Fahrenheit 9/11 or 411??

"If an eighth of Michael Moore's documentary is true -- Bush should be sitting next to Saddam right now.." : Me - after watching the movie for the first time....

Well - we did it..

As unbelievable as it sounds, our little "poke" town finally got Fahrenheit 9/11.. This afternoon my girl and I made it to a Sunday Matinee and let's just say that people clapped after the documentary was over.. Not exactly your standard response from a movie at another theater, but it happened..

Now much of what I say here are filled with spoilers -- so if you're not interested, don't even venture any further..

Also - let's just say that I embraced the movie - so if you're not interested in hearing the various comments from someone who questioned the war, questioned the Presidency, then you probably shouldn't be reading any further.......

3...

2...

1...

Okay -- enough warning..

I'd like to make the following statement very clear: I do not know all of Michael's sources or some of the basis of some of his arguments.. As I indicated up above, should an 1/8th of this documentary be factual - then George needs to step aside.. If (and there's a significant proportion of folks and groups that challenge Mr. Moore) the documentary is a hoax, then it's a masterful peace of propaganda..

Clearly there is a bias and motive on Mr. Moore's behalf to give his version of the Bush administration.. That said, he provides sound clips, bytes and images that we don't always see in mainstream USA.. Granted - again - there's no way of saying if statements and images were taken out of context.. But the stories.. The footage from families, soldiers, and the Iraqi people are compelling.. *That* is a very impressionable story that has gone unreported..

It goes unreported because the press can remember what happened in Vietnam.. They can remember that due to their reports of people dying over there - that eventually led to our pull out.. Is this so that they remain in favor of the government - who supplies them with leaks and other information?? Perhaps.. Still it's bothersome for me - and my girl to think that we don't get the whole story when we tune in our televisions or read our newspapers..

So, Michael's documentary did something very good for me: My eyes are once again, open..

Much of what Michael did - I do remember all the way from the Florida voting issues to the curious military record of our President..

But what interested me the most was the correlation between the Saudis and the Bush family.. There's more documented facts that really have me in awe.. The tangle of connections between the Bush's and the Saudi's make for a very interesting argument of what *actually* happened for the last 12+ years.. Bush Sr. continued to be a consultant for a Saudi oil production company.. Even George's appointments in Afghanistan and the Saudi ambassadorship were ex-execs of the company George worked for before he became governor..

(Remember all of those claims about how Clinton only appointed his close friends?? -- erase that now......)

Then there was a very curious point about the fact that Bin Laden's family was flown out of the country shortly after Bush called for every airplane to be grounded.. There were over 20 flights that left the country - sending the Bin Laden family out of here.. A very curious charge by Michael Moore.. Because it really flies in the face of reason because of few points:

1.) if we do not know it was Bin Laden, then why not keep them and ask some questions as to his possible location or possible uncovering of additional plots against the US..

2.) things were a lot more prepared to get the Bin Ladens out of the US than originally thought..

3.) Considering that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (a fact that may not have been known at the time) -- yet Saudi Arabia asks that 142 of Saudi Arabian nationality be flown out of the country.. Interesting -- because why these 142?? Certainly there are MORE than 142 Saudi Arabian nationals here in the US.. Did we accidentally send off collaborators and didn't even know it??

4.) Saudi Arabia had their hand in the cookie jar a lot more than we know.. One of the claims in the documentary stated that the Saudis have hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the US.. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS.. I submit that THIS is the real reason why we haven't investigated Saudi Arabia's role further..

Interesting questions to say the least..

Then there were the alarming facts that stood out:

1.) How we didn't send in our special elite task force for 2 months following 9/11..

2.) How Bush was at the elementary school after the first plane hit the towers.. (Why this is even relevant is that I remember something Bush said in an interview where he knew that it was a terrorist act from the first plane hitting the Towers..

2a.) Okay -- if that's the fact, WHY in God's green Earth did he STAY at the elementary school??

2b.) WHY did he continue to read to the children after the second plane hit the towers??

2c.) WHY didn't he excuse himself, go into the school to start with??

2d.) IF he knew it was a terrorist attack, IF he knew this going into school -- WHERE is the leader of our country SUPPOSED TO BE AT A TIME LIKE THAT???????

3.) How it has been reported by the Washington Post that for the first year or so in his Presidency, 42% of the time was spent on vacation, on a boat, cutting wood at his farm, or playing golf........ Moore made the comment that Bush missed those all important memos because he wasn't working as much.. Bush's retort: "you don't have to be working at the White House and not be working....." (um, right..)

4.) How one of the administration official didn't want to hear about the terrorist briefings anymore.....

5.) Then there's all of the stir from Richard Clarke's opinions as to what his version of events were when he was advising the President.. Clarke didn't understand why there was a push to Iraq when we should've been focusing on Bin Laden.. In an interview with one of the news programs, Clarke came out and said that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.. That's no big shock -- even to this date there's nothing..

6.) Out of every representative and senator, only ONE has an active member of their family in the military.. Conversely, in Flint, Michigan, there are recruiters (probably not just there) that are practically selling anything and everything to get young kids to enlist.. "Ever hear of Shaggy (the rap artist)? He was a Marine.." "David Robinson played basketball when he was in the Navy.." And that's just wrong.. Neither Snoop (and especially) nor David Robinson ever went into military action.. In fact, David Robinson got a nice kooshy job doing recruiting or some thing like that.. Moore's point was taken: "why not send your own children first before sending someone else's.." Then to hear Bush's comment: "I don't want to send my children, no one wants to send their children.." *ouch*

Again..... why??

The 9/11 commission recently issued their findings over the last few weeks.. Most of the blame seems to be failing to brief the administration correctly.. But my main question to that position is: "why??" Shouldn't there be a motive for the CIA to give faulty information so that we have no choice but go into Iraq?? Moore's movie does not answer this.. I can accept the fact that the CIA lied, okay - but WHY??

*ahem*

The reviews have been rather scathing.. Moore has been branded everything from a jihadist, to a traitor, to a sympathizer to terrorism.. Moore is being called un-patriotic, an idiot and just an all around bad dude who calls Bush an idiot.. But in all the critiques, all of the name calling, branding, treacherous labels slapped on Mr. Moore, there's one important thing I haven't read anyone, or hear anyone say:

"Mr. Moore, that which you bring out in the movie is complete and utterly false.."

Nope..

Nada..

Nothing..

I have heard people saying that it's a brilliant work of fiction.. That it shouldn't be considered a documentary because there aren't any facts in it.. Okay - that's a valid start to the argument but I haven't come across anyone who can denounce aspects of Fahrenheit 9/11 based on fact.. People are pissed that Michael Moore made a movie that calls to question many of the things this administration has done..

Is that wrong??

Is that unpatriotic??

Why?? Why can't people like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh rely on whatever version of facts that they want to?? Please note that I'm avoiding the other questionable angles of Mr. Moore's movie: the so called financial (greed) motive for attacking Iraq, the connections between Bush, his family, and the merging of companies and the Middle East.. I leave that for conjecture since there are investment deals like this all of the time.. What I don't get is why Halliburton has off-shore accounts in the Cayman Islands.. That sounds a bit wishy washy for some reason..

Having seen the movie with my own two eyes, President Bush is not put into a positive light.. There's no spinning the movie into a positive for conservatives and that's what's getting under their craw.. They don't want their man to come out of this with a black eye..

To be honest - he should never have gotten into this mess to begin with.......

Here endeth the lesson..

Fahrenheit 9/11

Going to see it this afternoon -- will do a write up when I get back.. :)

Bush is at it again/plus a slight tangent

Bush Speaks Out Against Gay Marriage

Again - I cite that families are already FUCKED to begin with anyway.. Anyone who wants to peruse the number of divorce statistics and custody battles can tell you that.. Let's not open up the whole "it's in the Bible, it must be good" argument.. Obviously Bush forgets the little "oopsies" about the sex scandals involving priests..

He has nothing else to base his stance on except to fall back on "culture" and "traditions" arguments.. Can he say exactly *how* "And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure." No one has been able to say exactly what would happen..

So what possible motivations does Bush have for coming out against gays??

1.) He's a homophobe (a distinct possibility)
2.) He's going with popular opinion (unlikely if Bush claims he never reads the newspapers.. -- which should be a rant for another day.....)
3.) Somehow, somewhere, there's influence in the administration of his policies..

I'm not saying that Bush is under the influence of churches, but the idea in general does raise some incredible questions though about what kind of "support" any (not singling out Bush or Kerry or anyone else) church organization offers.. I remember hearing a brief news blurb in the last month or two that there was an investigation into a particular church's actions in endorsing a candidate for a local office.. Which is a no-no because for them to achieve their tax status, they must remain unaffiliated with politics..........

Think further on that one..

Churches are not *supposed* to intervene in politics, yet they do that really well already.. Also Churches don't want to be told what to do.. But they influence politics across the board.. Generally speaking, most people do look inward to their spiritual leaders for guidance.. That's where I had a problem with religion: I don't like someone telling Me how I should think or why..

So maybe the Church can't give any money for their "preferred candidate", but they can go ahead and add little reminders each Sunday during their services, during their outings, potlucks, and socials.. People talk about the news all the time, and it's foolish to believe that Churches remain "distantly quiet" when such conduct happens..

I want to add one more point to this rant:

Some people can't even comment on politics because of their job.. Now I'll admit I'm one of those people -- who can't even write an editorial in my local paper because of the ramifications for taking a stand on a political issue.. I can get away with posting in forums and my blog because it's rather obscure and not really visible.. If I had 2000 hits a day, I'd likely have to reconsider..

So why do I have these constraints, but the churches can organize protests, campaigns, crusades and off-camera endorsements to candidates??

We live in a world of hypocrisy -- Bush's stance is just a gentle reminder of that fact.. He's delaying the inevitable.. As the population grows, so will the gay/lesbian community..

It's coming George -- this will be a stain on your administration.........

A 10-year time capsule

Ten years from now - I'd like to look back at this thought just to see if it ever came true:

Outsourcing: that which takes jobs from the US and places them overseas.. Cheaper labor, more revenue for businesses.. This is a concept that President Bush has actually encouraged because (as I read this weekend in a magazine) this administration forecasted that the outsourcing jobs would be replaced by "higher paying, more sophisticated jobs.."

That hasn't happened..

But wait.. There's more..

Where are these jobs going?? Does anyone really have a clear clue?? Does anyone have a clear cut understanding of exactly what jobs have been outsourced?? We do know that some of them were technology based, even customer service is now overseas.. It's not too unlikely to call up customer service and speak to someone in India, Japan, or South Korea.. But down the road, what makes us confident that these countries where we've outsourced to, will remain our allies in the years to come?? hmmmm.....

Like Osama - once a friend, now an enemy..

So if we outsource to a country (assuming we're not outsourcing to Iran, or other countries that don't really like us right now) and they become our enemy, consider this: these countries have access, (in whatever degree - that's still debatable) to your account, our technology, and likely can figure out what to do better than we can with it..

The point is, if you give a child a set of blocks, they can usually figure out more creative things to do with those blocks than just stack them on top of one another.. What happens when that child gets angry and throws those blocks, smashing your $1,000 vase, breaks a window or injures someone??

Remember.. Someone from the Administration spoke on Bush's behalf: "In February, Gregory Mankiw, a top economic adviser to President Bush, said offshoring could hold long-term benefits for the economy."

But what about the war on terror??

If we have our companies and corporation exposed overseas - expanding the potential of a terrorist threat EVEN MORE........ but if this administration has the mindset that as long as it "could hold long-term benefits for the economy," we could be fucked down the road..

Of course in a perfect utopia, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, we would be living in peace and harmony throughout the world, there would be no sickness, no famine, nothing that separates those who can get anything they want to those who can barely make ends meet..

I pray that 10 years from now, when I open this - what I just outlined never happened.. I pray that 10 years from now we will be on the road to a perfect world.. I pray..

mathematics....

Fahrenheit 9/11 sets a record for a documentary...

Interesting to note: Moore's movie was shown to under 900 screens, while 2nd place "White Chicks" opened to over 2,700 screens..

Moore's movie took in about 2 million dollars MORE on LESS screens......

What can we deduce from the ol' abacus??

People were very interested in Moore's movie

Amazing.. I thought for sure Michael Moore was going to be kicked out of the country after his movie aired.. Amazing..

Obviously a lot of people want to make up their own mind - and not totally rely upon the conservative machine for stopping short of calling Mr. Moore and evil, un-patriotic American....

....oh yeah - I guess they did that already.....

The F* Bomb.... oh, and decency....

I remember it wasn't that long ago - I think it was John Kerry who F* Bombed in public.. Well, apparently our VEEP says that it's okay.. Well.. Isn't that lovely..

The irony is that - that same day, the Senate passed something called the Defense of Decency Act that same day.. Isn't it painfully obvious just how hypocritical this whole Conservative movement is right now??

Holy Fuck -- damn -- just got a $275k fine........

The Controversy

Yes, this blog is dedicated to the Michael Moore controversy..

*gasps in sarcastic horror*

Okay -- first things first: the disclaimers.. I don't know Michael Moore, not associated with him except for the fact we share the same surname.. I've never seen any of his movies, read any of his books, even looked at his website.. I know that his new movie has generated a lot of fire.. Other than that single little bit I really don't know JACK about Michael..

There..

As everyone is more than aware, he has made a movie that everyone is steaming about.. I've listened half-hearted to the radio pundits calling him "Un-American," "a socialist," and other unmentionables.. More than that, people are associating him with HATE a name that is generally reserved unless you fuck up something really bad.. Think about it: even Saddam wasn't associated with the word HATE.. Now that's bad..

Now..

What bothers me the most is regardless of what someone personally thinks about Moore, his movies, his political beliefs -- whatever -- I need to bring out this one important piece of information:

THE MOVIE HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET!!!!

Ahem..

That is a very telling sign that people just want to HATE Michael Moore because he happens to be "anti-Bush.." So it has NOTHING to do with the movie because NO ONE could have possibly have seen it unless you got some sort of advance showing..

That's not likely..

So instead of being objective, seeing the movie for yourself - there's people out there condemning a movie long before it comes out.. It's a choice to see it - but personally I want to personally witness something before I use such a strong word as HATE...........

"Collaborative Relationships"

Militant Vow to Assassinate Iraq Premier

None of this should be surprising.. None of this should be having anyone in shock or awe.. None of this should be met with mouth gaping open..

If anything this should serve as a warning (again): we're not welcome over there.. A pretty healthy contingent is going to continue to wage this war - no matter the costs.. The major difference is before 9/11, there was a belief that many of these groups just didn't have the ability to throw anything more than stones at their potential enemies..

9/11 changed all that..

Not only can they throw something more than stones - but they did a pretty good job at running planes into the World Trade Towers.. They got our attention and our President originally started off on the right path: through Pakistan.. Instead of crushing them - he stopped.. He turned his attention into what has turned onto a country solely on this premise:

From Fox News: "Clearly, Cheney was describing exactly the sort of "collaborative relationship" that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda, and stating that this relationship makes it "not surprising" that people would connect Iraq with the September 11 attacks."

Great.. But I have one follow-up question for Dick: "Mr. Vice-President, if we are securing all possible 'collaborative relationships' with Al Qaeda, can we expect to attack France, Russia, and Saudi Arabia anytime in the near future??" Because I'm a little fuzzy on exactly a "collaborative relationship" is - as it applies to what happened on 9/11..

Let's consider this a little outside the box:

Many nations their hand in training Al Qaeda back in the day: Cold War.. Remember?? Let's also not forget that WE legitimized Iraq AND Al Qaeda.. We helped with training, funding, weapons, etc.. So we're fighting a war - a war on terrorism - with someone that WE assisted, WE trained, WE funded, and WE armed.. So should we start by invading California??

No - no - we won't do that.. We're really good at placing blame in other directions and really really good at disassociating ourselves when we have to blame something we did.. I'm not trying to let this become a partisan thing - because every administration has done it (yes, even Reagan I'm afraid..)

Blame the CIA, blame the 7 troops of the Abu Ghraib prison, blame the INS, blame Clinton, blame Reagan, Bush Sr., Rummy, blame Tenet, blame the liberal press, blame Michael Moore, blame Air America -- blame whoever you see fit.. The problem remains: no one is taking responsibility for it and showing the gumption of taking that responsibility: why??

Because it will ruin their chance for advancement in the future..

Bush knows that if he accepted responsibility for what happened that it would be the equivalent of political suicide.. So the chess pieces are maneuvered in a way that will try to protect Dubya..

Let Me put it in simpler terms:

Bush is putting his own political career ahead of the responsibilities of securing and bringing those people to Justice who attacked our country.. He's lost focus in the war on terror.. It's speculative how much of a role Iraq had in the affairs of international terrorism, but if the 9/11 commission's report is any indication, we went into Iraq under questionable pretenses..

Instead of going to northern Africa, southeast Asia, and continue to vacuum the Afghanistan, Pakistan border - we focused on ONE country, ONE man - and have nothing to show for it.. We should've continued to expel the Al Qaeda cells across the world - but the choice was made to invade Iraq..

"Collaborative Relationships" is an interesting way to end this blog.. Because I'm questioning the real collaborative relationships with this administration and where their focus has gone since 9/11..

Many Thoughts

Lots to cover, but in no particular order:

No connection found between Iraq and 9/11.. Hmm.. What was the response from the White House?? The report was "irresponsible." It's very interesting that the White House chose a single word that acts so deadly to their policies and administration.. Obviously the word: "irresponsible" can quickly be applied in our rush to Iraq - or the fact that Al Qaeda remains an elusive threat..

I also find it troublesome that we have political and military leaders that are assessing the terroristic situation "like a cancer.." Meaning that you may get rid of most of it, but it'll always be there in some manner.. That's lovely.. Let's face a little music: we're not LIKED in the Middle East right now.. By continuing this policy of forging ahead blindly, we are ENCOURAGING the cancer to spread.. That's problematic..

Martial Law in Iraq?? Looks like it's going to happen.. I'm not so sure the Iraqi people are going to like this arrangement either.. Especially since our troops are still going to be over there.. Many consider the new Iraqi government to be a puppet to this administration - which I can't see how the Bush regime can't shake this troublesome perception.. More music please: The fact we're over there is going to CONTINUE these attacks even more..

American Contractors in the Middle East First of all, I sympathize for the family that lost their husband, their father, their neighbor.. I can say with certainty that no one wanted to see Mr. Johnson killed.. But here's where I start thinking a little bit askew.. I'm very concerned for *anyone* who happens to be in Iraq right now.. It doesn't matter if you're a member of the press or someone who is on humanitarian relief.. If you're an American - you're a target.. If you're anyone associated with the coalition - you're a target..

At some point - don't we have to say: look, if you go over to Iraq - you're taking your life in your own hands.. I'm not trying to be cold-hearted to the Johnson family - but clearly they knew that this could have been a possible outcome.. If we believe blindly that "just because we're Americans, we're safe" then we're running as blind as our President..

Mr. Johnson must have at some point accepted the potential risk of something bad happening to him.. When you stop and think about it - it's no different than the men and women currently serving overseas, or if you're a police officer, a fire fighter, or some who works on a fishing boat or drives an 18 wheeler.. Risks are taken everyday.. We try to mitigate those risks to make sure accidents and other avoidable events are handled properly.. Unfortunately it happens.. By going to Iraq, every contractor, every worker, every single one must be aware of the potential risks.. I don't like the fact that we're at war with a seemingly invisible enemy - but we're at war with them.. When you piss off a hive of bees, they just don't go flying away -- they're pissed off and they want to come after you..

I'm sorry for the Johnson family and friends.. It shouldn't have happened.. It was more than a possibility that it could happen.. And unfortunately it did happen..

Freedom of Religion I don't have an adequate segue for this topic.. The courts recently upheld the pledge of allegiance saying that the words: "one nation under God" remains in.. Okay - I grew up with the pledge - and I personally don't have an issue with it.. But what transpired on one of the radio programs was very unique.. The host was on a rant about how we are a nation founded on Christianity.. But we fled Britain not just for taxes, but for freedom of religion.. That to Me says: being able to practice your religion and spiritual beliefs within certain confines of the law..

Okay - I'm agreeable to that..

But then it went deeper.. The host was basically condemning the gentleman who raised this issue to begin with - that being an atheist was bad.. Well regardless of how we practice our spirituality, every one of us is and should be protected.. A religion doesn't need to have a God in order to practice.. There are many other spiritual avenues that don't follow the Christian ideology or follow "God" or the various derivative teachings thereafter..

I have an ever growing concern though when we start blending religion and the law.. It has been made very clear that religion and the law should be divisible -- but I strongly do not believe that the Pledge of allegiance fosters the mandate that "YOU WILL BELIEVE IN GOD..." No - it doesn't say that.. It's a reminder of who we are, what liberties we have, and that which should be protected.. Even if you're practicing religion that does not have a God - the fact that you're protected to practice your religion at ALL is somewhat of a miracle in these times..

Stem cell research Briefly: I'm very glad to see that Nancy Reagan is spearheading this movement on the conservative side of the aisle.. While we can't be positive had this been in place long before Reagan's death - what effect it could have, but for Me, or for anyone else in the future - this is very significant.. The longer we delay - the more people that will have to be tortured into living a life where the science is there for consumption but our government forbids it..

Interesting how the conservative movement is SO DEDICATED in their right to life argument yet they are so hypocritical when it comes having the ability to saving people because the technology says it's possible..

Interesting how the conservative movement is SO DEDICATED in the right for life - yet we remain in Iraq and expose incredibly good, dedicated people in harms way when there has been an evident misappropriation of responsibility for the intelligence and 9/11..

Yeah - whatever.....

I was listening to Hannity the other day..

It's really ironic how this whole Reagan funeral is turning so political.. The long story short - Hannity is parading around everything that Reagan did (which is okay in My book since it's merely reporting what history has already written about..) But here's the part I didn't like:

"I bet all of the Democrats can't stand themselves...."

He later referred to the funeral as:

"You can't get better press opportunities like this...."

Now who is being the "in your face" kind of person now?? If we are supposed to be remembering a President who made a profound impact (regardless if you think it was positive or not) then why is it that Hannity has taken it upon himself to drive the wedge further between the democrats and the republicans??

I was looking at one of the political cartoons this week about Reagan's death - and one of the best ones I saw was how the republican elephant and democrat donkey were lamenting the loss of Reagan while Bush stood away from the pair looking off in a different direction.......

I found it compelling because Reagan did reach across the ideological lines where it didn't matter where you were - he could reach out to you.. In a lot of ways he is being considered a very moderate President.. I'll agree considering what we have in the White House today.. To this day - I don't think Bush even knows who he is or where he is in the spectrum of things..

Back to Hannity -- I'm disillusioned that at a time of possibly BOOSTING your party's reputation, there was a conscious choice to drive the wedge further.. Congratulations Hannity, I really hope you know what you're doing for the sake of your party.. You had a golden opportunity here and BLEW IT..

Hannity's golden response: yeah, whatever..

Anyone Taking Bets??

Problem #1: Most Iraqis don't like us over there..
Problem #2: Most Iraqis don't want to have *jack* to do with democracy or anything remotely close to looking "American.."
Problem #3: We, the US, approved of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to be the current leader of the Iraqi people..

Now for the math:

Problem #1 + Problem #2 + Problem #3

Has anyone started taking bets of how long Prime Minister Iyad Allawi plans to be in power - even if we're still over there in a security role - even if we are in the process of leaving, cutting back our forces, etc..

Has anyone thought about exactly how Mr. Allawi is in a very very dangerous position right now?? Anyone else see the life expectancy for any US supported individuals having the lifespan of a fly??

I kinda feel sorry for the guy really.....

Reagan

Like a lot of people - I have mixed feelings about Ronald Reagan's passing.. Personally - I know this may be hard to swallow - I actually liked most of what he did when he was President.. That said - I'd take Ronald over The Dub anyday.....

The passing of a President usually gets a lot of airplay.. I do recall though that Nixon didn't get the air time that Reagan is getting.. I think there are several reasons why this is the case, but most notably: Reagan was more likable than Nixon.. He had his moments - no denying that.. But as a person of character - he was really good..

Darby and I talked about it tonight.. She thought that as Presidents went, Reagan probably leaned on his staff more than other Presidents, that somehow he didn't have the experience to lead the country than others.. I'm not sure I fully agree with that, but I don't think it's a mystery that Reagan probably relied upon his staff for decisions.. I also don't think that's a bad thing.. Because the input of 20 people on a decision should be better than just one person.. I think Bush is proving that right now..

One little observance I made tonight.. It was when Nancy was escorted by VP Dick Cheney to the casket.. When I looked at her response, body language, etc. the only thing I wondered was whether that was drawn up as a publicity moment.. Nancy looked really confused and unsure of whether to be up there - and what to be doing up there.. Considering she's already spent this past week traveling with the casket - now there had to be one more photo op for the administration..

I have no idea if that was the intent, the situation, or what -- but something wasn't right with how she was reacting.. Nancy has always been a very calm, very natural person in front of a crowd or on TV.. Here it looked like she was being "guided" where to be, where to stand, where to go, what to do...... It's a slight point.. I don't know if there was something going on..

I do know this though - I feel for her, the family and for those that were close to this man.. Love him or hate him - he was a statesman.. I don't think he did much for the economy and I reject the notion of needing "Reaganomics" for the country, but I'm also not a business or finance major, so I can't really say for sure.. I do know that he stood his ground and had a lot of good fortunes that happened in his administration.. He got the hostages out of Iran.. He stopped the Soviet Union.. Assisted in the taking down of the Berlin Wall.. And I actually remember that the world felt safe.. Amazing what a decade and a half can do, eh?? Considering when you've had two republican presidents and a democrat since then..........

One last thought before I close this: I was surprised to hear about Tenet's resignation - but can anyone say that this is really shocking?? Surprised yes, shocking - hardly.. Tenet really dug himself a couple of holes - and *still* didn't find any WMD.. Oops.. Here's the setup: with Tenet gone -that's great news for the White House because the blame will have appeared to shift on to him and not Bush.. Which is still My anger spot: there's STILL no responsibility for these lapses - only excuses.. Business as usual.. Short term memories will abound...

Long rant -- deleted.....

I had a good one going this morning - then x'd out of the wrong box - and sent many thoughts into oblivion.....

*sighs*

Basically it came down to the fact that Bush is having to wake him self up from a disaster called "alternate reality.." I'm amazed at the backpedaling he's done in the last few months.. We've been told the Iraqi handover may not be possible -- now there's a rush to get it done before June.. We've been told that we shunned the UN and the world from helping form a new Iraq -- now we're begging for their help.. We've been told that "we have a job to do over there" -- now we're trying to do all we can to bring home our troops..

I commented that it's amazing that the Savage Idiot even changed his tune and actually agreed with something the rest of us have been saying all along: we need to get out of Iraq... Okay, so he's a little slow on the uptake.. Anyone on this planet could tell you that Saddam was the pawn in this whole game..

There's a lot of loose ends out there though.. Look at what has happened in the last 4 years and consider if it's something that we want to continue.. When we look at the REALITY of what's happening - versus what Bush's VERSION OF REALITY -- are we really sure we want 4 more years of this?? Granted, I'm like a lot of people who don't like Kerry, but if we're really looking at the best options for US, the U.S., as a citizen, as a nation, as a world participant -- the bigger question is:

Has Bush made America safer or more vulnerable??

That's the question everyone has to answer honestly and in REALITY.. Not the version Bush concocts.. No.. The one that looks at the numbers of men and women being killed in Iraq.. The failure to uphold an infrastructure in the midst of a chaotic nation..

Don't want the terrorists to win?? They will shortly.. Wanna know how I know?? Look at the picture: we're doing everything we can get leave Iraq.. Which sends a powerful message to terrorists: keep up resisting and they will eventually leave.. That's a dangerous precedent to establish, but we're in an election year so the rules change a bit when it comes down to it.. It further proves that the work of suicide bombers who work in small cells across the world are being effective in swaying policy..

There's a well known quote from Bush: "We will not negotiate with terrorists.."

Guess what??

We're doing that now, and we've done it in the past -- and we'll continue to do it in the future.......

Bush, wake up - the alarm is going off.......

Of course....

Of course....

In today's news Bush declared "We will not play politics with the strategic petroleum reserve... would put America in a dangerous position in the war on terror.." Okay - I might actually agree with that - because it makes sense to Me.. But Bush specifically said "I will not play politics with the strategic reserve.......

..... only then said "Congress needs to pass the energy plan."

Wait -- hold up..

I thought we weren't going to play politics, but we are going to play politics when it comes to holding the country hostage so that his energy bill gets passed..

Slice one way, then the other.. Yup - another fun-filled busy day in politics..

WMD FOUND - HOLY SHIT!!

Yay for Bush -- they found one little bomb that contained Sarin gas.. NOW we can all rest easier tonight KNOWING that the WMD have been found!!

*whew* What a relief..

In other news
Gas just climbed over $2 a gallon over here.. I heard Hannity make the comment that Kerry wants to open up the Emergency surplus we have - even though he voted against it when Clinton was in office and the conservatives wanted to open up the reserves.. Now that Bush is in office, the see-saw is going back the other way and now it's totally opposite.. Can anyone figure out WHY everyone hates these parties yet??

More soliders killed, Iraqi Governing President assassinated.. But let's not get concerned or anything.. After all everyone in Iraq is just DYING IN WAIT to become just like the United States!! (Oh boy..)

Last note on that topic: think outside the box for a second.. Maybe Iraq doesn't want to be a democracy.. Anyone think of that?? "But - sure they do!! It's so they can be free!!" Free according to our system, free according to our structure, free according to what BUSH wants to see, free according to what serves the American interest the most.. Is there any real mystery why the insurgents continue to grow?? Okay - still not following Me?? Let Me offer one more scenario:

China takes over the US.. They want to make us a Communist State.. Bush is captured by the Chinese government and we are all "reassured" that the Communist system is a better system.. Having said that - don't you think the American citizens are going to say "fuck you" and resist?? Hell yeah we are..

Now for the brain boiler: How would our reaction to a Chinese invasion be ANY different than what is going on in Iraq??

Wait a minute......

In the last couple of weeks, Rummy has been coming out saying that these reports are exaggerated.. Depending on what unfolds in the next few days regarding this -- I'll be very interested...

What discerns me the most is how the blame is being shifted.. If in fact Rumsfeld knew about this - and didn't tell Bush.......... let's say there's probably not going to be too much love in the White House...

I can see Bush having no choice but doing something with Rumsfeld if he doesn't bow out from all of the pressure that has been mounting lately.. That tends to be MO for this administration.. Unlike Clinton who fought for his people, despite all of the problems...

*shrugs* We do live in an interesting world these days.......

Finally....

I discovered a site this yesterday (yes, it's a little late) that FINALLY holds up these conservative talk show pundits' feet to their own fire:

Media Matters

Thank goodness...... :) I really look forward to read the news on here..

Unbelievable....

Okay - I'm driving to McDonald's this morning to get Darby and I some breakfast.. On the air was a congressman talking about the whole Iraq-abuse situation.. I'm in full agreement with the congressman who was saying that it was an inexcusable act.. It was unwarranted, disgraceful, and wrong.. No way how you slice it..

But the congressman didn't stop there..

He went out of his way to say that this whole thing was blown out of proportion.. (Kinda reminds you of a certain sex-scandal, doesn't it??) At least in the Clinton saga, no one was tortured, forced to do sexual acts (I do believe Monica was having fun at the time), or under duress.. So, the whole "it's being blown out of proportion" argument flies out the window in My opinion..

Then he said how it's become a political issue: well duh - so does sex apparently as long as "your guy" isn't in the White House.. It's political because - IT HAPPENED ON YOUR WATCH.. Finally, this is something the conservatives can't PEG on Clinton.. (woohoo - rejoice..)

But he stops with the 7 soldiers who are being targeted for the allegations of abuse.. Okay - why?? If we're a country predicating "high moral standards" - then accountability needs to be included in that mix.. We have a President and Secretary of Defense who is basically trying everything to wash their hands of what happened.. So much for having high moral standards.....

Then - the ultimate: "let's not forget that these people have American blood on their hands.." But he's careful to say that it doesn't justify what happened to the prisoners.. But his parting comment on that point was: "let's not forget there are two sides to every story.." How convenient..

First of all - if they are prisoners (and here's where the definitions start to show signs of blurring) then they need to be afforded the same rights and protections as a prisoner.. But if Rumsfeld is going to say that everything that was done to those prisoners over there fell within the Geneva Convention - then we are establishing a completely new set of rules for what is allowed..

Don't believe me??

What do you think this administration's reaction would be if it were an American prisoner being subjected to the same horrific scenario?? Of course we'd be outraged AND we'd be quoting the very same articles in the Geneva Convention that Rumsfeld is apparently relying on..

On a side note, I heard someone saying the other day that the Geneva Convention does not apply because it applies to a war on a country - not on an individual or group (i.e. terrorists...) I wish I would've been paying closer attention because this conversation should been awarded some "hair splitting" award for best idea..... (holy shit!!)

How much more contorted can this get??

Rough Times Ahead, Rummy

I personally believe that Rumfeld's job may be in jeopardy.. Especially since you have 7 servicemen overseas who are now up on court martial for what was done to the prisoners in Iraq.. I'm still not sure what - if anything can be done about what happened.. Let's look at the major headlines in TODAY's news:

"US Sets Public Baghdad Court Martial in Abuse Case."
"Iraqi Detainees Allege Torture in US run Jails"
"Blast Rocks Baghdad Hotel Foreigners Hurt"
"Bomb Kills Putin's Top Man in Chechnya and 6 Others"
"Israeli Soldiers Kill Two Palestinian Gunmen"
"Marchers Demand Bush Extend Assault Weapons Ban"
"Cheney Defends Rumsfeld, Says 'Get Off His Case'"
"Sharon Cancels US Trip, Will Submit New Gaza Plan"
"Two Foreigners Stoned to Death in Afghanistan"

Can anyone see exactly how WELL Bush is doing in international affairs??

See how incredibly safe he's making the world - and how everyone is so much safer now that Saddam is out of the picture??

There are nine glaring examples of how Bush continues to fail his Foreign Policy:

Abuse case -- wouldn't have happened if we weren't occupying Iraq, over-extending our troops, and failing to secure an adequate government for the Iraqi people..

more torture -- Bush claims additional investigations are going on.. Again - IF WE WEREN'T IN IRAQ, WE WOULDN'T BE GOING THROUGH THIS..

Blast Rocks Baghdad -- If you go over to Iraq - how can you NOT believe you could be kidnapped, injured, mamed or killed?? Why are we focusing so much on these people when there is already an assumed risk.. Is it no wonder that bad things happen when you walk into the "wrong bar" because you're not invited, or that generally speaking, people in the bar don't like you??

Putin's Top Man dies -- Maybe if Bush wasn't so busy with Iraq, he would've been able to use his vast amount of "credible intelligence" to help Putin thwart the assassination.....

Israeli Soldiers kill -- We turn a blind eye to anything Israel does, but the moment the Palestinians do anything, there is automatic condemnation by Bush.. I guess it all matters who your friend is - and who you're going to support, regardless of what horrific things your friend does....

Extending Assault Weapons Ban -- I'm mystified at how an assault weapon is going to be useful in a hunting expedition.. How many bullets does it take to kill a turkey for heavens sake!!??!!

Cheney tells Everyone "get off Rummy!!" -- Oh wait, we're not supposed to criticize anyone in Bush's cabinet.. Why?? Because "[he] is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had." Huh?? Exactly what basis is a "good secretary of defense??" Moreover, when Cheney comments "People ought to get off his case and let him do his job.." Well Dick, I hate to tell you this - but he apparently hasn't done his job too well if he is so far out of touch with his chain of command.. He should be pulse of the military all over the world, which makes him ultimately responsible for what happens in Iraq today, or some other country tomorrow.. "Best Secretary of Defense??" Excuse Me?? Iraq remains out of control, we don't know where Bin Laden is, our troop organization is skewed and completely disorganized, GI's are committing suicide on a regular basis, abuses are happening because soldiers were probably instructed to do so (which means Rumsfeld's chain of command is responsible - no matter how you size that up), and now we have a VP who is saying we should all get off his case.. *laughs* Best Secretary of Defense ever?? *laughs harder* Puhleeeeeeeeeze!!!

Sharon Cancels US Trip, Will Submit New Gaza Plan -- aka: acceptable lip service for the United States and other allies....... No different than any other plan, it's going to end up the exact same way.. Sorry, it's going to happen.......

2 killed in Afghanistan -- And I thought we were a "safer world..."


*heavy sighs*

Ironic Thoughts

I've had My car radio turned off the last few days -- except for today when Rush was on..

Nightline VS. Fox News Remember the flap last week about how Nightline was going to air the names of the dead soldiers in Iraq?? Turned out to be a ratings hit.. It also seems that a lot of conservatives had this blow up in their face because they were completely convinced that it was going to tank seriously.. Want to know the really ill part of all of this?? Apparently ABC didn't air any commercials during this particular episode.. No revenue as a result of this.. No profit.. No money.. Whatever motivation ABC seeks, it apparently struck a chord with a pretty significant amount of people..

Who's yelling now?? Fox News.. Oh, before I go any farther, Fox News is a conservative news source.. Now Fox is slamming ABC calling the whole Nightline thing a "publicity stunt.." But it gets better.. "Meanwhile, the controversy fueled by Sinclair is bound to continue. "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace — who worked for ABC News and occasionally anchored "Nightline" until jumping to Fox late last year — said his show is preparing its own list for broadcast this weekend." So now, Fox is going to do their own rendition of what took place on Nightline, but showing the accomplishments and not just read a list of names..

How cheap is that?? That's like saying "I'm sorry Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Johnny died, but we want to hear how Jacob Bell made a fan belt from a discarded piece of cardboard...."

Now.. If it were just for publicity, what is Fox's motivation to repeat what has already been done?? No.. Fox is doing this because it'll paint Bush in a much better light.. A stoic 45 minute program identifying the soldiers who have died is bad for President Bush.. It was for President Johnson when we were in Vietnam.. So if Fox can try and paint a rosier picture, then that's a good thing.. Wow.. A rosy war!! Talk about wagging the dog!! And to think that the conservatives attacked Clinton for doing the same thing during the Monica Lewinski scandal (remember Bosnia anyone??)

Anyone get the clear picture about media bias yet??



Punishing Soldiers Under Orders What an elaborate head job this one is: We have a President leading us into battle ... okay, okay - he basically lied to us into battle, but let's forget that part.. So we're slaughtering Lord knows how many Iraqis so that they can be free.. But the Iraqis are fighting us because they don't want us in their land.. (How unreasonable is THAT, I ask myself...) So we sent thousands of troops over there to fight the war, the war ends, we're trying to stabilize the situation so that their elected government will take control.. Now we're hearing about how the tortures have been going in Iraq..

Now for the irony part.. If these allegations are true (reminding everybody that we still have a Justice system somewhere out there..) and these officers and soldiers are guilty of what they had allegedly done -- Bush wants to make sure they pay for what they did.. Um.. Forgive Me here.. I have a President that unilaterally decided "we're going to war" and summons up all of his forces to go overseas to find Saddam, weapons of mass destruction, whatever.. Our soldiers go overseas.. Now that the fighting has been over for sometime - a lot of injuries, deaths and kidnappings continue to happen while the government isn't even close to being able to handle the crisis over there.. The latest news I heard on the way home: we're going to remain in Iraq through 2005..

So.. We're staying in Iraq, our resources and troops are tired, worn down, and rotations are being extended a lot longer than anyone would really care to admit.. Can anyone here measure the stress levels that our men and women are going through?? The suicide rate among active military members were rising at the last check.. I'm not sure where it is today, but when there was that rub a few months ago where soldiers were saying what was on their mind: why are we here, what else is there to accomplish?? Morale has to be getting down in a worse way -- now being told that we're going to be staying over there until 2005 seems to be even more demoralizing..

Because think about it: why would soldiers and officers do something like this?? It's hard to say: "they must be criminals or something.." Really - we have criminals that are protecting our shores?? No, not buying it.. If we're supposed to be supporting our troops, it makes no sense to be supporting criminals.. Next argument.. Were they ordered to do these things?? Even if they were - are we going to have to run the same protections as the Nazi's did when their officers were captured and put on trial for what they did to the Jews?? "I was acting under orders" is a very peculiar defense when you think about it.. It implies "I do everything that I'm told to do" and "I trust the judgment of My superiors implicitly.." Common sense flies out the window - do you want to know how I know?? Because they are TRAINED to obey.. It's bred into them.. They breathe it.. They feel it.. They are under no right to question the authority of their superiors.. In fact, to do so - you're painted with a target.. There's no Serpico defense in the military.. Remember - it's the only job in America where if you try to quit, you get arrested or shot..

It's convenient for the Monday morning quarterback to go: "he should've passed instead of ran the ball.." Fact being: Bush isn't any closer to understanding what is happening in Iraq when all of this is said and done.. He has NO CLUE.. He's made one hell of a mess over there and part of me agrees: yes, we have no other choice now because he's gone and screwed it up.. He now has this chip on his shoulder which basically says "I'll do whatever I want, because you have no choice but to follow me..." If I'm a soldier overseas - knowing what happened to the prisoners, and hearing My President saying "we're going to punish everyone who was involved in this.." He's addressing a weary group of men and women who have been told that they are going to remain in Iraq for a longer time frame, who are missing out on their families, under the constant threat of attack, and confronting a nation that has even more animosity towards us..

One more thing: after Bush's comments about the allegations, one of the things I kept hearing in the back of my mind was: "if you're against the war, you're not patriotic.." "If you disagree with the President, you're not American.." "You don't support our troops if you believed against Bush and Blair's advance through the sands of Iraq.." I'm hearing my President criticizing the command of troops in Iraq.. I'm hearing my President shift the burden and blame from himself - and placing it on those under him.. I'm hearing my President seeking two interviews with Arab television networks saying that what the troops did was wrong........

Let's not forget these very important facts:

BUSH IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.. It goes no higher than him.. He's the top dog and the one ultimately responsible for anything that happens in Iraq..
BUSH SENT OUR TROOPS OVERSEAS.. It sure as hell wasn't Gore who sent them over - and Clinton wasn't in the store - not his doing either..
CRITICIZING YOUR TROOPS ON TELEVISION IS HOW HE SUPPORTS THEM.. Double standard?? Absolutely..

I particularly find it distasteful when White House spokesman Scott McClellan has the balls to say: "These images do not represent what America stands for nor do they represent the high standards that our military is committed to upholding," McClellan said. "What occurred was wrong and it will not be tolerated." Not when we have a President who openly criticizes the very troops he sent over to Iraq.. Not when we have a President who is seeking out two interviews in the country we are occupying to condemn what HIS troops have done.. Not when we have a President who unilaterally sent thousands of troops over and have killed over 10,000 Iraqis to their deaths.. Not when we have a President who has a history of sending more people to death in Texas, than any other governor in the history of America.. Exactly what represented "high standards" are we referring to?? Please explain this one to me..

"BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!" (one of all time favorite quotes from Monty Python..)

It's also getting some incredible air time this week as Ted Koppel and Nightline "Dead List Causes Uproar.." I'm amazed at how this issue quickly turned to flames going as high as the Congress of the government.. Personally, I'm sick that the Sinclair Broadcast Group decided to pull the Nightline episode, but it clearly illustrates the point I've made on here and My other blog:

Almost every media outlet is motivated by politics, power, or some sort of form where they increase their chances of advancement..

With that statement, I'm not singling out neither side.. Both ABC and Sinclair have their individual motives for what they are doing.. I just believe that ABC has the upper advantage because they will win out on the sympathy and morality angle.. Sinclair sees it as a political move to discredit the Bush administration, something that interferes with their access to the White House..

It's something a lot of the American people don't see because of the invisible lines that hold up the reporter's hand while holding the microphone..... They don't see the editing and revision work that is done by the superiors and editors of newspapers, news magazines and other media outlets..

The important thing is NOT to be fooled.. If the public were aware that we are nothing more than the audience of an elaborate puppet show, then that steals the steam from these press outlets.. Once you see the invisible cords and threads on your own - then that's when reality sets in and YOU make the personal choice to decide what you want to believe..

Think this through: how pathetic is this??

We try to place as much faith in what the media tells us - and yet we're really no different than that of some of these communist countries where information is so completely controlled.. The one main difference is that here - stories are generated based on the media outlet's ability to generate the best amount of revenue.. In a communist country, stories are circulated as long as they meet that countries political agenda.. Are we then all that different?? Again, think this through as we live in a society that is controlled by an inordinate amount of public officials and other politicians..

So, if there's control on what information is printed or aired, who is exactly in control here: 1.) The Public?? yeah - right.. 2.) The Government?? In ways we cannot begin to imagine.. 3.) The advertisers, the investors, the conglomerates, the board of directors?? Absolutely..

Back in the day - I remember learning about how the press was generally looked upon as a "reliable source" of information.. What never really got taught (at least in my years of public education, but let's not even go there in this rant!!) the dynamics of what generates the stories from the media.. But times have changed.. There is no such thing as "finding the truth" out there - not when major contracts, advertising dollars, and other conglomerates are considerably more influential when it comes to content..

That's why I try to tell everyone "not to always believe so blindly" into what is being reported.. I'm not saying that every reporter, every newspaper or magazine does this, but it really begs the question which "slant" a story unfolds - and who benefits, and why..

Think about that when reading an account of something.. Even if it's just a story about plants and the plight of one woman (or man) to save the Pedicularis sceptrum carolinum from extinction or something.. There's a reason and purpose for the information that is getting disseminated out there.. Don't believe me?? Then why does the DOJ, the Bush (and Clinton) Administration, among others - bar photographs and other depictions of the dead soldiers coming back from Iraq?? If this is not control - then please explain to me what it is..

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??

HA! I feel safer!!

The recent assassination of the Hamas founder has made Me feel SO MUCH SAFER....... (not)

Exactly how in the hell does this make the world a safer place?? You just made him a martyr, and we want to be crazy enough to think that the Palestinians and Muslims are just going to "pack it in and go home??" Consider that the current war we are facing is going to make Vietnam look like a game of dodge ball..........

Do the math: population of America = 290 million, population of Islam = 1.1 BILLION .... outnumbered just under 4 times..

Safer world?? How about more complex.. Piss of a bear, it's going to bite.. It's not going to think twice - it doesn't blink - doesn't worry about the repercussions - it reacts... That's what we can expect from the Palestinians.. Israel better be on high alert -- it's going to get ugly.....

Maher's Season is ending

Much to our chagrin, Bill Maher's season ended this week.. But I was very impressed with the articulate nature of Gore Vidal.. One of the other guests was a former Bush speech writer.. *laughs* Um, what's even more scary is that this guy thought he was being cute and smart.. One of our favorite comedians was also a guest: Eddie Izzard.. Darby made the comment that she wished that Eddie and Gore weren't on the same episode.. As always, a lot of good debate.. Gore stole the show though.. I'll have to do some follow-up reading on him......

Okay, okay, okay

I get the fact he's a war time President..

I realize that many conservative types think we need Bush to stay in office because he's done "such a good job at thwarting terrorism across the globe.." He hasn't.. It's not getting better.. It's getting worse.. The attacks continue.. But I do agree that we need to put an end to it NOW.. Not by Bush's timetable - because we're too busy setting up governments in other parts of the world.. We are NOT an incubator for evolving countries.. No one assigned us this role.. No one invited us to do this role.. This administration decided a long time ago - that this was what they were going to do.. Very little foresight in what comes "after" such a process, let's just go in with guns blazing and then let their people deal with the aftermath..

The world is not a safer place.. It's going to happen again, we've stirred up the hornets nest, and every conservative pundit that wants to tell me that Bush is the right man for the job -- let's not forget something else ....... if (and more likely when he wins in November) he's term limited.. That's it.. Even the conservatives are thinking "we don't have a plan after 2008.. Swell.. That gives the Dubya 4 years to clean up terrorism.. Yeah, right.. And all we hear about is how Clinton left Bush with a recession.. At least the country's security wasn't at stake.. I'll take a fucking recession any day...........

On the eve of Bin Laden's 2nd in command being nabbed -- I have to say again, the world is *not* a safer place.. I dismiss every comment about how horrible the Iraqi gas chambers and rape rooms are.. Why?? Because if this is the CAUSE of the United States, then we better be knocking on every country's door and say "we want to inspect how you're doing things around here.." Oops, capital punishment isn't a very Christian ideology.........

Oh wait -- let's not forget that we are being led by a former governor of Texas who has put more people to death than any other governor..........

Carrying such big rocks near glass houses can be dangerous, Dubya......

Somehow

...I don't feel all that safe under Bush's watch.. For that matter, I don't think the world feels any safer either.. 2900+ dead on 9/11, now add another 200+ on 3/11 and the endless losses we continue to amass while in Iraq.. What about all of this security and intelligence that was suppose to thwart all of these attacks?? I think Miss Cleo could've done a better job predicting the Spain attacks.. :(

Q: have the attacks against the US in Iraq decreased since Saddam's capture??
A: No, not really..

Q: has the invasion/liberation/occupation of Iraq slowed terrorism across the world??
A: No, not really..

Q: are we a stronger nation than we were 9/10??
A: No, not really..

Q: does Kerry have a snowball's chance in hell in winning this November??
A: No, not really..

*sighs*

I'm Sorry, I Just Don't Feel Sorry For Her....

The recent Martha Stewart trial and tribulations have really grated on my nerves..

She knows she did wrong.. She lied to investigators about specific facts..

Therefore, she should pay for what she done.. A plea bargain was attempted - she scoffed..

She has a past which includes stockbroker trading.. She's done it before.. She knows the rules.. If she didn't know, then ignorance still is not a defense.. Ignorance may be a mitigator, but it cannot completely absolve anyone of any crime they commit..

She stepped down from her top post in Martha Stewart Living.. No big surprise.. She's a convicted felon.. Her image is about as low as you can get.. I don't feel sorry for her.. I see this kind of shit every day in "every-day-land.." People and families interrupted by bad things.. It happens.. Get over it.. It'll happen again.. You don't need to be a freak to get caught by the law.. Martha isn't a God.. Nor should she try to place herself above the law.. Anyone who is a citizen in this country should be under the same scrutiny.. No favors, no back-door handshakes, no "I'll let this slide..."

No, Martha got caught with her hand in the cookie jar.. She should pay.. So should every other questionable business practice like the Haliburton saga, et. al.. It's not a political statement - it's a judicial observation: everyone breaking the laws should be held accountable regardless if they are man, woman, gay, hetero, black, white, brown, blue, democrat, republican, rich, poor, blind, dumb, smart, famous, or unknown..

It ... just ... doesn't ... matter...

The Tangled Web

Ahhhh yes, the tangled web we all weave..

Howard Stern has been at war with his radio show program.. I'm not sure how I feel about it -- on one hand, I tend to agree that any company should have the freedom to put whatever content they see fit on the radio.. The Howard Stern situation isn't new by any means.. In fact - it happens all the time as radio stations across the country change formats, personalities and it's all in the name of profit.. In our little poe-dunk town, we get a lot of country western programming.. It fits because we're a rural community.. The college balances that out by playing a wide assortment of hip hop and current top 40 material.. Colleges can get away with that, privately owned radio stations don't have that luxury..

Okay..

That said - I'm a little sick and tired of the government deciding what's obscene and indecent for me.. It's not their position or their "right" to make such a determination.. I'm an adult.. I pay my taxes.. I abide by the laws of the land (except those which entail driving sometimes....) -- so why should I kow-tow to a more conservative way of thinking?? The backlash of the boob - is really getting blown out of proportion..

First off, there was a violation.. The response?? Put a 5-second delay in broadcasting.. I consider this to be a very reasonable remedy.. That way if a boob pops out again - everyone will be ready.. Hit delete and move on.. Every talk show has this capability.. Why Stern's monitors didn't catch it - is beyond me.. He should face the music for it.. Not just by hanging up on the caller, but there was NO MONITORING.. Okay - I agree that Stern should receive some sort of fine or disciplinary action until he can prove that his radio show can stop something like that from happening again..

So, I'm back to the decision by Clear Talk.. If they were looking for a reason to can Stern, they got it.. If he had been in their scope for awhile, then there's not much else he could've done about what happened.. But from what accounts I've read so far, it looks like Clear Talk got hit with fines thanks in part to Howard's program.. Although I'm still not sure that's the case.. However, if an employee is costing me money because of not being responsible and operating within the rules that are out there.. But I also think it's apparent that the Clear Talk brass had enough of his show..

Now.. Onto another slightly related topic

There's a lot of talk by the FCC about clamping down on some of the material that is on the radio and on TV.. Now before we start with this whole "community standards crap" (a new catch phrase I just picked up after watching CourtTV), I totally understand what this means.. The government wants stricter control and punishment for violators.......

Okay - slight problem..

The "n" word..

Howard Stern got in trouble because a caller used the "n" word.. Someone at the Howard Stern show - hung up on the caller, not giving them anymore air time or attention - went on to something else.. (this is what I hear, I don't know this for certain as we don't get the Howard Stern show out here, this is what I understand from the news reports..) I still believe Howard's crew should've been more attentive to their responsibilities for airing stuff - if in fact this was the reason why his show was canned.. But he didn't highlight, overreact to, or bring anymore attention to the person who called in..

I don't listen to a lot of rap, but in this example, I'm thinking of several rap songs that use the "n" word and other vulgarities - just like it was nothing.. If the FCC wants to stop the use of the "n" word on the Stern show - or if Clear Talk wants to prohibit their programs from using the "n" word -- then what about the rap songs done by artists and aired out there?? There's the whole First Amendment and artistic expression argument that comes blushing out.. Should rappers and artists using the "n" word be able to use it freely?? Yes, they should if they choose.. However, why does the word itself become the focus of the double standard?? If it's okay for a rapper or artist, but is not okay in other situations - exactly how do we police that??

I'm not trying to suggest the word should be protected or not.. But I've always considered the "n" word offensive, very negative, and racially charged reference to African Americans and other people of color.. It does offend me when I hear it - only because I realize the racial sensitivity of the word itself.. However, a lot of rappers use it all the time.. Has the "n" word become the next taboo word that is slowly working its way through society?? Remember the day you couldn't say FUCK?? Can you believe that the same FCC that is in charge of booby-gate and vows to clean up the tv and radio - actually justified use of the word FUCK and did not penalize the broadcasters, Bono, or anyone because he was using the word FUCK to describe the situation... "How FUCKING wonderful was that??" Wow.. FUCK suddenly got chic..

But that's only the tip of the iceberg..

How far down does the FCC want to go?? Why stop with obvious words and wanton displays.. Even el-Rush-bo recognizes that CONTENT could also be fair game some day.. If we start clamping down on what can be said, then aren't we on the verge of total censorship??

As if this was any doubt.....

Your position on the political spectrum...

Liberal - You believe that some things in society could definitely stand to be improved, and you view social progress as the key. You admirably manage to hold that view without becoming rabid about it, which ironically shows you as having far more genuine tolerance for differing views then your Far-Left-Liberal cousins.

(See Jim, there's hope for us) =)

Where do you fall on the liberal - conservative political spectrum? (United States)
brought to you by Quizilla

Hannity

In Bill Maher's most recent episode, he pulls out the book by Sean Hannity - a talk show and tv personality recently wrote a book: Deliver Us From Evil

Easy enough..

Oops, except for the bottom excerpt: "Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism..."

Lovely..

I guess Darby and I are now considered in the same light as terrorists.. After all, we are liberal and what not.... *shudders in fear* Time to go to France??

Wait, wait, whoa, hold on a second..

If democrats are liberal, then is Sean advocating eliminating the two-party system?? If you hear him enough on the radio, he comes right out and says no.. He's adamant about that, yet he wants to go ahead and consider Liberals in the same light as Terrorists and Despots.. ::rolls His eyes::

(btw - nice "patriotic" fake photo of the Statue of Liberty behind him....)

The whole AWOL issue -- Bush's commercials about 9/11 -- Statesman

I'm not sure what concern I have over Bush's AWOL issue.. His alleged absence has been explained by paperwork that confirms he was in the guard at the time of his apparent "AWOL.." In most circles, being able to provide documentation is enough, but I don't understand why this remains an issue.. Just because no one can remember Me when I was in high school doesn't mean I didn't go.. If there's something I'm missing regarding the AWOL issue, I'd like to know..

++++++

I'm disappointed that Bush chose to use the 9/11 attacks as a springboard for his campaign.. If the situations were reversed and Al Gore was in office - I would feel the same disappointment.. I was reading an article a day or so ago that had advice for Bush to "not go to ground zero" because it's a sacred place.. The article continued to say that the backlash would be incredible if Bush did go to the place where the towers collapsed.. I don't know if I agree with that totally.. He still *is* the President of the United States - and even though 9/11 happened on his watch, he's entitled to visit ground zero like any of us really.....

I totally understand that some families think that Bush is using 9/11 as a springboard - and how that cheapens what actually happened on 9/11.. I can see their point.. I don't think anyone should be able to capitalize on a tragedy like that.. On the other hand, you want to tell the American people that the country is a safer place since 9/11.. That message, however, is something I really do take to task.. Because I do not feel that the country or the world for that matter is a safer place since 9/11.. I don't like Bush's foreign policy.. I don't like this renegade type mentality when it comes to going someplace and bombing the hell out of them.. When you stir up the hornets nest, you're going to get stung a few times.. And that's what Bush is doing.. He's getting stung repeatedly.. Even if Bin Laden is caught, I really don't think that's going to make a snowball's difference in hell.. Because you can see that the blood shed in Iraq is just as much as it was before since Saddam's capture.. If we're naive enough to think that all we need to do is get Bin Laden and things will end - think hard and serious.. Granted, even Bush said this is a war that will last several years.. I'm glad he even has the foresight to say such a thing, but I don't feel any safer than I did 9/12.. In fact, the longer we go without some sort of attack, the more brutal I see the next attack being..

++++++

A talk show this week labeled Bush as a "statesman..." I almost got into a car accident at that point, because there's a lot of Presidents I would call a statesman, but Bush is not one of them.. A statesman has foresight.. Bush's foresight goes about as far as stubbing your toe on a door and then responding by sawing the door off......

Reagan was a statesman.. Clinton was a statesman (among other things ;) ), JFK, Roosevelt, and even Ike were statesmen.. Statesmen don't use war as a prelude to peace.. Statesmen are diplomatic.. Statesmen defined as "a political leader regarded as a disinterested promoter of the public good" or someone who "is a respected leader in a given field.." Neither of which Bush qualifies for.. He has several "interests" in going to war in Iraq, none of which was for the public good.. If he were a respected leader in a given field, don't you think the other nations would be bowing down to his greatness?? (that's not happening either..)

There's a tremendous stress in Iraq right now to get their government up and running.. What I fear the most is that this new Iraqi government will not last long.. Remember what happened down in Haiti this past couple of weeks.. Rebels over threw the government.. Are we so sure that Bremmer over there is looking out for the "public good??" Or are we putting in an American-friendly government to help foster future relations?? Let's also not forget that we actually put Saddam in power way back when.. We not only encouraged it, we endorsed it, recognized it and supported it.. We kinda screwed that one up royally, don't you think??

What is sin??

The state of California is in the news again.. This time the California Supreme Court ruled that they must provide health coverage for birth control pills: in complete defiance of what the church believes (obviously..) As I continued to read the article, it brought up the whole morality thing again - but what covers "sin??" Think about it.. There's a LOT of sin out there.. Most of which, we really don't care about.. We have a sin tax to cover things like cigarettes, alcohol and other vice related things..

Wait, let's go back and read that again:

WE HAVE A SIN TAX.........

Meaning, not only does the government not really have an issue with "sin" in general, they want to capitalize in that tax base

Now, a long time ago, in a galaxy not that far away, there was an amendment in the law of the land prohibiting the use of alcohol (aka prohibition...) Many people don't realize that the church was largely responsible for the law to be made in the first place.. It was designed to strengthen our values and make us a more moral society.. Prohibition was eventually repealed and the drinks poured once again..

With all of this talk about morality made me see a lot of different things.. Not withstanding how our "collective moralists" believe that they know what is best for all of the rest of us.. I do find a problem with that since it was one of the major reasons why we came across the big pond, away from Britain to begin with.. But I have significant problems with the level in which our "collective moralists" decide what is sin and what's not.. I have issues with all of this because it's impossible for us to live in a moral society unless ALL of us vowed to be better people..

When we have corruption in the places we expect to have the deepest trust - then I do not feel comfortable having these people "guide me" to a better way of life..

So......

Should the government be able to dictate how the church administers their health insurance coverage?? Now ponder that a bit.. If the church asks the courts to intervene for gay marriages, shouldn't it be responsible for upholding its share of the law of the land?? If not, then why not?? Certainly we believe that any church must reside within the confines of our laws.. To say they don't would create even more chaos.. As it is, many states are trying to repeal the tax break churches get from putting temples and other places of worship in communities.. Churches get a real huge tax break when it comes to it.. Why does government want to get involved?? Because some churches look a lot nicer than most government buildings.. The argument "well now, if you have so much extra money, why not spread the wealth??"

If the church wishes to direct law policy across America, then why shouldn't they be responsible for living within those confines as well??

Just because they may not agree with birth control, doesn't exclude them from the responsibilities included when they hire someone.. Laws are laws, right?? Isn't that we keep getting told?? There's a LOT of laws I don't agree with, but I abide by these rules to peacefully coexist in this society.. If I make the choice and violate those rules, then society will punish me.. Cause and effect.. A defense of "I disagree with this particular law" does not bode well in front of a Judge.. Because most, if not all Judges will get this look on their faces as though you're nothing more than a rodent that just came into their courtroom..

So, no, I don't think the church should get out of their duty just because they have personal issues with birth control and contraceptives.. If we start giving passes like this one, it's going to be the start of even more chaos.. No problem with that?? Okie dokie.. I'll just stop paying my taxes, go and take out money from banks just because I need an extra thou or two.. Am I a little over the top?? Well, a lot of talk shows are exactly the same way in a lot of respects.. Just because something doesn't happen to agree with their agenda, all of a sudden the crash of the free world us upon us...... We're facing an internal implosion and the world is going to die a horrible death..... (If I didn't know any better, it's sweeps month for these talk shows.....)

Sorry churches, if I gotta abide by these rules, so do you..