The Right Turn Continues...

I came across this via another blog.. I think there's a big, long rant that goes with this, but my mind can't wrap around it right now:

Peterson and the Arts....

I'm not sure what to say..

I've already mentioned that the press can't really be trusted..

So the question is: how can I offer a valid opinion of the Scott Peterson case when I'm *trusting* the press that I've already identified as someone I *can't trust*??

The best illustration I can offer is this:

The photograph vs. the painting..

At least with a photograph one can decide for themselves what the important elements are of the picture..

In a painting, the artist decides for you - what the important element is for you to gravitate towards..

The press *should* be taking photographs and differentiate when they are painting the landscape.. I'm not saying that the press shouldn't be entitled to free speech - but I don't like how the mediums have been blended..

Everyday, there's more paint that ends up on these photographs - in many cases they cover up what may be very important pieces of the picture.. So the portrayal by the press is no more accurate than the artist painting a landscape.. It's a depiction - a representation of what the artist sees, feels, and believes..

But the analogy goes deeper..

I'm a photographer..

I take a lot of pictures..

I can and have selectively chosen vantage points, depths of field, subjects, and nuances that may or may not project what a given landscape may *actually* be.. When I take pictures, I decide what I see, what I feel and what I believe too.. These photographs are an extension of my inner artistry.. Therefore one can't expect that what I'm demonstrating in my pictures can automatically be assumed as an accurate representation, an identical portrayal of what the landscape is..

So if the press has artists and photographers that can selectively pick and choose what is printed - how can we trust that we are hearing, watching and reading everything?? Are you comfortable with a skewed, limited, cropped, edited, revised and otherwise distorted version of accounts??

We can all jump on the bandwagon and accuse Peterson of doing the horrible things to his wife and child.. We can believe that there was absolutely no doubt that anyone BUT Scott could've done this.. We can choose to accept the press' account, portrayal, and canvas as gospel of the proceedings.....

But when you can identify the fundamental flaw in journalism today, one seriously has to question what is the rest of the story.. If I want to believe that Scott is innocent - all I have to do is find the appropriate news organization that will report a favorable outcome according to how I believe.. If I want to believe that Scott is guilty - then I'll do the exact same thing; finding those news stories that portray him the way I'm most comfortable with..

Is this what journalism should be?? A selective choice to decide which museum, which art gallery, which artist you choose to put your faith behind??

When I read news accounts online - I sometimes Google it to see how the news fares against other news/reporting organizations.. An interesting portrayal of this bias recently came out of the whole Rumsfeld Q&A.. There is a host of multiple accounts, many different sets of canvases, paints and brushes used to portray, to spin, to otherwise distort what happened..

Journalists focused on the soldiers..
Journalists focused on the embedded reporter..
Journalists focused on Rumsfeld and the administration..
Journalists focused on the accusation of the ill-equipped vehicles..

Different slants
Different canvases
Different brushes..

Different views
Different voices
Different beliefs..


So has anyone asked the real question:
Exactly *why* should anyone trust what is reported anymore??

The Press, the bombshell and the spin....

What happened??

The news of the week centered around the press conference where Rumsfeld was asked about the failing armor on our fighting vehicles.. Rumsfeld stammered, and otherwise came up with some bizarre quotes:

"As you know, you go to war with the army you have,
not the army you might want or wish to have at a later
time..."

Ouch..

"The goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles
as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of
armor appropriate for the troops."

Well that's lovely considering we're over 2 YEARS into this conflict.....

*sighs*

But the focus has shifted from the issue to the circumstances surrounding the reporter that apparently coached the Reservist to ask Rumsfeld the question to begin with....

Whoa.. Wait a second.. Recognize the ploy?? Steer away from the issue, blame others, focus on something else.. Don't remember, don't recognize this??

-Abu Ghraib prison scandal: allegations that the white house knew only to be shifted that Saddam treated his own people worse...

-The Lack of WMD found in Iraq: but we were really there to free the Iraqi people from a madman...

-We will find Osama Bin Laden: now he's no concern..

-Bush condemns a 9/11 investigation because it would compromise national security: now we're overhauling the system......

Spin .... is such a lovely thing..

But when the embedded reporter coaches a soldier on how to raise a seemingly legitimate concern about how some of the vehicles in Iraq are not properly equipped -- the Spin works again ... this time it was all the ploy of a reporter who obviously has disdain against this administration..

Or what about this possible spin: the major press doesn't want to report on things that may sever the ties and access within certain facets of the administration..

Or what about this one: the major news networks are otherwise owned by heavily weighted conservative corporations which would conflict with their agenda..

Or this one: the press is afraid of Karl Rove and what it may mean to them in the long run...

Basically it comes down to that the press has become a "do-gooder" for this administration.. That whatever fear of God got instilled with the powers that be - has made every paper, every news organization -- think twice before posting anything that would remotely be considered hostile or controversial with the government..

So why??

Why does the media do a full-court press on the love affair of Clinton, but loft softball pitches to a Bush Administration that has continues to run a policy that leaves us as a nation - exposed..

Was there some sort of agreement made with the media and the administration?? Was there a backdoor policy made as a result of 9/11 and the Patriot Act??

I keep wondering if there is *something* out there that is much bigger and invisible to the American people.. I state that based on the fact that the press has changed significantly since 9/11.. The tough questions that have been the focal point of every administration for at least the last 40 years has been hushed.. The accountability, the deeper insight, a more rational basis of what actually happened has been replaced with some distorted/biased view of the world..

Conservative pundits report that the playing field is being evened out.. That there is an equality with news organizations like Fox, Limbaugh and Hannity because they are filling out the other part of the equation.. I get that.. I support that in a way because everyone should be entitled to an opinion.. However.. Those lines have been skewed so severely between opinion and news - they are now interchangeable..

Instead of reporting a story - they are commenting the story.. There is a concerted effort to report *some* facts and not others.. There's a concerted effort to report *some* stories and not others.. The creedo "fair and balanced" should not be weighed when reporting a story.. What happened to "true, unbiased and reporting thoroughly??"

Why is it that the focus is on the reporter - who knew the only way to report the story was to have it come from a soldier themselves?? Why is it that the "stinger" question is being focused on, yet the armor issue has been set aside?? Why is it that this is something that has been reported before - several times in fact - and gone relatively unnoticed by the major networks and press organizations -- that is until a soldier stood up and asked the question that no member of the press dared to..

Why??

What happened??

Bumper Sticker

Borrowed from a friend:

"FRODO FAILED!! BUSH HAS THE RING!!"

In the news

Tonight's headlines only ratching things up for another fun-filled administration:

Musharraf Says Bin Laden Trail Has Gone Cold.. As if this was a shocker.. As if this needed to bear any more repeating: how is it that we ignore this man?? Especially after he masterminded the attacks of 9/11?? Doesn't it stand to reason that the longer he's alive - the more likely we're going to have another attack??

Let's not forget how we captured Saddam Hussein: a tip.. Someone ratted on him.. Whether or not the administration wants to claim that Saddam was captured as a result of "winning the intelligence" war - can obviously be debated.. If we are supposed to be the single most powerful nation in the world - we better start acting like it.. "Get the man, George - quit dickin' around.."

Insurgents Kill 23 Iraqis Countrywide.. In a similar story over 50k of the Iraq police force has refused to come to work.. Imagine that.. Go to work, get your head blown off - hey - where do I sign up?? Elections?? What good is THAT going to be?? National Iraqi Guard?? Excuse me - but there seems to be a little bit of a security issue when you have a 150k Americanized, high tech, able to "blow-your-ass-through-concrete" military and you STILL can't seem to have enough to secure the "safest" part of Iraq called the "Green Zone.."

The resulting number of troops necessary to stabilize Iraq will never be enough because the people of Iraq have some really grave concerns at the establishment of their government.. All the meanwhile Rummy is staying put.. Now that should bring a smile to a lot of people's faces!!

The "Dollar [is] Poised for Longest Weekly Losing Run in a Year".. Great.. No end to the Iraqi war *and* our economy continues to suffer.. "Workers' average hourly earning rose 0.1 percent or 1 cent, to $15.83 after a 4-cent gain in October." While oil prices have risen 30% in the last year.. I guess it's time to start counting all of those pennies so we can drive those lovely SUV's around.. Speaking of SUV's -- GM is laying off the remaining 950 production workers in Linden, New Jersey that was making SUV vehicles.. Michael Moore's Roger & Me comes to mind right about now..

Okay, okay -- at least the Republicans are going to save the country and make things run smoother from here on out, right?? Oops, guess not.. It appears that the Intelligence Bill is unable to pass the house.. "Prominent lawmakers from both parties agree that the bill's passage is likely to depend on how much President Bush pressures Republicans to force a final House vote on the bill today or tomorrow, before lawmakers leave Washington for the year.." Huh?? Bush needs to lean on REPUBLICANS?? *gasps* What about all of this "we have the nation safely under control" attitude that we kept hearing about??

Hell - there are even the DEMOCRATS in support of the bill!!!! "...Nancy Pelosi of California, said she had pledged to Mr. Hastert that the bill would have significant support from her members if he allowed the vote.."

*grins*

But later in the article, it's apparent that Rumsfeld "insist" they aren't trying to block the bill because it may interfere with the military chain of command.......

.... but Rumsfeld is staying, Bush wants the legislation signed, we're at war ..... but we have concerns about the chain of command..

Okay - exactly WHO is running the country - can we PLEASE have an answer??

"Do you smell something burning??"

It's destined to become a barn-burning experience for the Bush administration.. As the number of resignations continue to grow, I'm left wondering exactly what elements are at power on Pennsylvania Ave.. I'm less inclined to believe the position that these folks are leaving their high administration posts to pursue other "personal" ventures..

I find that hard to believe because in the case of Colin Powell - he served his country in more ways that many of us ever will.. And to leave when the world is in such chaos is nothing short of mind-numbing..

"What would possess you to do something like this, Colin," my mind rages..

Could it be that they were not doing their best possible effort in these positions because the Bush/Cheney philosophy reigns for everyone - regardless of who you are, what ideas you may have, or however your policy may dramatically change the complexion of the world for the better??

Could it be that Bush/Cheney merely need a "Yes" stamp in the coat pocket of the 15 administration positions??

Could it be that they recognize the dangers of affiliating themselves with this administration any further due to the lack of responsibility with regards to the WMD claims and subsequent attack on Iraqi soil??

Could it be that these "in the know" people knew enough, and had enough sense to leave when they could??

Could it be that most of these folks didn't honestly believe he would be re-elected the second time around..

This exodus is rather peculiar and strange.. I do not recall a time when so many people exited from their posts; especially at a time of "war" and desperate times.. That's what bugs me the most about Powell's departure.. Obviously he did well during the Gulf War - widely decorated, and well-considered to be a man of integrity and common sense..

His departure signaled something much deeper in this administration than any leak could've.. A general just doesn't up and quit their post to spend more time with their family or to give speeches at universities.. Especially if they feel they are needed in times of hardship, war, and disparity.. It seems so uncharacteristic, but I'll fully admit that I don't know him from Adam - I'm just going by what I see, read and hear.. (again consider the source I ask myself...)

But I may understand his timing more than his convictions.. Clearly it makes the most sense to finish out the term rather than jumping ship in the middle of the Atlantic.. And now that the USS Bush is heading full steam towards Iran ...... I can't really seem to blame Colin for doing what he did..

I'm just amazed at the number of people leaving the administration.. Key positions.. (No, I don't really care that the duct tape and plastic sheeting guy decided to leave -- in fact that could actually be seen as a blessing of sorts...) But this type of exodus has been compared as the rats attempting to leave a sinking ship because they know what's looming on the horizon.. Considering their level of access.. Considering their knowledge and experiences, I'm carefully watching this with even more caution than I did before..

I will only add this: even my fantasy football team hasn't gone under *this* many changes in one week!!!

Screaming Deafness

Okay - so the folks were over this past weekend.. We all gathered around and watched Fahrenheit 9/11.. I half-way anticipated that there would be some sort of conflict afterwards.. What I didn't expect is the phenomenon better known as "screaming deafness" or "glaring blindness.."

So once the movie had concluded my dad piped up and said "now you know we've had these discussions before about history and how it's really impossible to know what was going on unless you were there personally...." Fine.. I can accept that to a point.. But we have an instance where we actually show Bush, his cabinet, and all of the politicians who construct the world we live in --- on TV shows, doing interviews, making jokes, statements or quips while thousands of people have been sent overseas knowing that they may end up dying as a result of the service for their country..

So to say that "we don't know what really happened" was completely mindboggling to me.. It's as though we can watch the same event, record it, preserve it, and still be considered a "perspective of the truth.." Huh?? So if I get it right: no matter if what I think is the truth, even if I hear it from their mouth I can assume it's not true.......

hmm..

Because it's something you can discern from what was actually said.. It's something that anyone can go and verify if they choose to.. It's something that could be debated as long as there was a clear, logical explanation exchange..

No..

It's not quite that simple..

Instead, the folks were entrenched in their beliefs.. The hour and forty five minutes that were spent watching the movie would've better been served watching paint flake off the wall.. It wasn't as though I was expecting them to change their opinion of Bush or reach some sort of epiphany of what happened before, during and after 9/11.. I guess I was hoping at the very least to stir a moment of pause..

Um.. That didn't happen..

What happened though clearly illustrated the idea that the blinders are put on some people and regardless of how much you smack them with a 2x4 - they simply will not get it.. It illustrated that the more hostility the left liberal machine generates it clearly polarized families and people across the nation..

It illustrated that even though things brought out in the movie which have been documented, confirmed and otherwise verified - the nation is more concerned with the fact that "Gore wouldn't have done any better" or "Kerry would only lead us the wrong direction.." Arguments like this only fuel the ineptitude of some folks who want to fly blindly on faith without substance or fact..

Indeed my folks are flying blindly and remain steadfast in support of Bush despite the facts, statements, interviews, and supporting documentation used to verify the numerous premises the movie points out.. To them, the movie is clearly a work of fiction, a false-hood, a dream, a spinner, a politically motivated piece of propaganda without truth, without substance and contrived to be nothing more than a lie..

Christopher recently left the comment:

Re Moore: We have to stop talking at them, and start talking with them. There is no dialog. We are all talking so loud and in such an intense way that the people we want to convince just shut down.

Overload.

Step back. Take a deep breath. Ask them what direction they want our country to go in.



The problem arises when one attempt to establish dialog in the face of blindness or have the factual basis of truth fall upon deaf ears.. Even if Moore's movie further polarized the population the documentary was founded on the basis of verifiable fact.. If we're grown as a society that only wants rose-colored news reports..

It's not a simple issue of dialog..

It's a matter of grasping for a reality-check.. When the masses of people are controlled by a select conglomerate of media outlets - who can manhandle, subvert and otherwise emasculate the basis of fact and truth to paint whatever picture those few in control dictate ....

.... what does that say for us as a society???

What happened to questioning authority??

What happened to verifying the facts or presenting more than just one biased side of a story??

What happened to social responsibility when we avoid the truth only to replace it with some mangled version of an event??

My folks are an excellent barometer of what's happening out there.. They claim not to be affiliated with any single party.. They don't like Bush, but they hated Kerry more.. They didn't vote and if my dad had his way, there would be an option in the voting booth for "none of the above.." They are sponges for mainstream media and television and depict what these resources have done.. They read the newspaper, do not have access to the internet and watch TV news programs up the wazoo.. They are the product of people subjected to the rose-colored tint in their daily paper, on their television set, on their radio.. They are products of media subversion.. They are products of the slant and bias which has otherwise skewed their perception of truth and reality..

What will history say of the legacy of George Dubya Bush and his Presidency?? How will history remember him?? Am I the victim of deceit with the slander and propaganda of Michael Moore?? Or am I a vigilant crusader who is correct in the facts spelled out in the documentary, the corresponding investigations, and ultimate resolution to this incredibly life-altering change in American History??

Will I find out in my life time??

Does the fight matter or am I supposed to put on the rose-colored glass and fall in line with the masses??

September 8th, 2006

I was on snopes.com the other day -- pulled up some interesting factoids and myths about 9/11.. One of them was the rumor that the Madrid Train bombings happened exactly 911 days from 9/11.. It turns out that March 11th, 2004 is exactly 911 days from September 11th, 2001..

So, I thought: "hm, when would the next 911 days be after March 11th??"



That date is September 8th, 2006..


Okay, so being a numbers guy I sometimes am (okay, I cheated and used this calculator to figure it out...) I decided to go back into history, during or around the time of March 15th, 1999..

Some interesting tidbits of March 15th, 1999:

The Taliban and Afghan groups announce a "lasting peace.."

Bush announces an exploratory committee into his Presidential ambitions..


Time Magazine already considers Bush to be the "man to beat" in 2000...


But then there was this little nugget that made me shift around in my chair this morning.. In the Congressional Report: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 On page 168 of the text (page 220 of the pdf file) states: "In a written response, the FBI took issue with the contention that the FBI was not treating Al-Qa'ida as a serious threat in San Diego, citing an internal document dated March 15, 1999 which identified: Usama Bin Ladin as the number one priority of the US Intelligence Community."

Want to go back further?? 911 days previously: September 15, 1996.. "On September 15, 1999, former US Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman appeared at the National Press Club in Washington DC to present "New World Coming" the first of three reports on the outlook for US national security during the next quarter century."

On that same day the Downing Report was released was given to President Clinton and Congress regarding the Protection of US Forces Deployed Abroad in lieu of the attack of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.. (The USS Cole was later attacked October 12, 2000..)

I realize that virtually every fact, number, instance can be interpreted any number of different ways.. I further realize it all could be a matter of incredible coincidence..

I just find it interesting..

It's Begun....

The Republicans have officially taken control of the country...

Odds -n- Ends

The Monday Night Football fiasco: I am so sick of hearing about who's boob or ass is showing up on MINIFY or whatever other football event.. Along with the Saving Private Ryan debate - the MINIFY pre-game coverage (or maybe the lack thereof *grins*) is bringing the whole premise of what the role of the FCC should be..

But what happened in the Indiana Pacers/Detroit Pistons game this week ranks up there with the real "class acts" of sports.. The 5-minute melee that led to four permanent suspensions demonstrated that regardless of whatever decisions the FCC imposes on the media -- the REALITY of the world still comes into our living rooms.. Even if you missed the fight (as we did), ISBN continues to cover it, showing replay after replay, Fox Sports doing the same thing ...... and yet I'm sure the FCC isn't going to step in..

What gives??

The Pacers/Pistons game illustrates (according to the FCC) that depictions are inappropriate, but showing a 5-minute riot is somehow acceptable.. The whole thing is ridiculous to begin with because if we're going to start censoring that which you can or can't say, show or present - then why not call it what it is: a State-Controlled media outlet like what they have in Russia, China and Cuba..

I personally don't care if it's nudity, language or violence.. It doesn't bother me -- but if it bothers a family change the channel or GET RID OF THE TELEVISION SET!!! Once again we're inviting, no we're begging, not asking, we're otherwise telling the government how to raise our families and to safely govern the airwaves so that we don't fall into some morality abyss!!

It's ridiculous considering the state of the world today, the daily violence in Iraq and other places overseas.. The fear of the Iranians getting Uranium, North Korea's nuclear project and oh yeah, the war on terrorism.. Should we filter all of this crap out too because it's too violent, too suggestive and morally corrupting our children?? What about the hate filled airwaves of both sides of the microphone.. Is this how you want your children to be??

Powell: Christopher asked if I was supporting the recently departed Colin Powell.. In a short answer: if the choice was between him and Bush -- Powell wins everytime.. Does he win over Kerry though if the choice was offered?? I can't really answer that not knowing where he comes out on certain issues.. Clearly there was disagreement between Bush and Powell as it pertains to foreign policy, but what I do not know is what those differences were..

Would I like Powell to be a bit more liberal?? Surely!! If he ran in 2008, would I vote for him?? I can't rule him out like I would other candidates.. (apologies for the non-answer...) ;)

Condoleeza: I've heard from a lot of Op Ed folks lately that say that Condy is thought of as being more of a "yes girl" that Bush wanted at the helm of the Secretary of State.. If she is in fact a "yes girl" then why didn't Bush just appoint himself and save the paperwork?? Oh wait - that would call upon him to give up some of his vacation time at the ranch -- nevermind..

Michael Moore's 9/11 1/2 project: I'm concerned to be honest.. Maybe concerned is the wrong word.. I really felt that his first installment would wake up America to what Dubya was doing.. From what a lot of people are saying now - he did more harm than good.. Even though Bush can't run again in 2008, I'm asking the larger question of whether or not another Michael Moore project will only setback the liberal machine more than it has already..

Election depression & analysis

I had election depression big time..

I didn't realize how diverse the populous was regarding the election.. Moreover, I was almost certain that there was a more significant segment of the populous that wanted a change in the big seat.. I'll admit it: I was wrong..

It's not about the "black boxes" or charges of voter irregularity.. We had enough of that in 2000.. And let's face it, the margin this time around was a lot greater than in 2000.. I've already cited my own conspiracy theories when it comes to the election of 2004, so there's not much else to report here.. Bottom line: the Democrats got their butt kicked and we're not the "majority" as a lot of people would like to think we are.. We do live in a country divided and that's a lot tougher to take than accepting the fact that "Bush stole another one.."

So, we have Bush for another 4 years.. It's time to roll up the sleeves and batton down the hatches because it looks like stormy seas coming up.. Dubya's cleaning house -- or rather everyone is jumping off the ship while it's still at port.. Regardless, it's been an interesting couple of weeks.. I expected Ashcroft to resign, but Powell was a little surprising.. I say that knowing that there was a significant amount of strife between them - but Powell gave Bush's foreign policy creedence and strength.. It's not that I believe Condoleeza will do a worse job than Colin, but it's hard when you're a visible General in a military campaign who is very easy to notice and recognize..

One thought I had about Powell: 2008..

It would be difficult if not impossible for him to run in a Presidental election if he were still Secretary of State.. The time between now and 2008 could be spent with family, friends and strategists as they conceive a plan to keep control of the White House once Dubya's out..

Of course the other half of my mind is saying that there were fundamental differences in how to conduct their foreign policy.. Rice seems much more obliged to give "Yes, Sir" type of responses when Powell seems more to be of the type who will go: "I think we need to discuss this further, Sir.." Of course the perception is that once Bush makes up his mind, it's all overwith..

Hence the differences of belief..

I liked Colin, even though I realize he's conservative minded - he has a statesman-way about him.. He is strong, compassionate and intelligent..

And let's face it: we need that and more at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.....

Michael Moore is making a sequel

Michael Moore apparently intends to keep the heat on...

One thing that I'm a little concerned about is how confident Weinstein and Moore are that the proposed Fahrenheit 9/11-1/2 will become another serious competitor for an Academy Award..

Not to sound presumptuous; but that sounds very presumptuous...

I do however, credit the man for keeping this administration's feet to the fire and respect that, support that and will say that it's again - what the nation needs..

London is having a bit too much fun....

(from the Register) The "Evening Standard" reports that Total Film magazine awarded Villain of the Year to......



not Dr. Octopus from SpiderMan 2.....




not Elle Driver from Kill Bill......




not even Gollum from Lord of the Rings trilogy.........




Even LeatherFace from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was no match for.............







Ladies and gentlemen .... this year's Villain of the Year goes to .........



...




...




...




...




...GEORGE W. BUSH in his scary portrayal YET AS President of the United States in Fahrenheit 9/11!!!!!



*woot* *woooo*

Prime Example....

The FCC is unwilling to grant temporary waivers to television stations who want to show the epic: Saving Private Ryan because the movie uses the "F word" among other obscenities.. Stations can be fined in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars should someone come and complain..

ABC wants to put SPR out unedited for everyone, much like how someone put Schindler's List on one of the alphabet channels recently.. I personally don't have a problem with it because how all of this is used in the film is REAL (imagine that..) If I'm being shot at by a sniper at 300 yards, I doubt I'm going to say "darn.." No, I'm going to be cussing my ass off because I simply don't like playing the target game at carnivals with LIVE AMMUNITION!!!!

Now - anyone who knows what SPR is about knows that it's a very strong, powerful film that many argue comes as close as one can to accurately portray the landing at Normandy; the decisive military battle that showed the first active military initiative by the American government in World War II..

And -- Thursday, today -- is Veteran's Day.. Seems only fitting to provide some sort of tribute in the form of realism for those that have fought in our wars so that we can understand what sacrifice really is.. If we're going to start sugar-coating history as this administration is doing in Iraq and around the world - then what basis and foundation are we laying for us in 4 years?? We can't be stuck with rose-colored glasses on our heads when the *REALITY* says that things aren't always going to be "Leave it to Beaver.."

Now I noticed something rather strange.. The stations in question that are pulling the plug on Steven Spielberg's movie are almost all red states: Iowa, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, and only one semi-blue state of New Hampshire.. I say it's strange because these states showed overwhelming support of our President in Iraq and yet - there's a rather strange departure if the F-bomb were ever to be used.. Exactly how preposterous is this?? Does the FCC really believe that our troops in Iraq are saying "darn," "mother-trucker" and "shoot??"

Now, I realize that the administration doesn't want to start to pick what may or may not be appropriate -- after all this administration is rock solid when it comes to consistency..... *rolls eyes*

So here's my rant for the day: the FCC should forget about it.. I don't care if Janet Jackson's boob comes popping out, or whether Howard Stern is having sex on the air.. I simply don't believe in govermental controls over what can and can't be shown.. Does the FCC really think that a 14 year old can't try and find a way in to see Saving Private Ryan in a movie theater if they really want to?? They have, and they will.. (Unless the FCC is actually considering what movies should or shouldn't be shown on our theaters.. *shudders*)

So once again it comes back down to the parents.. Why parents don't have the control to turn the channel, educate their sons and daughters, and otherwise BE PARENTS to them.. Reality is a good thing once in awhile.. I'm appalled that we're allowing the government to basically raise our children in a nice, sterile environment that maybe suitable for the posh country clubs of Maryland, but really don't have the same meaning in South Central..

Exactly when does the FCC think we should "educate" the children of the nation that "sometimes people say bad things, but that's only because they are being shot at or otherwise under great duress??" Why does the FCC care so greatly?? FUCK is a word that defines this generation and many others; as it is a colorful metaphor at its worst, aptly defined as: "Used in the imperative as a signal of angry dismissal.." That's why they make a big deal of it on HBO - because they can use the word while other cable outlets can't..

It's ironic that for $10.99 a month, one can hear the word fuck and yet for only $3.99 one can order an adult pay per view and see it in action.. :)

I digress..

Are we protecting children because we want to preserve some level of innocence and purity for as long as we can; because ultimately every parent knows it's impossible to keep children in glass jars on a shelf forever........

Or is the government afraid that if children have a voice, a conscience, an otherwise barometer in the world - that they will become liberals because they are allowed to see the violence, react to it, and possibly try and do something about it??

Fahrenheit 9/11 is propaganda??

Think again, people..


Edited post script From the parentstv.com website: "Context is everything. We agreed with the FCC on its ruling that the airing of Schindler's List on television was not indecent and we feel that Saving Private Ryan is in the same category. In both films, the content is not meant to shock, nor is it gratuitous. We applaud ABC for letting viewers know ahead of time about the graphic nature of the film and that the film would be uncut. Saving Private Ryan airs tonight at 8:00pm EST. It is rated TV-MA.

ahem..

Who is going to decide the context of things?? Considering the Janet Jackson thing was accidental, what is the context of that?? Why is there an apparent selective standard??

Bush doesn't look happy....

When you look at his face, it's almost as though "why did I pick you" comes to mind....

or

"Don't make me look bad!!"

or

"Don't I have to be somewhere else??"

or

"This is how you wave to all the fine people...


How does one feel when the Boss doesn't exactly seem thrilled to have hired you for a very important position in his administration??

Being galvanized...

It's the second time I heard the same comment within the span of an hour tonight:

"The premise being that the likes of Bill Maher, Michael Moore, myself and others actually facilitated the success and re-election for George Bush.. That somehow we galvanized the 59 million who voted red this time because our viewpoints, opinions and actions caused a divisive wedge between Republicans and Democrats in the 2004 election.."

That struck me the second time I heard it because the question I ask myself is whether or not we may actually did galvanize the nation to one extreme or the other.. If the suggestion is being made that Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Myself, Susan Sarrandon, Darby, or anyone else who has a blog or offered an opinion, a viewpoint - somehow contributed to making people make a choice this election; then okay, I guess we did..

But I cringe everytime I think about why people voted the way they did.. If in fact Moore, Maher, et. al. galvanized the 59 million - what specifically galvanized them?? Kerry's war record?? The fact he "flip flops" like any other politician out of water?? Was it Theresa?? Guns?? Iraq?? The Economy?? What issue(s) galvanized 59 million people to vote for Bush??

And when start to think about why people vote to begin with, I cringe.. When I hear stories about how churches told their congregation to vote for Kerry meant that he was going to legalize gay/lesbian weddings.. Aside from the fact that their belief is false, it caused many folks to rise up and say "no to Kerry because he wants to legalize gay/lesbian marriages.."

If that was their singular issue.. If it's the only reason why they voted for Kerry, then I feel sad for those people.. This is an election that had so many different facets, so many different issues, so many different opinions in terms of what the complexion of the nation was going to be like -- and to have it hinge on a falsified lie to send the masses to the polls to preserve a sense of moral value is stupid..

When Bush won in 2000, I wasn't happy about it, but he made a lot of statements during that election that was going to have a profound impact in life in America.. He was right - there is a profound impact to be found, but I can't say that it was a very favorable one for the nation or the world.. No one can deny that the events of 9/11 changed everything.. And no one can say what, if any difference would've happened if Gore would've been President..

What I don't know, I can't change, so therefore it's fruitless to consider "What would've Gore done differently??" Move ahead please..

While I didn't agree with Bush's policies, the one major thing that caused me to forever disavow this President was: (no big surprise) Iraq.. There are countless reasons why the Iraq approach was not a good idea.. Once the WMD were never found, the ongoing instability issues throughout the reason, and this very disturbing isolationism that comforts this administration were the major preliminary reasons why I could no longer even consider Bush to be even in the running for 2004.. My blog aptly chronicles all of the reasons as they appeared..

So in my search for the perfect candidate for 2004, the only viable options I could pick from came from the Democrat party.. Keep in mind that while I can say that I'm liberal - I'll still vote for who I think is the best person.. When I began looking at the various democratic candidates, I tried to look at the totality of the person.. I thought Dean was a little too animate in his delivery.. I was bored with Libermann, I thought Kerry could drink more of Dean's coffee to liven him up, I believed General Clark was too focused in specific areas, I liked Edwards because I thought on a totality level - he fit the ideals that I thought were important for the nation as a whole.. He became my horse of sorts..

There wasn't a singular issue that I was rooted on.. Basing the election of a candidate solely based on a platform is completely unrealistic in my opinion because as time goes on, a candidate's platform shifts, moves, takes on water, sinks, swims, and otherwise changes in the 4 years they're in office.. A platform merely serves a purpose of outlining their ideological compass direction in what they want to do for you..

So when I voted this past week, I voted for what I thought was right for America.. Obviously 59 million other people disagreed with that assertion.. But when the results were coming in, I was amazed and in disbelief..

I wondered how 59 million people voted for a candidate whose track record included: not getting the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, going into Iraq on false information, and unable to provide a provable link between 9/11, Al Queda and Iraq..

Moreover, I cannot understand how people can walk out of a polling booth and say that they believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that he has WMD when it has been proven otherwise.. What's even more puzzling is how if majority of voters felt that Bush represented a higher sense of moral values than Kerry, I urge the following be recited:

* He is Pro-life, yet he's in favor of the death penalty.
* His tax-breaks for the upper 1% was exceedingly more than the $600 tax refund most families got a couple of years ago.. So he hasn't done much in the way of helping the poor - which is a traditional moral Christian value.
* In addition to the tax breaks he's supported and otherwise done nothing to assist American families whose jobs have gone overseas in the form of outsourcing.
* He is liberating a country that from all indications did not want to be liberated at all. We can't compare our revolution by that which is happening in Iraq - apples and oranges.
* His keen sense of moral values otherwise dismisses how over 1,100 of our troops have been killed along with the 14,000 dead Iraqi citizens. If we blame Bin Laden of being a mass murderer of 2,900 people - what does this make our moral value leader, President Bush??
* Bush's views on gays and lesbians only further promote the moral values of those who are less tolerant and otherwise hateful towards gays and lesbians. 11 states now lead the ban on same sex marriages or civil unions. This ranks in the same moral value system that once believed that slavery was a "God-given right.."
* Then there's the moral value of trying to instill a democracy in an dissolved dictatorship. Moreover, there are those that believe that democracy and Islam simply cannot mix. So is it a higher moral value to impose one's belief system on another??

So I hesitate to believe the premise that Bush's moral values are somehow a good selling point.. Not that any politician alive has values worth a hill of beans, but still..

So yeah, I'm disappointed.. I'm disheartened.. and I'm outnumbered by 59 million people that feel that Bush was right.. I don't agree.. I don't like it.. But the fight has to continue..

Yes, it is a fight..

I'd like to heal..
I'd like to reconcile..
I'd like to say "Okay, I'll support you Mr. President.."

But I can't.. Not when the olive branches are full of thorns.. Not when the Republicans are partying and when the President believes he finally has a mandate..

Guess what folks - from day one, 2000 - Bush ALWAYS believed he had a mandate.. He's going to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants.. This hasn't changed, but it makes him feel easier when he sleeps in his jammies.. It makes him be able to say that he has the mandate of the people, where as before the floundering was excused away for one reason or another..

Mandate will now become his new explanation and excuse for the things he does.. 59 million people helped him secure it..

... and for those that support Bush's moral values, I hope you rest easier knowing that 14,000 innocent civilians died for weapons that did not exist or for a non-existent connection between a leader and the attack on our soil all the meanwhile the one true leader remains free and dedicated in his pursuit to tarnish our world-wide respectability ...

... at least you don't have to worry about gays and lesbians having rights; afterall, that's more terrifying than someone who committed the murder of 2,900 American citizens in 2001 ...

Real smooth, America..

Real smooth..

The day(s) after....

Oh man.. What an .... Interesting situation this past Tuesday.. I am also in a little bit of disbelief this morning.. No one likes their horse coming in second - in a two horse contest, but we'll have to try and make do with what we have, ya' know??

I don't have to describe how I'm feeling this morning, because any other Democrat or Liberal probably feels the same way.. And while we can't really change how people felt on November 1st, we're living in reality November 4th: we have the same President as we have had for the last 4 years.. Yes, that stirs a lot of emotions inside and while I'm trying to process exactly what happened..

While I'm going to avoid much of the conspiracy talk that I've been hearing from Air America and other places, I'm finding some oddities about what the Democrats have been thinking since earlier in the year.. I won't say that I've come to any short conclusion, but I will say that unlike the 2000 election, Bush didn't steal this one.. Furthermore, I believe that it was the DNC themselves that crippled the election for John Kerry..

I found an interesting plea this morning while surfing around (thanks to Christopher who had it in his blog: Get Terry out, Howard Dean in..

What struck me about this article is the fact that there was a LOT of behind-the-scenes action throughout the democrat primaries.. Howard Dean garnered so much support - that was something that baffled me the most: why wasn't he the leading candidate for the Presidency??

While I want to blame the Democrats in general for what happened, I think the list of people to blame is much shorter than that.. Namely starting off with McAuliffe and working your way down the ladder after that..

I've long since maintained that Kerry was not the best choice for the Democrats.. What is troubling to ponder is whether or not Kerry was destined to go this far or do as well as he did.. When one looks at how the Kerry campaign was run, they didn't go out of their way to lambaste Bush as much as what Karl Rove was doing to the democrat hopeful.. If you take a look at the attacks that were coming at Kerry - there was virtually none that were being slung back..

I kept begging Kerry "c'mon boy, get in there!!"

Now one of two things happened.. 1.) The press disavowed anything coming from Kerry or 2.) Kerry's staff floundered in the wake of what Karl Rove's machine was doing.. Bottom line, it made Kerry look weak.. And it's quite possible that we were seeing the true Kerry - however, after watching Diary of a Political Tourist I think I got a glimpse into how Kerry actually is.. The press portrayed him as a stiff, starch shirt that basically drums out the same speech over and over..

Yet when you watch the HBO documentary, especially in the end, I saw a man who really does have warmth, compassion, and the type of statesman that could carry himself.. At that point, I knew that Kerry would do okay..

Except he didn't.. His campaign was focused on the message and ignored the mud-slinging that was going on.. Kerry's approach was mild more than anything.. Finally - towards the end - Kerry started attacking the President more (or at least that was what was being reported in the press..)

Which brings up an interesting point: the press wants to sell newspapers, commercial spots, etc.. It's in their ADVANTAGE to make this as close a race as possible - more subscriptions, more viewing, etc.. Were we victims of a press that was trying to enhance their bottom line, more than reporting accurately and decisively?? Is this why Bush was never challenged on his views and the inepititude his exhibits anytime anyone asks him a question when his "i-pod transceiver" isn't working??

I digress..

Back to Kerry, the DNC and the election.....

Which brings me back to the question: "Why Kerry??" With the initial surge of Howard Dean in the early going, it only seemed realistic that his base was one of the stronger ones out there.. This fact is well documented and observed across the spectrum.. But then some of the wheels came off and the "oo-yeah" screaming chant seemed to derail Dean once and for all.. C'mon, Bush forgets Poland and is reading "My Pet Goat"; what's worse?? No.. Just because you have one excited little utterance shouldn't prevent you from running in a major Presidential race.. But what happened?? Wasn't the DNC interested in getting back the Presidency?? Why was all of this floundering going on??

Maybe there are great powers at the helm of the DNC which allowed this to happen.. Let's think back to the Clinton years.. It's well-documented that the elections in 1992 stirred up the DNC.. The inner workings run by McAuliffe, the Clintons and others were well documented.. McAuliffe would eventually become the DNC chair and the Clintons remained in the picture - even though they are in New York..

Afterall, there's been a great deal of talk in the early part of 2004 suggested that Hillary Clinton was thinking about running for the Presidency.. She opted not to this time and yet she seems poised to jump at the possibility of 2008.. What scared her off in 2004 is something of a mystery.. On one hand, she may not be ready to take the reigns.. On the other, she could've been criticized for quitting her New York senatorship solely on the basis of her own personal gain for the White House.. Someone, somewhere along the line, thought the timing was not right..

But I figure the DNC didn't stop there.. Whether it was McAuliffe or someone else along the way - there was a hatched plan to introduce Hillary as a contender for the 2008 elections.. That plan consisted of picking a decent candidate that may do well enough to motivate the masses, but won't win completely.. Simply put: A Kerry victory would've meant a virtual lock-down for Hillary's chances in 2008 because in the majority of cases, the incumbent will run again for their successive terms..

What I'm not sure the DNC counted on was the fact that there would be an incredible insurgency that wanted Bush out of office.. When we look at what Bush was doing in the White House, a lot of people were shaking their heads.. This was a GOLDEN TIME for the DNC to take back the White House.. Bush's approval numbers were falling, the war is not going well, his economic plans were causing more pain and grief than were helping: HOW COULD ANYONE SCREW THIS UP??

Find a way - and the DNC did..

There was serious momentum in favor of getting Bush out of the White House, but the DNC did very little to encourage that.. Michael Moore did everything he could to get the attention of people.. Celebrities and other famous folks were coming out against Bush at every turn.. There was a complete concerted effort to get Bush out of office.. Instead of riding the wave and letting Dean command and guide the party - they chose Kerry, a life-long senator who from his appearances is not the strongest candidate to bring forth.. At least his portrayal through the press is that he's weak or ambivalent on many issues.. Kerry is very articulate which got twisted and distorted into a lot of "double talk" and now the infamous: "flip-flop" machine.. Karl Rove ran a masterful campaign against Kerry.. Mary Beth Cahill was no match for the attacks and war the Republicans were bringing to the table.. The Republicans knew they could lose it and they were hungrier than the DNC to win it again this year..

So, again: "why??"

If the braintrust of the DNC sent Kerry out so that they can secure a bid for 2008, I'll add that it's the single most disappointing factor to come from all of this.. In an election that had so much at stake, the DNC failed miserably.. Losing Daschele was one thing, losing so many seats in the Senate and the House is one thing, but giving the Republicans a free pass to determine the complexion of the Supreme Court is simply inexcusable..

Clearly the leadership of the DNC needs to be examined.. Clearly when we abandon the focus of what Democrats stand for, needs to be examined.. When you have the exit polls revealing that a HEALTHY segment of the Democrat party voted in FAVOR of Bush -- that needs to be seriously examined..

This was the BEST opportunity to secure the White House: an inconsistent, myopic, under-educated President that had scores of issues with his first 4-year term and the Democrat party couldn't do squat to unseat him from the Presidency..

There will be no blaming Nader..

There will be no Florida or Ohio to blame..

There will be no challenge for voter fraud..

Nothing..

I put the blame squarely on the DNC.. Just as they failed to put Gore in the White House, they should've, could've, would've learned in 4 years how to do it "right," but they didn't..

Bush believes he now has the mandate of the people - which I strongly disagree with - but who can argue with the man who scored a 3 mil advantage over his competition??

In the land of the "lesser of two evils," clearly America felt it was best to stick with the evil they have grown accustomed to.. When your candidate does not emerge as a compelling, decisive difference to the incumbent President - it's going to be difficult to convince America that a new direction is warranted..

I won't say the best man won because the best man was never on the ticket.. For those pundits who love to say that Bush is the way of the future, I urge you to keep thinking that way when the next plane hits the building in your hometown, or when your son/daughter is called up to fight on behalf of "freedom," or when your neighbors are evicted because they have no job due the fact their job just went to India, or the debt which will be handed down to your children, and their children..

The world is not safer..
The nation is not better off..

What we have is a failure to communicate: to get the *right* person in the office, regardless if they are Republican or Democrat.. Continuing down this precarious path only insures that we're in for another rough 4 years.. If the Democrats really want to do something about this, they better start looking at McAuliffe - and start doing something about it..

In the words of Wil Wheaton:

"It's not over
It's just beginning"

Tucker Carlson is an ass....

While watching one of the election coverage and the fact that one of the Pittsburgh polling places extended their hours, Mr. Carlson had this lovely addition:

"They should've gotten out earlier to vote.."

Duh....

But unlike you -- Mr. Carlson -- some folks have to work for a living, and sometimes those jobs don't stop early so that you can go vote..

What .... an ..... idiot ....

credit

We found the following livejournal site containing all of the icons on the left pane of the screen.. I encourage anyone interested to go visit them for they do have some interesting icons.. :)

bdsm and the election *please read*

from carnal_droog's livejournal....

Trust me, I'm a politician :)

The last big surge is almost over..

Both candidates are pushing, tugging, pulling -- doing everything but throwing punches.. Erm, wait -- they *are* doing that.. Okay okay...

But now to understand that there's quite a stir in Iraq right now concerning weapons.. Now it's possible that the weapons were missing as we took Iraq in control.. Just because we had Baghdad, didn't mean that these weapons were secure.. What is interesting is that this has been widely known for MONTHS and never reported until NOW..

hm..

I don't know what to think about that.. Obviously all of the liberals are jumping up and down because it indicates that Bush is inadequate in his Presidency.. But in all seriousness, how do we know that the weapons were known before the embedded reporters saw the weapons back then??

I'm not really ready to jump on that bandwagon yet because there are several unanswered questions.. Particularly the who, what, when, why and how type questions involving what the status of those weapons were at various points during the war.. If we can't answer those questions, then how can we blame Bush??

Sorry -- not quite yet....

(Is it Tuesday yet??)

This is how well it's going in Iraq....

50 Iraqi Police Found Shot to Death..

Now will someone explain to me while some people like Michael Savage - who believes it's no longer our business to be there to begin with - now that we've gone in and totally screwed up their country, isn't it just a little premature to leave while nothing can be done about the insurgents??

Savage was one of the folks that was really gung-ho about us going in there.. Now - after Saddam, he's leading the charge again for us leaving Iraq in shambles.. Of course one cannot ignore his racist overtones about how we should leave the "scum of the earth" to finish themselves off..

And to think that people listen to and like this guy??

*sighs*

There's a division that has happened in this nation since 9/11.. And that division came in the form of Iraq.. Back when Bush had a united nation, a united world for that matter - he chose to go into Iraq.. When our focus should've been to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice, he lost his focus.. I keep hearing now that Iraq was more of a liberation mission instead of a fear mission that Saddam had vicious WMD..

I don't condone what Saddam was doing, but then I don't condone what is happening in the Congo, in the Sudan, Russia, and in other countries where drug and warlords are governing the people, but I don't see us raising a finger for any of these folks..

But I hear Bush saying that the Iraqi people wanted democracy.. Funny.. I don't get that sense at all.. In fact, I'd say just the opposite: WE WANT DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ; not the people of Iraq.. When we consider what has happened in Afghanistan and in Russia (and all of the republics of the former Soviet Union) - change doesn't happen overnight.. It can't.. The fact that Afghanistan had elections recently doesn't really say jack about their situation..

The fact that they can vote DOES NOT make them into an instant democracy.. Bush is trying the microwave approach to foreign policy and is failing miserably.. Look at Reagan - the cold war - he even realized that major moves in a system that is not aptly prepared to handle the change from Communism to Democracy: it takes time.. Iraq needs a crock pot cooker, Mr. President, not a microwave.. The fact that Iraq is going to have elections in January proves nothing, Mr. President..

After hearing the debates, after hearing his speeches, I've drawn the conclusion that he simply does not have a clue.. He relies on the knee-jerk reaction to guide his policies.. I wish there was one aspect of his Presidency that I could at least point to and say: good job.. The economy seems to be rebounding, but I'll make the argument that it's cyclical in nature and always up and down - regardless of who is in the driver's seat.. Education and the now infamous "leave no child behind" act - has proven to be a failure at Bush's hand.. Crime rates have been unaffected, but the Patriot Act calls to question whether the rights of the American citizen are now being disregarded in the name of "national security.."

So no..

I honestly don't believe Bush is the right person for the job and with "Iraq" tattooed on his backside, I hope a lot of people open their eyes the first of November and see exactly what's happening here..

The *DRAMA*

I realized something earlier this week - and as time goes on, I'm all but certain it's true (if it hasn't been overstated or assumed enough):

"The media is hyping all of the polling numbers to create *drama* in this year's election.."

How do I know?? Listen to the headlines in the last week or so: "Bush pulls ahead of Kerry after final debate," "Bush leads by 4 points," "Kerry gains ground on Bush," "Polls show race neck and neck," "Bush leads by 1 point....."

Why??

Is it a matter of keeping America teetered on the edge of our seats wondering what's going to happen next?? (see "Tune in next time, when we find the fate of our hero...")

Or is it a matter of keeping things close enough to ensure that when November comes, people are going to go "hm, my vote may actually count this year...."

Do we really think that Bush and Kerry are saying so much *new* stuff that they are affecting the polls?? Not when I get My headline updates on Yahoo!: "Bush and Kerry trade barbs on Foreign Policy," "Kerry and Bush fight on Leadership," "Bush and Kerry Hammering Out the Swing States..."

I will say this: it's proving to be one interesting election.. If anything, the sour taste in my mouth for both parties are as pungent as they have ever been..

Bored out of my gourd!!

Damn - you'd think that Round 3 of the debates would at least have *newer* material.. It was the same sound bytes from the last two debates..

One of the talk show hosts had a very interesting point about "most" democrats: they'd rather nominate a cat rather than have George Bush back in office.. And I can't really fault that logic; especially since I'm a cat lover!! ;)

Seriously though - I've maintained this: I'm not a Kerry fan.. I just honestly believe that Bush is leading our country into places gone bad.. I don't think he's a better person in general - but I do feel it's going to do a better job than Bush..

So - I say: elect either of my cats.. They'll do just fine..

I know I haven't been contributing much to this blog.. I think I've said all I can say about the whole state of politics up to this point.. November is going to be an interesting ride - for whoever gets elected.. There are several really important issues at stake in this election and our security ranks right up there..

The next President of the United States is going to have a lot of problems trying to solve the problems set forth in this Presidency.. We hear all the time how Bush inherited all of the mistakes from the Clinton administration -- well guess what: deja-vu.....

Funny how we don't hear the pundits repeating that same rhetoric of so many years ago, eh??

Small political quiz

I found this quiz this morning..

Believe it or not, it says I'm a centrist of which I have no idea if I am or not:

"Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize what they commonly describe as "practical solutions" to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on political issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty."

"It's hard work...."

I can't believe how many times I've heard those words tonight..

"It's hard work...." Well, duh..

It's hard work going overseas running the risk that you might be killed..
It's hard work losing your job when you and your family are already having a tough time making ends meet..
It's hard work when you can't afford health insurance..
It's hard work if you're kicked out of unemployment for the sake of "padding the government numbers.."
It's hard work when the job you recently lost has been "outsourced" to another country..
It's hard work when you own your business and can't keep it open because there isn't enough tax relief..
It's hard work when the rich get tax breaks, when the average family got $300..... Hmmmm.... Thousands of dollars vs. $300....... Can I sleep on it and get back to you on that??

Ya' know, George.. It's hard work all over the place..

The big thing is -- George -- you COULD HAVE made a difference, but didn't..

But what bothers me the most is that our PRESIDENT said over and over just how tough his job is.. If it's so HARD, then I'll make the argument that he's not fit to be President to begin with..

The part of the debate we watched tonight only shone Bush's true colors.. He has no regrets for what happened in Iraq.. None.. Justified to the 'nth because he is so steadfast in that we don't need world cooperation and that we can do it alone.. That flies in the face of reason considering his most recent remarks at the UN where he is asking for their help........

Enough of the flip flop remarks.. When the apples don't fall too far from the tree - it's only self-apparent that one shouldn't be talking so loud.........

Bush-0 .... Kerry-1

Holy Sh*t

Cat Stevens, former musician in the 60's and 70's - most noted for his music "Peace Train" and "Morning has Broken" has been deported from the United States because his activities could be linked to terrorist activities..

Apparently there is some "intelligence" that said that he contributed to the Islam group Hamas in 2000.. Ironically he also made contributions to the victims of 9/11 and the children victims of the war in Bosnia..

He is apparently on most "watch lists" because of his chosen association to Hamas in 2000.. Whatever intelligence that is being uncovered recently - it does raise the question of "why.."

If there is credible, reliable information - then present it.. No.. Wait.. Gotta back track that because Colin Powell did "present" weapons of mass destruction evidence -- which -- oops, didn't exactly pan out did it??

The point being, Cat Stevens -- now Yusuf Islam -- is highly regarded as pushing peace through Islam is not just being targeted as being a possible terrorist (or terrorist sympathizer) but he's been kicked out of the very country where he wrote the song "Peace Train" during the early 70's at a time in our history with Vietnam and civil rights..

I can't offer proof one way or the other.. Obviously if Cat/Yusuf has changed his ways, become an Islamic fundamentalist supporter, then it would be reasonable to keep an extra eye or two on him.. I won't discount that.. But we have a man who reportedly has been a peaceful advocate throughout his life and transition into the world of Islam 30 years ago .... I have to ask this:

"The moment we kick 'Peace Train' out of the US, does that mean we no longer believe in Peace??"

Again, who knows what he is like today.. But in this day and age - when you have peaceful participants wearing anti-Bush t-shirts being arrested and harassed, one has to ask the question:

"Is this enough??"

Are my days of commenting on the Conservative movement in this country numbered because I offer a differing, contradictory point of view of how Bush is conducting business?? Am I going to kicked off to Britain too - or have My name go through the "watch list" the next time I fly again...

Exactly what is going on here??

Did we all of a sudden repeal our right to free speech?? I can't hold an opinion because "gosh it might not be agreeable with what Bush is doing on Pennsylvania Ave??" If this is really the case, then I'm very disappointed.. We got attacked, it was horrible, and yet we have a President going to war over nothing - we still don't have those responsible in custody nor will it matter..

Bush does have one thing correct: "we cannot win the war on terror.." (His "Today Show" interview with Matt Lauer.) I do agree with this because he's made this world an insane place to begin with.. It's HIS mess that we're having to clean up and will undoubtedly suffer for a long time coming..

The world is the only answer because it's going to take a concerted world effort to help thwart the fundamentalists.. But the longer Bush is in office there will never be a concerted world effort.. Bush won't allow it.. And if I'm a leader of my country, I doubt very seriously I want to help us out either because of how one man managed to screw up so much - that it puts the world at enormous risk..

Ironic how we NOW go to the United Nations asking for help.. But realistically, why should they?? Especially after we snubbed our noses at them - saying "we're going in if you don't.." Whatever aspirations, motivations, and other intelligence bungles we can equate, Bush wants help now because he's LOST CONTROL of the situation.. He's admitting he failed and wants the rest of the world to help fix the problem..

How insane can we be to elect a President who does this??

Bottom line: we can't..

I realize the Kerry isn't the strongest person the democrats have, but he's the only option we're going to have to get Bush out of office.. Can Kerry do worse?? I don't really see how.. We're alienated from the rest of the world, we've effectively excused ourselves into hell for what we did in Iraq, we're no closer to ensuring our safety any more than we can stop the sun from shining tomorrow.. We're diving into budget deficits on a level that can't even be entered in any of our calculators, we're cutting taxes, slashing programs, and fighting a war with no real enemy -- just a belief..

Exactly how can Kerry do worse than Bush??

Want to win the war on terrorism?? Simple: make friends..

Want to make the world safer?? Simple: make friends - again..

Want to stop budget deficits?? Simple: no you don't if you're a Republican because you stand to GAIN money if you HAVE money..

Want to restore programs?? Simple: no you don't because if you were a recipient of any of those programs then you were just not responsible enough in your life to get a real job, a real life and earn real money to prevent you from having been laid off to begin with...........

Now can anyone understand why there's no way I can vote for Bush in the coming election??

You're in trouble when....

You know you're political party is in trouble when you have an infamous boxing promoter Don King speaking out on behalf of your candidate.. We were having lunch today when I began flipping channels - and I thought I'd take a look to see what the folks at Fox News were doing.. That's when I saw Don King talking with Nick Caputo (or whatever his name is..) I had it on mute, but I could see the closed captioning..

Neil was asking him questions about his impressions of Bush and King was all in favor of Dubya.. But then Neil asked him why a small percentage of African Americans voted for Bush last time..

The result of that answer was unexpected as I almost choked on my pita wrap..

King believes that African Americans don't know the "essence" of the man George W. Bush is.. I about laughed my ass off my chair.. Of course I had to rewind it to the point, wait for Darby to come into the living room before I could un-mute it and play it again.. Hearing it was even funnier than reading it.. I realize there's a stereotype circulating that Bush and the republicans do not have a strong minority backing -- and yet they found Don King..

Then in King fashion, he tries to rally up some sort of pep yell: "four more years," and then starts scatting out other things as Neil was trying to head to commercial..

The only thing I could think about was WHY.. King doesn't have the best reputation out there as it is.. An ego, money-makin' focused, monopolizin' to get his way, King.. I do admit this though, he would be one of the last people I'd think about leading the GOP battle cry.. When you hear how much Bush is out of touch with people, makes me wonder exactly how he got King's support..

In any event - it was interesting and entertaining at the same time..

Stability

I've mentioned it before, but I'm going to say it again:

As a nation, as a member of the world population, George Bush does not make us safer.. I can point to a lot of things, but it comes back to the fact that he has totally destabilized the entire Middle Eastern region - which was held together by Elmer's glue to begin with.. Bush has had more than enough opportunities to try to bring the world together again, but that's not even a possibility now..

The Europeans are skeptical of him, the African nations gave up on us, we already know what's brewing in the South East theater.. But what did we hear in the news recently?? He's put forth a plan to close bases around the world.. What this translates into: Bush realized that he's alienated the US with the rest of the world - and now has to circle the wagons..

But we forget that our southern border remains virtually undetected.. Bush even went as far as to wanting law to grant amnesty to any illegal immigrants who are in the country today.. Instead of trying to thwart the next attack - now we're just welcoming them into our land.. (brilliant move Dubya..)

I've said it before, I'll say it again - no.. I honestly don't know if Kerry would do any better.. But for any conservative to actually USE that argument only is a really piss poor argument when you think about it.. Let's suppose that you get a really bad car mechanic who doesn't know what to do to fix your car - I show up, not knowing one thing about automotive mechanics.. Does the mechanic who can't fix your car do a better job than someone who hasn't worked on them before?? Who knows - even though I may not know word one about a carburetor might actually be a good thing because I research the crap out of things before I take on a project.. Because I'm a planner and if I can see how to work into a problem there's a really good chance I can do something about it..

Is Kerry that way?? I don't know.. But to use the argument that just because Bush is *currently* the President somehow makes him more qualified is very disturbing to me.. One has to say that statement a little louder.. Just because Bush thinks he's doing a good job, doesn't mean he is.. When one thinks about exactly how screwed up the country is, might think twice about sending Kerry to office.. The second thought I'm giving is:

Can Kerry fuck this country up anymore than the W. has??

Unfortunately I don't think Kerry can screw up the country anymore..

With the expanding poverty line.. Record setting budgets.. A President out of touch of the men and women he's sending to Iraq.. Alienating us from the rest of the world.. Further inciting the Islamic-followers.. and talk about "flip flopping.." Damn, those are just the highlights in the last week or so!! Watching Bill Maher tonight only brought out fresh ones.. One of the ones I loved was when Bush was quoted about the North Korean leader saying:

"I don't give a deadline for dictators..." um, you did, sorry Mr. President..

The Swift Boat story fell apart on him.. He wasn't too quick to distance himself to it because they couldn't confirm or deny whether it was true.. Had it been true, do you really think that Bush would've aligned himself when he could clearly see blood on his opponent?? No.. His advisers stepped in and probably saved the campaign at this point..

There's a lot of crap that's unfolding right now.. The 9/11 commission report still proves to be interesting.. The evolving story about leaking the CIA operative's name has now reached the Dick Cheney's chief of staff (oops).. Speaking of Dick Cheney, it's interesting how he has come out in defense of his lesbian daughter in the midst of Bush's attempts to illegalize gay marriages.. hmmmmm

Again, we're living in very interesting times..

Gas prices...

I've noticed something very interesting..

1.) The price for a barrel of oil has now reached RECORD proportions due to the volatile situation in Iraq..
2.) The price for gasoline has actually gone DOWN in recent weeks..
3.) They are actually FORECASTING that the price of gasoline will continue to go down for the remainder of the summer..

Why this is interesting is because anytime there is an oil-related calamities - we usually feel the pinch at the pump.. SOMETHING is suspicious about this whole thing..

Let's not forget one thing: we have an election coming up.. I don't want to sound like some conspiracy theorist, but it's strange how gasoline prices have stabilized in reaction to RECORD oil prices.......

....afterall bad gas prices in an election year is something that would hurt Bush, don't you think?? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

27 minutes

Bill Maher had a good column in the New York Daily News..

"Bush Warns Americans They Are 'Still Not Safe'"

"Bush Warns Americans They Are 'Still Not Safe'"

...looks pretty safe to me....

1 577 846.3 minutes

That's how many minutes there are in 3 years..

What really confuses Me is we all hear: "Go about your business..."

Yet, we're acting upon intelligence that is THREE YEARS OLD

Excuse Me, but why is this supposed to make Me feel all secure that nothing is wrong?? I realize I sometimes scream into nowhere, but exactly why do we have an intelligence gathering capability that is coming up with warnings of 3 years ago??!!??!?!?

So excuse Me for laughing it up here..

It's nice to know that our country is making policy and decisions based on OLD intelligence...... but WAIT!!!

Think about that: Saddam did at one time have Weapons of Mass Destruction, but maybe we were looking at intelligence that was over 10 years old when his daddy was in office and took care of most of it.....

Oops, probably didn't get that memo, did ya' Dubya??

Bill Maher tonight!

Bill opened up his latest season by having Michael Moore and Ralph Nader on his program.. I'll say this: Bill seems to have changed a bit -- not quite so liberal.. Not sure why, but it's how I saw it..

There were quite a few barbs being traded between Michael and Representative David Drier (who I guess had more *pressing* engagements for the evening as to why he couldn't *stay* for the remainder of the program....)

Of course Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the main discussions.. At one point, David was on a rant about how Michael has been doing a disservice to the country.. Michael then asked:

"Have you seen the movie??"

"No," David replied..

An exasperated Michael just buried his head in his hands.. But it clearly illustrates exactly how a very active majority of the people who have NOT seen the movie continue to parade their feelings ABOUT a movie they haven't even SEEN!!

Has anyone else figured out that this is probably one of the major reasons WHY we went to war to begin with????? Because we have an administration who is leading people to believing things that MAY or MAY NOT be real or factual in nature.. Is this really responsible??

Then - David - obviously feeling tired from having to defend himself so much made the mistake of saying that Michael Moore's movie is the equivalent of a Pravda Newspaper.. Michael immediately quipped something like "if you're making a documentary or have an opinion that conflicts with their way of thinking, you're going to be labeled Pravda...."

(on target -- ouch)

Bill even worked over My governor pretty good -- which is much to my satisfaction.. (*kudos*)

But the surprise had to be the former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell who not only admitted to have watched the movie, but could actually talk from experience, being once a person in power - exactly how the President should have acted on 9/11.. The issue is raised once more:

"The country is under attack.."

The President did not move for another 20+ minutes..

The Secret Service did not move him - but it's not clear why.. Clearly the Secret Service deemed that it was a critical situation when they flown the President to the bunker in Nebraska..

Then - as my girl pointed out to me again: "If the President was concerned about not raising alarm, not exciting the children or causing a stir.. If he was more concerned with the 20 minutes of face time by 15 cameras in the room.. If he was genuinely concerned about the children.......

..... why didn't he leave??"

A very valid point..

The President (as would later be discovered) was a primary target.. Even though he was in Florida - the White House was one of the destinations.. If he was a target, then the children were in jeopardy.. His presence at the school endangered those children.. The decision to fly the President to Nebraska confirms this..

"But the terrorists didn't attack him at the school.."

Bush didn't know that at the time..

Even David Drier admitted that much: nothing was known of the terrorist plot until much later.. But if an aide comes over, whispers in your ear that the country is under attack, what should the President do?? Now I can understand the need to remain peacefully calm at a time of conflict, but when you see that footage - Bush is not calm.. Kim had the perfect response: "I'm sorry to interrupt, your reading is very important and you need to keep it up. Unfortunately my duties as President calls for me to leave you here today." He is the President, he is the leader of the free world, he can do anything he wants anytime he wants..

Fact being: he stayed.. Whatever his motives, he thought it was more important to stay with the book than tend to a national disaster.. He placed a grade school reading session over the lives of over 2,900 people..

That is the responsibility priorities of this administration..

I don't care about the question of "Would Gore have done a better job??" It's an irrelevant question because Gore isn't President.. The question is nothing more than a serious case of Monday morning Quarterbacking.. The ability to second guess a coach's decision to run the ball on 4th down when they should've punted.. Fact being, I have no idea what would've happened if all of this occurred under Gore's watch.. But I refuse to play Monday morning quarterback when My country is at stake and the threats are real..

===================
Brief note about Nader

It's a wonder I even voted for him the first time.. He looked really awful - and he's about as myopic as both candidates running for office now.. He came across to me as someone who just wants to spoil the party.. His platform may have been popular back in 2000, but we're living in a different era.. Clearly a more dangerous time to be alive.. Nader's obsessed in becoming some sort of catalyst in the process all the while he's failing to see the forest for the trees.. How do I know this??

"I will beat George B. Bush..."

"Um - someone please take Mr. Nader back to his room, his diaper needs to be changed..."

Then there were the shameless attempts to plug whatever magazine he was holding in his hand.. Yeah, I get the point that he's a syndicated columnist, but you'd think if you were a Presidential Candidate that you're getting enough air time...... Or maybe that's the problem for Ralph - he may not be taken too seriously this time around..

I do agree though that neither party are putting their best people up for candidacy and not just Bush or Kerry -- but for the thrawls of congress folk alike.. Governors, city administrators -- all the way to the School Board... If we want results, we better get people in there that can do a better job..

Welcome back Bill!!

Air America & the Truth

I had the opportunity this past week to listen to much of what the liberal radio station "Air America" was saying about the Democrat Convention.. I'll say this much: I did enjoy their programs and thought they were intellectual with their thoughts and positions.. Just as much as the conservatives do, they also took their pokes and prods at the other side..

Then the whole issue about "the truth" came out...

Again, I'm stymied with the whole notion that there's just "one truth" for all out there.. But I'm finding it rather impossible to distinguish that there is *ever* going to be a truth out there for all of us.. I applaud them for doing their research, getting various facts together and reporting it as "the truth.."

But anymore, I don't trust anybody if they tell me something they claim to be factual.. Is it so difficult to report various facts and let the public figure out what they want to hear?? It's an issue that continuously bogs down every system we adhere to: whether you're reporting a fire, a crime, the debate, the football game or even the spelling bee.. Writers and other journalists are taking incredible liberties in expression anymore..

Remember.. We live in an era where there is an accusation that says that there is a liberal bias in the media.. Obviously there are news agencies and other journalistic outlets which are attempting to "balance" it out.. So here's a simple example:

You get 10 liberal outlets against 5 conservatives.. The 5 conservatives desperately attempt to get more on their side.. Let's say a year passes and the liberals now have 8 and the conservatives have a good year and now have 9.. Now the liberals want to have the same type of balance and it goes on and on and on.....

I can understand that these outlets are scrambling around because it all comes down to one big thing:

REVENUE

You don't generate revenue - you don't have a job.. So now our news gets catered to us according to our ideologies.. Our magazines.. Our radio shows.. Our TV programs.. Our dailies, weeklies, and monthly subscriptions.. We discard what we don't like and keep the ones we do..

So when it comes down to $$$ hasn't anyone else figured out that the difference between a political action committee and the press is a very thin line?? The huge difference is that PACS are out there convincing the vote using politicians.. The media does much the same way by swaying public opinion..

This isn't a new concept however..

It's a practice that reaches way far back in our own histories.. Way back when the likes of Shakespeare was asked to change his programs to reflect the wishes of those that hired him..

Are we nothing more than a series of people with ideologies that blind us in the face of reality??

I'm going to keep listening to Air America every so oft just to see what they are talking about.. I will admit this much though:

in the times I listened to the liberal talk show, I felt a lot more at ease and calmer than the conservative equivalents...

I guess I'm just a liberal boy after all...

Shooting yourself in the foot.....

"Former national security adviser Samuel Berger stepped aside from his work as a foreign-policy adviser to Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign Tuesday, after Berger acknowledged that he had mishandled classified documents that were under review by the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks."

What scares Me more than this is that we have two people (Bush and Kerry) who should not be left in charge of a day care center, much less our country..

It leaves Me completely dazed and confused: WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE KERRY CAMP THINKING?? Clearly what Berger admitted to is very serious, very dangerous and completely irresponsible.. Stuffing classified documents in your pants??

"Mr. Berger has acknowledged taking the documents, but insisted that he unintentionally put them in his portfolio. He also has admitted carrying out his own notes, but his attorney insisted that he did not try to do so surreptitiously by stuffing them in his pants.

The confusion produced some possible classic Washington lines, including Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, saying: "I don't know what happened to these documents after they were put in Mr. Berger's pants."

*slaps forehead*

We're really screwed folks.....

What?!??!?!??!!!

I couldn't believe it..

I've been away for several days, haven't really paid close attention to the news, then lo and behold this is the latest headline:

"Bush: U.S. Looking Into Whether Iran Involved In 9/11"

I'm afraid..

I'm very afraid..

We have a President that is clearly running on a horse into a very bad situation.. We have a President who clearly has no perception as to what the consequences of his actions are.. This guy won't quit..

What information is leading him down THIS road?? What is he getting us into NOW?? Would this intelligence be from the same folks that brought us the Iraq debacle??

Instead of trying to find a link between Iran and 9/11 -- shouldn't we be looking for Bin Laden who........

ahem..

WHO ORGANIZED THE ATTACKS ON 9/11 TO BEGIN WITH??

For Christ's SAKE!!

Look..

I don't care for Iran either.. They don't like us - and I still remember what they did to our hostages back in the late 70's, early 80's.. But *WHAT* possible information does our buckaroo President have that all of a sudden calls for us to look into Iran??

He's placing real live men and women out there just like they are those plastic army men he had as a boy growing up.. Remember - this is a President that has CHOSEN to distance himself from any of the bloodshed this country has been through.. This is the same President who has gone on record as saying: "Nobody wants to see Americans killed on TV every night..." What a remarkable quote.. What he should be feeling is that every time he hears of another service member being killed, he should get even more focused with the goals of this scenario..

I've maintained this from day one: I want a clear and concise resolution to this war on terrorism.. It's not over because Bush insists on fighting every bully who happens to come out against the US.. That's a sign of a lapse of leadership..

Clearly our President has lost touch with reality..

Clearly our President is leading us into a very precarious position politically..

Clearly our President is reinforcing the perception of our country that we are conquerors.. That we are seeking to have a permanent foothold in the Middle East.. That we are no different than Napoleon or any other megalomaniac..

Clearly our President is making some incredibly irresponsible foreign policy that is destabilizing the peace we have enjoyed for the last 40 years..

I will say this though: the Bush's are sure consistent when it comes to throwing caution into the wind..

....and that's very, very scary......

Slanted headlines....

It's amazing just how the twist of a word can really swing a debate one way or the other..

I came across this headline: Who star hits out at Michael Moore via Google News.. When you go to the nme.com website, the headline is actually: PETE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

Now My initial thoughts after reading the first headline was that Pete Townsend of the band "The Who," was attacking Moore for the movie like so many other people have done.. When in fact the article is about how Townsend was approached by Moore to use one of his songs in the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11..

Townsend refused to allow the song, Moore charged him with being a supporter of the war..

Breaking it down a little bit here:
- Townsend made a song
- He refused to allow Moore to use it in the documentary
- Moore labels Townsend as a war supporter
- Townsend later admits that he was initially in favor of the war, but in lieu of recent developments, he is not sure

Does Moore have the right to criticize Townsend?? Of course.. But that doesn't make Michael Moore *right* in this situation.. Townsend can share his song with whoever he cares to with any or no explanation.. Even if he decides at the last minute that he wants to pull the song (which is what happened..) Remember, the same thing happened to Disney when they were co-owned with Miramax and did not want Fahrenheit 9/11 released.. If it wasn't for Harvey Weinstein and the Miramax group saying "Okay Mickey Mouse, we're outta here," then the documentary would've had a very difficult time getting anywhere..

But back to Townsend, the song and Michael Moore.. Townsend is not obligated to Mr. Moore anymore than I am to helping out if he approached me.. It is ultimately about choice and Pete chose his way at the last minute, Michael was upset by it.. I can understand both parties, but the headline I read on google news is a prime example of why any thing that is printed, reported on, etc. should be raised as suspect..

We live in an era where newspapers, radio and television edit more content than we're aware of.. When it satisfies the "slant" that the company distributing the news -- then we're never given the whole story.. It won't be until we can see the complete, un-edited portion of an interview, of a news story that we can fully make up our own opinion..

Just because a news story appears in the paper, on the radio or TV -- doesn't mean it's the "right" version of what happened.. Unfortunately the companies want to slant their view so that YOU, the READER, the VIEWER, the LISTENER are completely in tune with whatever propaganda they want you to know..

Don't let yourself get suckered into the words on the page..

Allow yourself the ability to faithfully question what information you're receiving..

And lastly: always remember that unless you witnessed an event first hand - that information which you're getting from the press is a different colored pair of sunglasses..