. I like Gnostic Deism for now. Next week we'll see if I feel the same...

John Paul II, The Only Pope I Ever Knew...

2005-04-08T18:39:00.000-06:00

There is debate on whether JPII should be referred to as "the Great" or "the Good" now that he has passed on to the ether. This Pope's reign has certainly been great, whether you agree with his beliefs or not, this is almost inarguable, but the man himself would probably be more comfortable with the term "the Good".

John Paul II, while commanding the audience of most of the worlds leaders at one time or another, had a quiet resilience about him, and a passive demeanor. He lead through quiet reflection and strong resolve. A moniker like "Great" would be pretentious for such a man. But this is just my opinion.

The Pop-star Pedophile

2005-04-08T18:31:00.000-06:00

I have to admit, I am impressed with Jacko's defense. Messeraeu is certainly unloading on this string of witnesses that have come up to allege that Michael took some liberties with the youngn's. If I wasn't so sure he was guilty, I might have to second guess the security gaurds testimony, and also that of the maid. But I am sure he is guilty, and I am sure that the jury is also sure, but time will tell.

It all comes down to this basic question: Why does Michael Jackson think it is "right" to sleep in the same bed with 10, 11, and 12 year olds? He says it is a loving gesture, but there are other ways to show love beyond extending the bounds of societal acceptability.

The Death of the Press

2005-01-05T07:14:00.000-07:00

Perhaps we can look back at our recent history and pinpoint when our press began to die. It certainly wasn't a sudden death but more of a drawn out lingering death. But was it suicide or murder?

Our news media of today is a well oiled machine, dishing out soundbite news for a generation of people who think they all have ADD. Most people tune into the cable news channels, and they tune in not for news, but for info-tainment. The cable news channels job is simple: keep the information flowing, keep people watching, keep the ad money coming in. It is a business in the end, and you can't fault them for finding ways to make more money.

Was money always the name of the game, or was the search for the truth, despite appeasing advertisers, the goal in the past. We have been taught to believe that the power of the press can bring justice to the people, that the freedom of the press is the calling card of any free society. We have memories of Woodward and Bernstein fighting to get the truth and inevitably bringing down a corrupt administration. We hear the stories of the the journalist who accepts prison time for contempt of court because he or she will not divulge sources. We see the Hollywood movie where the jounalist is almost always the hero fighting against corporate or government corruption. We have this wonderful, romantic view of the press, but is it accurate, and more importantly, has it ever been deserved?

The past is done. What is happening now? We have CNN, MSNBC, FOXNews, and the networks on TV. These news entities are owned by big business and these big businesses own much of the products that advertise on the channels. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX are owned by GE, Disney, Viacom, and News Corp respectively, and these companies own newspapers, magazines, movie studios, satelite TV networks, and on and on. This is capitalism untethered and is supposedly good. But should we ever believe that capitalism will take a back seat to the pursuit of the truth. The pursuit of the truth is what we all assume the press is all about, but if the journalist writes a story that is bad for business, will the CEO's really sacrifice share price for something as intangible as the "truth"? I think we all know the answer is no.

The belief for years has been that the front lines of any news agency has been filled with reporters who have been untethered by the influence of their corporate masters, willing to sacrifice their jobs and any profit of the newspaper of news channel for the sake of getting the story accurate and fair. I think this is a romantic view, perpetuated by Hollywood, yes Hollywood, who's owned by the same companies I listed above.

If we want to really pinpoint when the Press died, I believe it is when someone first accepted money from someone else for advertising. How can you present a fair and accurate report if you are beholden to someone else for your existence? You can't.

What we have today is not journalism, and it isn't even yellow journalism. What we have today is Paci-lism: info-tainment to accomplish two goals. 1) to pacify the populace and keep them sedentary and content, and 2) to keep the populace consuming and buying from the corporate machine.

The one hope that true journalism may yet again arise is in the form of the internet. Blogs, unlike mine, have certainly been responsible for many breaks in the news flow. The Dan Rather, memo-gate scandal was a direct result of blog-chatter which filtered up to the Info-tainment arena. Hopefully, bloggers can continue to operate without any direct influence by the corporate machine. It could be a brave new world!

Friday Night Lights

2004-10-11T11:12:00.000-06:00

In one review I heard this movie compared to "Remember the Titans". Do not be confused with this comparison as it is totally wrong. The two movies are entirely different, with the only similarity being that football is the sport that is being played.

Friday Night Lights is more comparible to "Varsity Blues", but a more gritty, real, version of "Varsity Blues". The difference is that there is no clear villian, except maybe the characters own personal demons.

Billy Bob Thornton is very solid in this film, portraying a coach who is straight and up front with his players, finding ways to inspire them while playing politics with the school board members.

The main ingredient this film brings that other football films have not, is the way they filmed the action on the field. Even more that "Any Given Sunday", this movie hits hard with the boys are on the Gridiron. You can almost feel the hits, and are elevated by the action.

This movie will be appreciated by those of us who have played the game in school, but it will also be appreciated by those who are fans of the game. By the end of the movie, you will come to understand that while it is just a game, it is at the same time, so much more.

Memo-Gate, the Truth, and Politics

2004-09-22T12:03:00.000-06:00

As I look over the arguments regarding the CBS News memo controversy, I see a recurring theme: more attention given to the validity of the memos, and no attention to the content of the memos. It makes sense if you are a Bush strategist, as you want to discredit the documents themselves and then no one will care what the memos say. But I have to wonder if anyone, from Karl Rove to Al Franken, actually disputes the content of the memos. But it is true, if the documents were forged, then the content is immaterial. So lets review the arguments regarding the validity of the memos.

Right now, CBS News can no longer vouch for the authenticity of the memos and apologizes for using them in their story. Many a pundit has taken this admission as evidence that the memos were fake, but that is premature. Were the documents forged? Was the text made with a computer and not a 1970's era typewriter? Is Burkett, a man who has long tried to discredit George W. Bush, being honest about not forging the memos? Are the Democrats somehow behind this? Is Rove somehow behind this?

Lots of questions, but unfortunately the answers will not come easily, if ever. The first question I have is, could the documents have been created with a 1970's typewriter or not. This seems to be the biggest reason for doubt regarding the memos. Looking at the first memo for May 4, 1972, http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf , a lot of discussion centers around the "th" in 111th. On the top of the memo, the "th" is normal, but in the body of the document, the "th" is raised, bringing to question whether or not this could be accomplished by a 1970's typewriter. Let's dispell this question right now. Yes, an older IBM typewriter of that period has this capability as well as the ability to compose in Times New Roman and platelets were available to provide the raised "th", so it is within the realm of possibility that Killians typewriter also had this ability. The argument that the document looks like MS Word makes sense, as MS Word was designed to look like type created by a typewriter.

Since the document type cannot be questioned adequately, lets look at Burkett. First, he has bias, in that he is an anti-Bush pundit and has been for years. This does call his credibility into question. In fact, all we have is his assurance that the documents are real.

"Burkett, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, also admits that he deliberately misled the CBS News producer working on the report, giving her a false account of the documents’ origins to protect a promise of confidentiality to the actual source.

Burkett originally said he obtained the documents from another former Guardsman. Now he says he got them from a different source whose connection to the documents and identity CBS News has been unable to verify to this point. Burkett’s interview will be featured in a full report on tonight’s CBS Evening News with Dan Rather."

So, where did they come from? When that question is answered, maybe then can we proceed to determine if the documents are real. If they are, then the content of the memos will simply confirm what many of us have already assumed, that this president who has taken us to war, using National Guardsmen who are doing their duty, couldn't even fulfill the obligation himself. And to add salt to the wound, he shirked his duty even when he was given preferential treatment to get into the National Guard in order to get out of going to war in Veitnam!

If the documents are fake, then we are left with the knowledge that the President was a child of priveledge, who was admitted to the Guard after college to avoid the draft. And so we are left with the same question as before: Is this the kind of man we want to lead us to war.

The Restless Progressive

2004-09-20T22:27:00.000-06:00

We've turned the corner as Kerry is now on the attack. For better or worse, Kerry is now trying to change the momentum and choose the topics that are discussed. His speech today at NYU, and his previous comments last week, are a welcome change to a strategy in July and August that seemed to be playing defense all too much.

Today, Kerry proposed his plan for Iraq, and explained his stance on the decision to go to war. It is amazing, though, how the media continues to take his comments out of context, or maybe they just don't understand. For instance, I am still hearing on t.v., and not just Fox, that Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. This is not accurate. Bush was given the authority to use force against Iraq if the UN inspectors were not allowed to do their job. Force does not equal war. War should have been the last resort, but for this administration it appears to have been the first option.

Kerry attacked bush, and his comments rang true. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/kerry.iraq/index.html
It is about time that we start to hear Kerry take the fight to the incumbent.

Perhaps now we will start to see the "Anybody But Bush" contingent start to say, "Kerry for President".

Suddenly, Al Gore Realizes His Balls Have Dropped

2004-05-26T16:57:00.000-06:00

Recently, at a speech at New York University, Al Gore realized that he indeed has a back bone. I say, too little to late, cardboard boy. But the former VP's comments, while a bit too allegorical (ooh, an unintended pun), were a welcome release from a normally paralytic Demacratic party. Here's the part I like:

"The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorist attacks against the United States," said Gore, Bush's Democratic rival in the 2000 election.

"He planted the seeds of war. He harvested a whirlwind," Gore added. "And now the corrupt tree of a war waged on false premises has brought us the evil fruit of Americans torturing and sexually humiliating prisoners who are helpless in their care."

Wow! Someone outside of a comedy club calling the Prez incompetent. Be still my beating heart. Now, you can say that Gore has found his testosterone again, or perhaps he just doesn't care anymore. This could signal that Al has given up the political game and is just willing to hang it all out. This could also mean that we could expect more comments like this from him in the future.

Now, that is quite a weapon for Kerry to have. A rogue ex-politician with nothing to lose, who has a beef with the current president. Hmmm, if this is the case, things have just gotten a lot more interesting.

The Angel Muffin Speaks

2004-05-24T19:42:00.000-06:00

Every day, I play a special game. I call it Corporate Hell. I wake early in the morning, only to spend a good thirty minutes agonizing over my closet to make sure that I look the part. Then, I climb in to my budget-priced sedan and make the treck to work. Along the way, I watch the bums on the side of the road, who I doubt are really bums and are truly in need - but that is for another discussion. I watch the Yuppy of the New Millennium in his/her over priced SUV - a vehicle that will most likely never see any mud - equipped with the latest gadgets, talking on a cell phone, while looking at their Blackberry and gazing at their reflection in the mirror - again, another discussion to be had. After 30-45 minutes of this fun, I arrive at the gates of Corporate Hell.
I proceed past the gleaming exterior of the building, and through the plush Lobby, into the inner cave of this Hell. I enter the fishbowl-type room where I spend my day, along with four others, playing the Corporate Game. And it is here that the rant truly begins...
I have spent the past 10 years searching for the right career, only to stumble horribly along the way. My first stop was a small private college, which lacked any shred of ethics. This stop led only to a wonderful experience of testifying before a federal grand jury, who was prosecuting my former employer for fraud. This fun lastest for five years after I left that place. My next stop was in retail management, where I learned that an organization comprised of 95% women can get pretty darn catty. Which leads me to my current residence inside the gates of Corporate Hell.
I now spend my days as a middle manager for a Fortune 500 company and each day becomes closer to "Office Space." For those of you who have not seen this little flick that spoofs Corporate America, you are missing out. Three years ago, my employer began the process of restructuring and looking at "what is good for the company." We explored such thrilling topics as efficiency, cost savings and procurement. Millions were spent collaborating with an outside consulting firm, blueprints were drawn up and the new model was born. Under the new structure, every function has its place, and every employee has a specific function. Critical thinking, problem solving and creativity have all but disappeared. In its place, we have forums like Ask the Leadership, where employees are offered an anoymous source to voice their opinions. The responses from high level executives read like a class from Business 101. (We all doubt that the B.S. in their undergraduate degree stands for Bachelor of Science.) Clearly, they paid attention to the section on Blowing Smoke Up Your Employees Ass.
Many of my friends from college are leaving their own Corporate Hell in an attempt to give back to the community. They are returning to school for careers in teaching, nursing and even heading to Haiti to build churches. This leaves me wondering what I am contributing to society. Each day, my hard work and long hours only really benefit the stockholders. Yet, I am finding that organizations outside Corporate America are not safe either.
My mother spent 37 years in the education field, rising from an English teacher to a position created for her at the adminstration level. During her tenure in this position, she was responsible for numerous special projects, after school programs and generated millions of dollars each year in grants. Two years before retirement, the school district began its own restructuring journey. Her position was eliminated, a $20K salary cut followed and she was forced to bump a younger employee out of a position, in order to serve her last few years before she was eligible to retire. A year later, the school district realized they no longer had grant funds flowing in. They had the nerve to ask her to take on additional grant administration duties, in addition to her full-time load at the high school - and with no increase to her salary. I am left to wonder how different education really is from Corporate Hell.
So, how does the rant end, you ask? It is highly unlikely that our generation, and those that follow, will spend 35 years working the same company, as our grandfathers did, and certainly won't be satisfied with a gold-plated watch at retirement. So, we will continue to search for the "right" place to land, and only hope to find it before the Corporate game consumes us.

The Presidential Puppet (from 4/13/04)

2004-05-24T19:41:00.000-06:00

Now, it has been postulated by certain people, that President Bush is somewhat of a puppet, being maneuvered and coached by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rove. This accusation, for most any other president would be unthinkable, but we find that it is not very hard to envision "W" being coached and so forth, by the puppetmasters that helped secure his presidency.

From history, we know that some presidents were indeed puppets also, putting on a good face while the First Lady made the command decisions from the background. Nancy Reagan in the latter part of the Reagen administration and Eleanor Roosevelt in the latter part of the Roosevelt presidency for example. But never has a presidency been controlled by the Presidents Men so obviously as this current administration.

Bush has been president for over three years, and during that time he has conducted 12 press conferences. Both his father and Clinton, over the same time frame, had given over 70 press conferences. Now, you can say that the man is camera shy, or you can say that his handlers do not want him in front of possible scrutiny very often, for fear of what he might say (like mispronouncing a leaders name...again).

Also, no other president has taken as many vacations, or retreats as President Bush. Again, you can say that the man just likes to clear his head, or you can point to the fact that he is taking a vacation during a time that his attention is needed with diplomacy over the Iraq war. From the Center of American Progress, "Instead of going the extra mile to assuage the fears of the international community, President Bush did not personally take the time during the crisis/his vacation to call the leaders of the countries whose citizens were held hostage last week. In fact, the President barely took time off from loafing at his Crawford mansion to deal with real problems, choosing to spend his time appearing on fishing television shows rather than addressing a major world crisis. The result is that global support for the U.S. effort in Iraq has further eroded as security deteriorates. Many allies are now finding it "difficult to resist calls to scale back their involvement or even withdraw." This pulling back unfortunately comes at the same time the U.S. is attempting to build a global force to protect the United Nations in Iraq, a proposal "essential to the fragile political transition because the Bush administration is relying on the United Nations to return to Iraq to help organize elections after the occupation ends on June 30." Without allied support, American troops will be left in harm's way to shoulder the burden."

All I'm asking is, do we want four more years of a puppet presidency? I didn't think so.

What is a Progressive?

2004-05-24T19:40:00.000-06:00

During a debate I was having recently, someone mentioned that I was a progressive, upon which time I simply agreed and countered that I was indeed a progressive. But they mentioned it in a way that would be considered an insult, by also intimating that I was a communist. They backed this allegation up by linking me to the Communist USA web site where, lo' and behold, the word 'progressive' was used more than once. This got me to thinking, "Do I know what a Progressive is?" Perhaps I've been mistaken all this time to believe that a Progressive is simply someone who wants progress. Perhaps I've been a closet communist for all these many years! Egads! But then I remembered my strong love of capitalism and money and all was good again in the world.

But the question still remains: What is a Progressive. Or more to the point, what is a progressive in the eyes of the world at large? Well, the first place to look for a definition is the handy, dandy dictionary, of course. According to Dictionary.com, A Progressive is a person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. No communist allusion here. The Progressive magazine, who has been a voice for Democrats and liberals for much of this century, defines their mission as the following:

The mission of The Progressive is to be a journalistic voice for peace and social justice at home and abroad. The magazine, its affiliates, and its staff steadfastly oppose militarism, the concentration of power in corporate hands, the disenfranchisement of the citizenry, poverty, and prejudice in all its guises. We champion peace, social and economic justice, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, a preserved environment, and a reinvigorated democracy.

Sounds pretty good. Opposing militarism doesn't sound like the communists I know (not that I know any, it's just a figure of speech McCarthy), and the other elements fit the Democratic party pretty well, not Communism so much.

Another definition comes from the Center for American Progress states this:

We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that is “of all the people, by all the people, and for all the people.” We believe in honoring work, building strong communities, fostering effective government and encouraging free and fair markets.

Again, I find it hard to argue with this line of reasoning.

In the end, I am a progressive who is also a capitalist and proud of it. Trying to connect a progressive with communism is nothing less than McCarthy-ism, which I thought we had outgrown.

War Hazing...

2004-05-24T17:14:00.000-06:00

With the actions of our soldiers at Abu Ghraib, Rush Limbaugh joked that the pictures were reminescent of a fraternity hazing stunt, though in trying to make light of the situation, he may have summed up the Lefts opinion of how the Right views the situation: they just don't care.

The administration had possession of the pictures since January, and if 60 Minutes II had not broke the story, you know the admin (read Bush and Rumsfeld and company) would still be sitting on them, content with the knowledge that "no one knows, so I don't know either(plausible deniability)".

I fear the truth of the matter is that our government knew about our treatment of prisoners well before January, but was more than content to allow the abuses to continue. Why not? No one is ever going to find out, and if they do, we have a long chain of command to throw to the fire, starting with the PFC's.

The question that I have is where does the 'Geneva Convention' come into play in all this? From my understanding, the Iraqi prisoners are subject to the Geneva Convention guidelines, which I would think would prohibit this kind of activity. So who was/is in charge?

Needless to say, this is a tremendous black eye for America. We hold ourselves up to so righteous and moral, and then something like this comes up and we are reminded that we are all just human, falling prey to fear and evil just like our everyone else.