It's a Slow Conservative Radio Day when.....

The main story for Talk Radio centers around the fact that John Kerry had his hair stylist flown in - to perform a "touch up" before a "Meet The Press" appearance..

I guess when they have nothing to report - they'll find something to complain about..

Granted - I do think Kerry is not helping his cause.. The whole "say one thing, do another" is a very bad thing.. He complains about SUV's yet skirts carefully around the fact not him - but his family owns SUV's........ Okay - if he can't convince his family not to use SUV's because of what they "do to the environment" or how it "impacts gas consumption" -- then I can't say I want the guy to be President.. He comes across as someone who is being led by a collar and leash (by his wife..)

I'm not getting the whole medal thing either.. He did his time in the war -- something Bush can't seem to come back with.. But he threw his medals (somewhere) in protest of the war in Vietnam.. Okay - that's his right.. After all, we still have the freedom to protest.. He did earn the medals.. Oftentimes, medals are given to other people - for whatever personal reason.. It's his choice what happens to the medals, but it clearly smells stinky out there if I was a veteran.. Someone who could say "that was wrong" -- and have the deserved right to do so.. Forget the Talk Show pundits.. They have about as much right issuing charges against Kerry and the medals as they do complaining about the physical composition of the inorganic strata found in the late Cambrian era... Yeah, whatever..

What is even more interesting is the latest move by the Supremes to grant the White House secrecy regarding VP Cheney's "internal workings" of the energy policy task force he headed in 2001.. hmm.. I don't like it when things are conducted under an air of secrecy.. It implies a lot of bad things.. Lying, cheating, otherwise inflaming the masses against Cheney or Bush....

.... oh wait - that's what Talk Radio is predicated as....

Sorry for My mistake.... :P

Flags & Coffins

"Bush Criticizes the Release of Photos of Solider Coffins"..

Let's see if I get this right -- "we must pay attention to the privacy and to the sensitivity of the families of the fallen" - a White House Spokesman is quoted as saying.. Yet it's perfectly okay for Bush to use the imagery and footage of 9/11 for his political campaign gain... If we are to be sensitive to those families that have fallen - then where is the sensitivity to those who lost loved ones in the attacks of 9/11??

Double standard..

It's okay to blame Clinton for not going after Bin Laden -- yet Bush was clearly advised of potential attacks as well.. I keep hearing everyone saying that the PDB was merely a "historical" document.. Yeah, well - anything we read in the newspaper is also a historical document.. Typically this is how we learn new information - and apply it to the future.. Hmm.. Learning from historical documents - wow.. I'm having a vision.. Let's see now...

WAIT WAIT - I GOT IT I GOT IT!!!!

Let's LEARN from these historical documents so that we can be better PREPARED for these contingencies.....

To say that the FBI screwed this up - falls on everyone, not just Bush - not just Clinton.. What pisses me off more though is how no one fesses up to their part of the mistakes that happened.. For some reason - taking ultimate responsibility for your actions is no longer considered the socially, personally acceptable moral high ground anymore.. Being able to pass the blame is much more accepted and even encouraged..

Remember how all of the conservatives were jumping up and down about how Clinton was promoting sex to our children??

What about the promoting Bush is doing: push blame onto others accordingly, don't accept responsibility, and do what you want - because you do NOT have to listen to anyone else around you!!

This all ties back to the beginning portion of today's rant..

If we can't show the coffins and flags coming back - then why should Bush be able to use 9/11?? The major argument is that anyone who sees these flags are going to question why we're in Iraq to begin with.. Actually - liberals would love to air that out because it makes Bush look bad.. The same reason why the conservatives want those pictures to be lost and never shown publicly.. You can bet if it was Gore in office, the conservatives would be clawing to try and get those photos circulated - and they would be the ones that would be criticizing the war in Iraq....

That's why I hate politics - that's why I hate all of this self-absorbed "gotta blame the other side" for everything.. But I really don't like the tactics of either side basically waging a war predicated on fear.. Unfortunately that's how our next president is going to be elected: who is gonna win the war on terrorism.. Moreover, the public is entrenched between to sides vying for the big seat.. AS though either side can really win the war on terror....... *sighs*

One last political rant before I close this out for the night.. I heard a very disturbing news report today: Bush is not going to call upon Congress to fund the war in Iraq before the elections..

Excuse Me.. Maybe I need to have my hearing re-checked.. Maybe I heard that wrong.. No.. On Wednesday, the administration told the press that "Scott McClellan said that while the administration did not expect to submit a request for more money this year, he did not rule out the idea." Bush is essence saying "I won't ask for more money, but if you need it - just ask..." Um - that's problematic.. When the Senate and Congress are questioning the administrations underestimated the cost of the war.. If this is a global war on terror - and we're the ones paying for it - then it's not really a global war on terror, is it?? It's a war on America.. Bin Laden even said so - when he tried to get the EU to call a truce earlier in the week..

So - my rant tonight basically says this: bring out the coffins and the flags.. Why hide this from the American people?? Again - quit playing the double standard.. If we're to keep the flags out because of "sensitivity reasons" then the same should be said for all of the footage associated with 9/11.. It doesn't cut both ways..

Irony

Darby and I were watching a George Carlin special - an older one that he did from New Jersey..

What was ironic about that??

Many of the references could be applied today:

1.) 225 members of Reagan's cabinet were either fired, arrested or convicted....
The irony is that the whole Haliburton issue is only growing bigger each day

2.) They promised to get the government out of our lives, only to be even more intrusive than they were before.. Carlin quoted one example of how the government wants you to have sex the same way they do...
Irony - gay/lesbian marriages - other alternative lifestyle events being halted by church groups

3.) The biggest one that I have often questioned: conservatives are pro-life, but believe in the death penalty....
ditto

4.) Carlin felt the Regan Administration was putting us on the brink of a war.....
Wow - the irony...

And those are just the ones I caught last night..

No Threat??

The White House released their PDB (Presidental Daily Briefing) under a lot of pressure from the public and the 9/11 commission.. I'm not sure what to think of it.. Does it appear that the administration knew?? Yes.. But then so did the Clinton administration.. I don't really like how Clinton is saying that he did everything that he could -- when in fact, history is beginning to prove that differently.. Granted, I don't like how the Bush administration is trying to push all of this back on Clinton..

Bottom line?? Both administrations are guilty.. Intelligence failed -- and for that matter, intelligence CONTINUES to fail.....

Why do I say that?? With the attack in Spain - and the response afterwards - clearly we don't have a good grasp of intelligence.. If there were indications that a train attack was imminent -- then why is there all of a sudden a rush to protect all of the public transportation avenues.. That's like saying we need to plug the damn after it broke...... We're a little slow on the uptake it seems....

But how many attacks have been averted?? I imagine we'll never know.. Clearly some attacks have been averted as raids continue to happen here and abroad..

What I still don't get is how Bush can say "we're safer now.." Huh?? Maybe I missed something.. As the warfare in Iraq has turned to kidnapping - and thankfully no murder (yet) - and the attack in Madrid, the uprising in Fallujah, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict still going on, and the most recent news nugget about how "North Korea says standoff with US at 'brink of nuclear war'".. Okay - that makes Me so un-tingly..

So, we have kidnappings, uprisings, and the threat of nuclear war from another country.. We still don't have Bin Laden or his staff.. We haven't raided the Al Qaeda camps in Africa or in Southeast Asia.. We don't have a peace accord with North Korea.. And I'm supposed to believe that we're safer now....

Safer now -- as in safer now than before?? Before when?? Before the PDB of August 2001?? Safer than before he took office??

It seems to me that you can't cut it both ways.. If the Bush administration wants to blame the Clinton administration for letting 9/11 happen -- then I don't see how they can say that the world is a safer place now than it was before..

Everyone focuses at how Clinton didn't do anything to stop the attack on the USS Cole or the embassy attack.. If the argument is that Clinton didn't do anything in the last 4 years of his administration - I'd like to remind the conservatives that the last 4 years of his administration was spent justifying his sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.. So maybe instead of spending all of that time defending himself, maybe he could've been going after the terrorists??

Yeah - I don't feel an ounce of sympathy for Bush.. I don't feel an ounce of sympathy for the republicans who feel that they are always right - regardless - and liberals are always wrong.. Well, guess what.. We don't live in a safer time.. We aren't safer thanks to Bush.. We're on the brink of nuclear war - and they want to assure Me that "everything is okay - nevermind anything else going on..." If we're really safe - why are we still trying to develop the now infamous weapons defense program called "Star Wars" where we shoot down missiles from outer space??

Consider this:

In January 2001, 9 full months before 9/11, President Bush outlines the "National Defense University" outlining his vision for a national security policy.. He "advocates an ambitious missile defense" and moving beyond the ABM treaty.. In June 2001, 3 months before 9/11, a FOURTH intercept test successfully intercepts a mock warhead..

All of this happened before September 11th, 2001..

Back when the world was "safer.."

This clearly indicates a policy shift from the Clinton administration.. In fact, in September 2000, a year before 9/11, Clinton decided not to go through with the NMD program citing "the status of technology and concerns among the US allies and opposition from Russia and China." He deferred ultimate deployment decision to the next administration.. Today Putin Calls for Demilitarization of Space.. Today, not a year ago, not four years ago, today.. Why?? Obvious.. Don't point your missiles at me, and I won't point mine at you.. Space could be the potential stomping ground for the next cold war.. Putin warns that Russia must be ready to counter other countries who move against demilitarizing space.. Hmmm -- you can call that an escalation I think..

If the world was "safe" - then why did we need to implement a missile defense system?? A little history:

May 1972, US and (then) Soviet Union sign ABM treating banning nationwide missile defense systems..

March 23, 1983, then President Reagan announces that the US will expand research and development of a missile defense system..

February 15, 1995: the new Republicans (headed by Newt Gingrich) narrowly missed requiring the deployment of a nationwide missile defense "as soon as practical.."

July 1998: Commission chaired by Donald Rumsfeld (yes, the same one) "finds that the threat of a ballistic missile attack could emerge sooner than predicted in the 1995 intelligence estimate. Many experts criticize the commission, however, for emphasizing what could happen rather than what was likely to happen.."

August 31, 1998 - North Korea launches a Taepo Dong 1 missile over Japan.....

I think this clearly indicates that every administration since Reagan knew there were dangers out there..

Scared yet??

(source: US Ballistic Missile Defense Timeline: 1945-2001)

"Look To The Future, Not The Past

Okay - a certain degree of truth with that comment.. It seems that every conservative talk show host is sick of talking about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.. So the latest thing I've been hearing from these shows has been: we need to stop looking in the past and move forward.. Only problem is -- they aren't paying much attention to their own words.. Every single time I turn around I keep hearing "Clinton didn't do this," "Clinton didn't do that..." Fine, whatever.. But drop your bullshit if you're going to say that you don't want to talk about WMD.. It infuriates Me to no end..

Then.. I'm listening to a show on the way home - when the caller inquired about why we're in Iraq.. The host was haughty and basically said "I gave 5 reasons already and I'm not doing it again..." *laughs* Yeah, okay.. If he had the nuts - he would explain it.. The reason why there are questions is because there haven't been any answers..

Oh wait if we weren't over there for WMD then it's because there was atrocities going on over there.. What about the Sudan slaughter going on right now - aren't we going over there?? Then I'm hearing how Iraq was the hot bed for terrorists because they knew they had an ally with Saddam.. Okay - but what has our occupation of Iraq proven?? Terrorists move.. Hello??

Just because Iraq is closed, doesn't mean other countries are shutting down for business.. I'm not very confident with the explanations so far..

I've been hearing about a liberal talk show channel that just aired.. Air America Radio has the likes of "Al O'Franken", the Majority Report with Janeane Garofalo and others.. They're on many of the major markets, XM-radio and on the net.. I'll have to check it out.. Considering this conservative crap is giving me heartburn..

Quick Hits & Reality

Okay, I haven't blogged here in awhile.. Real life happens to interrupt us sometimes.. Lots of political issues to cover.....

The WMD Jokes

Dubya made several jokes about not finding weapons of mass destruction recently at some media dinner party.. Yeah, real tactful as another handful of Marines get killed over in Iraq.. All we hear about is "we are at war!!" Pounded in our heads all the time by the conservative talk shows - now we're just supposed to roll over and go "ha ha" when the President makes jokes about the war?? Right.. Which is it folks?? Are we dancing to the right, or dancing to the left?? First, we can't criticize Dubya and the war effort, but he can make jokes about it instead.. Secondly, we are unpatriotic and unsympathetic for questioning Dubya's motives, but he can poke fun at WMD when our troops are being killed overseas on HIS mandate, on HIS order, under HIS administration.. Lastly, I don't like the 9/11 hearings being treated as though they are playing Texas hold'em Poker.. It's as though the hearings have turned into a political platform for Dubya's second term..

(yes, as much as it pains Me to admit it - I think Bush is going to be elected for a second term...)

Outsource

The latest catch phrase to avoid using the phrase: we're taking jobs over seas, have a nice day.. If conservatives are thumbing their nose at political correctness, then why use a confusing word like "outsource" when say what it really means??!?!? Moreover I heard one of the conservative pundits spouting off that outsourcing is a good thing.. That by taking the menial work away from here opens up the more up-scale jobs in a lot of companies.. I had to laugh when I heard that - yes I was driving and fought to stay on the road.. Because think about that: what class gets hit by these oursourced jobs?? How much do people at call centers and technical support make?? If those jobs are going over seas (regardless of geography - Bangledesh or Britian, who cares??) then aren't we taking jobs away from those on the lower rung of the ladder?? Further, aren't we rewarding those with college educations and higher learning degrees because we expect to see a sudden surge of these higher jobs opening up?? I see this outsourcing policy as being a divisive wedge that further separates the upper and lower classes.. *sighs*

Assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin

Look.. Yassin is a terrorist, I get that.. But what in the hell was Sharon thinking?? If you don't think this is going to upset things in the Middle East even further - then pull your head out of the sand.. It's happening.. If you can equate this: the Assassination of Yassin would be the equivalent of doing the same thing to Bush Sr., Reagan, Kennedy, Clinton, or anyone who once held power - but really doesn't do much of anything anymore.. Just like how Bin Laden aimed those planes at targets that prominantly identify the US with the world, the assassination of Yassin is on that level of equivalent..

Even though we know Hamas and other Jihads have bombs and other weapons, why does Israel choose to strike against people that are throwing rocks with slingshots??

Isn't it going to make sense to SOMEONE SOMEDAY that the Palestinians are in the same position as the Israelis -- being pushed and told they are not welcome in their plot of land?? I don't care who wants to claim ownership of that area.. For me - it's a piece of land - find another locale and put up your flag.. The problem being - is that even the nearby Middle Eastern countries don't even want the influx of Palestinians in their countries either..... What is up with that??

I don't like our response: we veto a UN resolution condemning the assassination, but then we get Condoleezza Rice saying "It is very important that everyone step back now and try to be calm in the region..." WTF??!!??? THERE WOULD'VE BEEN MORE CALM IF YASSIN WAS NOT ASSASSINATED.... With Hamas and other Jihads now in a position to start plotting more bombings and terrorist acts, I have to say again: Where does Bush get off saying that the world is a safer place under his regime?? Please explain this one to me......

Gas Prices

Want proof that the turbulence in the Middle East isn't going to be affecting all of us -- look at the pump.. OPEC decided to cut back production and with sharp criticism about Saudi Arabia leading the charge for increasing oil prices, one cannot sit on idle hands honestly believing that the totality of events from the invasion of Iraq, to accusing the Saudis for being involved in 9/11, to the assassination on the Hamas founder -- to be a little indicative of the "peace" in the world today.. I'm not happy about it - nor will everyone else who has to fuel up be happy about it.. I don't see Bush exactly doing cartwheels trying to do something about it.. *sighs yet again*

The Passion

"Mel Gibson 'clearly a tortured soul' says France's main Jewish Group..." In what many say is an accurate depiction of the last days of Christ, the Jews are outraged that they are being portrayed in such a light.. I'm not a bible-thumper, but I am someone who believes in a principle of accuracy.. If Jewish Groups are upset, then My first question is: are you upset that Mel Gibson did not accurately portray the last days of Christ?? The International Herald Tribune had this quote: "the Jews' real complaint isn't with my film ('The Passion of the Christ') but with the Gospels." Okay - so if we're disagreeing with how history was written, then that's a real problem.. Think how history is going to reflect the war in Iraq - or the Liberation of Iraq - or the ousting of Saddam Hussein.. Regardless of who pens the history text, the message is going to be slanted according to that particular author's belief..

Which is why I did fall in love with history and which is why I do find a curiosity with Mel Gibson's movie.. History is interpretive.. Just like witnessing a car accident, we see things from a variety of vantage points and understandings.. Maybe we fixated our attention on one particular point and did not notice other details.. So what we have is a scale of interpretive events based on one's perception and understanding.. I may have been fixated on the left car, but did not notice when the right car entered the intersection.. Therefore my interpretation of events focuses around the left car.. I can offer a lot more details about the left car, and far fewer from the right car.. It's up to my interpretation of what transpired given whatever I personally witnessed..

That creates a larger difficulty when interviewing people who rely on that recall for information.. It's problematic.. Some people do have photographic memories.. Yet, I can't help but wonder how photographic it really is - or how much they are willing to notice something that may be unpopular to them.. Is that what happened when the Gospels were being written - or crafted in a way that was suited for a particular group's need or desire to reflect history..

The irony is that we can't write a book, an article, a movie, or a piece of music without having offended at some someone..

But I do comment Mel.. It's a brave project, and considering a lot of people are saying how real they thought the movie was.. Real..

Why are we afraid to look at things that are real??