Meanwhile...Back At The GOP Convention....

Bush finds a convenient reason to back out of the speechifying to save his McSame pal from being too closely associated with the W, the Sitting Hero of the GOP.

The marquee act for opening night just canceled, but some Republicans couldn't be happier.

All year, Republican strategists have worried about showcasing President Bush at the Republican National Convention when his standing with the public lies at a near-record low.

A day late and a dollar short, he's backing out to prepare for a hurricane that has already landed on our shores.

Hurricane Gustav has crashed into the all-but-deserted Louisiana coast. The eye has landed southwest of New Orleans.

Don't you think that, given Gustav has already landed, the President should have been ready to respond weeks ago? Looks like Gustav is working to save W and McSame from being painted even closer together than their infamous hug.

More Proof The Repulbicans are Opperating With a Seriously Different Percieved Reality

Take a look at this chart and you will see why my prior post about the selection of Palin will polarize the already separated country even further is dead on correct. The reason why republicans view the McSame/Palin ticket is just the cure for George W's mess is that they are perceiving the same situation extremely differently.

And, we all know that truth is a slave to perception, not vice versa. Which is exactly why polarizing the country even further is the single best strategy for GOP to play right now. We have seen it work for them in 2004, and they are gambling that it will work again to collect the Presidential trifecta - three terms of the current modus operandi.

If you ask your typical republican if things are all dandy under George W., you can understand why they love McSame. "Give us another steaming helping of war in Iraq, profit for the war time machinery we know as Blackwater and Halliburton. Give is more foreclosures and bail outs of corporate America while screwing the little guy who cannot afford health insurance even though they need a quadruple bypass."

Polarizing

You have got to wonder, seriously - although it's fun to have a field day discrediting McSame's choice for Veep, what he is thinking here. I had two thoughts about this.

First, McSame must be getting the same folks to counsel him as have been giving advice to the President these past eight years. Really, selecting Palin seems like a Rovian device, but without the smarts behind it.

Two, the whole ploy is a move to polarize the country even further (what happened to the "I'm a Uniter not a Divider," gambit one rightly should wonder) and confused the undecided voters. It seems to me like this might backfire on them.

For example, Senator Boxer has some legit points here:

"The vice president is a heartbeat away from becoming president, so to choose someone with not one hour's worth of experience on national issues is a dangerous choice.

"If John McCain thought that choosing Sarah Palin would attract Hillary Clinton voters, he is badly mistaken.

"The only similarity between her and Hillary Clinton is that they are both women. On the issues, they could not be further apart.

"Sen. McCain had so many other options if he wanted to put a woman on his ticket, such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe -- they would have been an appropriate choice compared to this dangerous choice.

Really, she's right. There are many Republican women out there who would have truck loads more experience than Palin. Why did he select a running mate that he really did not know and has no experience at all at the National or International level (aside wanting to give liberal bloggers a field day)? Well, perhaps they are doing the only thing that the Republicans know how to do well - to polarize the nation even further and hope that there are more people in their base to trump those at the other end.

Certainly, it's a Rovian ploy, but I don't see the same kind of Rovian genius in it. In fact, given how much the GOP has been harping on Obama not having any experience, the duplicity and hypocrisy of his decision has to be obvious - even to the blind "patriots" proclaiming to vote republican no-matter-what, and down right offensive to every thinking republican out there.

Del Martin Passes

I'm still trying to figure out how two sweet old women getting married damage the institution of marriage. Near as I can tell, the wedding of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon only elevates the institution and serve as a model for us all.

Sadly, Del Martin died today:

*** STATEMENT ***

MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM’S STATEMENT ON THE PASSING OF DEL MARTIN


Today, San Francisco lost a local and national leader, Del Martin.

For over half a century, Del Martin, along with her loving spouse, Phyllis Lyon, served as an activist for women’s rights and the LGBT community. The marriage of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon on June 16, 2008, marked an historic milestone on our country’s road to true freedom and equality. Del laid the groundwork for all those who want a life of dignity, and we are forever in her debt. The greatest way we can honor the life work of Del Martin, is to continue to fight and never give up, until we have achieved equality for all.

Our deepest sympathies go out to Del’s family, her spouse, Phyllis, her daughter, Kendra, and all those who mourn the loss of this great and pioneering woman.

As a mark of respect for Del Martin, I have ordered the flags at City Hall and the LGBT Pride Flag on Market and Castro Streets to be flown at half-staff from now until sunset, on Thursday, August 28, 2008.

Having met Del and Phylis in person numerous times, I recognize the courage it takes to help lead a subjugated population out of the closet. That I would wish us all to have a small amount of her courage; it would certainly raise humanity another level.

Biden? = Boring

The first reaction I had to this news this AM was BORING. There is no risk involved in having Biden as a running mate. While this choice may be wise, I was looking for a complete change out - anti-incumbent all around. Biden is definitely not representing some one from outside the beltway.

But the American general populace may eat this selection up. We are about to find out in a big way.

Have A Great Weekend

I suppose if you have seven homes from which to choose to visit over the weekend, one would be having a better weekend than some folks in Afghanistan who will be burring their family members:

U.S.-led coalition forces killed 76 Afghan civilians in western Afghanistan on Friday, most of them women and children, the Afghan Interior Ministry said.

Nice war George.

How Many Homes Should The New President Own?

It's one thing to have a house in your home town, a place in DC because you work there as a Senator, and then perhaps, if you have the wearwithall to own a vacation home in some lovely location, but not knowing how many homes you own? My goodness.

"Somebody asked John McCain, 'How many houses do you have?' And he said, 'I'm not sure, I'll have to check with my staff,'" Obama said with a tone of incredulousness at an outdoor event here.

"If you don't know how many houses you have, then it's not surprising that you might think the economy is fundamentally strong," he said. "But if you're like me, and you got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don't lose their home, then you might have a different perspective."

The audience laughed and clapped, and then Obama added: "And, by the way, the answer is, John McCain has seven homes." That, it turns out, is true.

Raises an interesting question: How in touch with middle and average America can a person be if he doesn't have a clue how many homes he owns and has to check with his staff to discover he's got SEVEN! Holy Bleep!

"The Original Maverick?"

Does any one reach for the vomit bag when they watch McSame's "Original Maverick" commercial spots? I'm mean, come on, what's the definition of Maverick?

A maverick is a person who shows independence of thought or action, a non-conformist or rebel.

Really, McSame looks like Bush in a different wrapper. Calling himself a maverick is tarnishing those who actually fit the label.

There's a reason why they labeled Mavericks with the name - because you have to be out of your mind and a complete non-conformist to jump into deep waters with a high probability that you could lose your life for doing it. These guys are Mavericks:



McSame doesn't demonstrate one iota of Maverick qualities in my book. And, he looks like a fool for claiming so. Smells like more votes for the Dems in November.



Here's an interesting question for the day - Since when does discrediting a sitting president the modus operandi for the incumbent party? This is a clear sign that the W, Rove and Co has screwed the pooch so many times while they controlled the helm of the good ship America.

Here's one view on the matter:


Or, this view:

Proof That Prayer Works?

Okay, how many economists does it take to explain how prayers work to decrease the cost of a gallon of gas at the pump?

"Prayer is the answer to every problem in life," said Twyman, founder of the Pray at the Pump movement, whose members huddle around gas pumps and ask the Almighty to lower gasoline prices.

"If the whole country keeps on praying, we can bring down prices even more, to even less than $2," Twyman said.

What? Is the whole Country smoking crack now? Don't we have something better to pray for than the cost of gas at the pump?

If prayer worked, might we not pray for no more war? No more killing? No more terrorism? No more Russians in Georgia? Another gold medal for Michael Phelps? Come on, people. This is a clear sign that for some, their priorities are in the wrong place.

Why would we bother God with such trivial matters? Praying for lower prices at the pump amounts to really selfish SOBs, no?

Paris Hilton Has Some Fun Script Writers

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

If nothing else, we find that Paris has some funny writers at hand. Will Hilton's parents still contribute to McSame?

Remind Me Again: Who's Paying For Iraq?

Our economy is in the toilet and Iraq is looking at an enormous surplus?

Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.

Remind me again; Who's side are the Iraqi's on? How much is this "Global War on Terror costing the American people? You can look here, or here. Either way, you have to wonder how the Bush Administration got our National Priorities all twisted around to lace us so tightly to Iraq as the first ever Nation Welfare State covered by another (that'd be USA).

It's ironic, no? I thought the Republicans were against welfare and other social programs, but it seems like we are married to Iraq and there's nary a dowry contribution to be found beyond the lives we sucked out of them for the privilege of becoming inextricably linked to the big kitty litter box that is Iraq.

Was Jefferson Right?

Perhaps, given the mortgage mess, Jefferson was smarter than all of us put together:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Do You Feel Safe Under The Bush Regime? Sub Title: Requiem for The Fourth Amendment

Now that we've had almost 8 years of experience in George Bush's America, are you feeling good about it? Not me.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel one iota safer because of the W, Rove and Co.'s actions since Nine Eleven. Now that I typed that, perhaps I should re-label the circus at the Whitehouse because Rove should be indicted and has been absent for while, but he's still responsible for some very shady and reprehensible, if not unethical, immoral and illegal, political practices (read: signing statements). Let's call the lame duck Whitehouse the Condi and Georgie Show for now. But I digress.

Since Nine Eleven, the common myth is that "we are safer here given that we fought them over there." In reality, the insideous nature of the Condi and Georgie's practice is that we didn't need much saving from the terrorists, more than we needed saving from ourselves. Remember the Fourth Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Well, in Georgie and Condi's America, that goes right out the window.

Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This clearly falls in to the WTF category? Do you feel safer in George Bush's America? Not me! Turn on your iTunes, click on Mozart's Requiem, and turn it up loud because our rights have died and were downright squashed, spindled, and mutilated by George Bush and his crack team of GOP politicos.



.....Rex, Rex

Been Gone; But I'm Back Again

After a protracted trek to Europe with my family, I've finally dug out of the mundane chores of deleting email and such. My brain is no longer cluttered with trying to get through the weeds at work.

I don't have an extended rant, as mainly, the holiday was relaxing and I didn't pay much attention to the news. We were not there the same time Obama made his romp around. And, we didn't talk much politics beyond which flavor of Gelato to secure on the day at hand.

What has been nagging at me as of late is who are the Veep Running Mates going to be. Does any one have a line on this as of yet? I heard some where that Hillary has pulled out of that contention and won't be joining Obama. I've heard some inclining that Carley Fiorina is doing a lot of talking for McSame. Could it be that there are two Vice Presidential candidates that are women?

Any speculation out there? If you were a betting person, who would you put money on to be the Veep candidates in each camp?

Exxon's Supreme Bonus

In case you didn't read this in the paper today, but the Supreme Court Decided to hand a sizable gift to Exxon today - not much unlike what you do when you fill up your tank with their gas, but much bigger.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the record $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon Mobil Corp had been ordered to pay for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska.

The nation's highest court ruled that the punitive damages should be limited to an amount equal to the total relevant compensatory damages of $507.5 million.

Hmmm, the Fat Cats just got fatter:

It took the company just under two days to bring in $2.5 billion in revenue during the first quarter of 2007.

Nice for them. What does that mean for us, and the people of the great State of Alaska who have been paying for the Valdez incident since it happened?

Blogging Fun For Tuesday...

Finish these sentences...

George W. Bush is....

History will find that George W. Bush was....

In ten years, George W. Bush will...

The Fundamental Problem With Gasoline Pricess....is.....

The fundamental problem behind high gas prices is that the supply of oil has not kept up with the rising demand across the world.

I Call Bull Shit here - Demand isn't increasing, it's shrinking as prices go up.

There has to be more to this than the old economic supply demand curve. Perhaps, it's how the commodities brokers are jacking up the price per barrel because they can. Or is it because the Big Oil Companies are more interested in record breaking profits than they are in lower pump prices?

Come on, the Saudis are sitting on an enormous reservoir of oil that is allready have large number of straws sucking out crude. The solution isn't to drill now for oil found ten years from now. Bush can't tell that his inability to convince the House of Saud to change their output says to me that he's a) either got zero cred with the Saudi Sheiks and couldn't convince them to take a shit on their royal toilets over an outhouse sitting in the desert sun let alone get them to increase production, or b) the Bush family is in collusion with the Saudis to make more money for their own heirs. Either way, it's not a pretty picture.

If you bother to read the President's Radio Address, you will notice that absolutely NONE of his four proposed "solutions" involve the introduction of new technologies, green energy, or alternative and sustainable energy solutions. Why? I think you know.

Blog on Friends. Blog on all.

What's Wrong With The Way The President Thinks?

Many things, I'm sure, are wrong with the dualistic approach the President deploys regularly to convince the American People that he is right to violate our rights. But really, don't you think that it's time he stopped using Nine Eleven to shape policy and make decisions? Truly, you can't say this and be right:

The enemy who attacked us on September the 11th is determined to strike this country again.

Those guys died in the planes they drove as weapons of mass destruction. They can't by default, attack us again. Sure, he's talking more generally, but trying to reduce the rationale for violating our rights and illegally wire tap us into one sentence doesn't cut the mustard in my book.

Sure, we need folks to go after the terrorists that might do us harm, but what of the harm the President has done to us? Who is going to protect us from him?

"What Time Is It? It's Time For A Change"

Craig Newmark is like the Woody Allen of the internet, but without the narcissistic neuroticism.

Here's a set of videos that you won't see on your local MSM news outlet, regardless of what flavor you subscribe to.

Enjoy and blog on friends, blog on all.

Interesting Letter Addressed to Obama

Found this forwarded by a parent in our local PTA:

There are, of course, constructive roles the federal government can play. Welcome, for example, would be actions encouraging broad dialog to clarify the institution’s overarching aim, policies promoting more equitable and stable funding, measures increasing support for research and innovation, and, of course, comprehensive programs addressing poverty, cultural deprivation, environmental degradation, and other problems directly affecting student performance.

But attempts to manipulate what teachers and students actually do must be entirely abandoned. The inherent complexity of the task, its dynamic, constantly changing nature, the importance to its success of imagination, flexibility and creativity, and the gross inadequacy of presently available standardized measures of performance, make centralized control of the classroom dangerously counterproductive.

You can electronically sign the letter if you like.

I found it to be good on points, but short on real plans on how to fix America's schools.

What happens when the Libby Case is No Longer An "On Going Legal Matter?"

Scotty McMessage McClellan is no longer delivering messages that the W, Rove and Co like. And, he has a number of good points.

Those of you who followed the Libby case, and the Plame leak know that the W, Rove and Co repeatedly said they would come clean when it is no longer an on going legal matter. Moreover, the president initially said that those responsible would be held accountable (which never really happened either, has it?

Well, the case is over. Libby was convicted and subsequently pardoned by his pal the President. Do we yet have a full testimony from the President about what happened in his Whitehosue revolving around this?"

This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it," he said. "And they have refused to.

No surprises. These folk who are about to leave us in the worst fiscal and geopolitical crisis this country has seen, well, in just about ever, won't be forthcoming about any of their antics, favoring "history" to be the judge. Those of us who have lived through nearly 8 years of the GOP brand of chicanery hunger for some one to be brought to justice for it.

Don't hold your breath, but it's never too late for articles of impeachment.

Mr. Bush Makes A Proposal With Long Legs and Sustainablility in Mind...NOT.

Of course, the solution to solve the gas crisis now is to drill now for oil later? Any one else having flash backs to Whimpy's slogan, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today?"

With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea.

Of course, the Saudis are not cooperating with Bush, and they have oil now - plenty to off set the nut balls in the oil industry who are "bwaahaa haa-ing" their way to their Cayman Bank accounts with soaring profits.

Let's see, where did George W. Bush grow his industrial roots? Big oil? Hmmm...why hasn't he come up with something more creative like the Congress is trying to hammer out. Really, oil is evaporating as a resource. The price is only going to be temporarily off set until we supplant the strong addiction to oil with another source of energy - solar, wind, whatever. But drilling for more oil now only puts a small, short term dent in a hemorrhaging idea.

Of course, the folks with the "fuck the fish agenda, let's drill for oil now so I can drive SUV 100 miles round trip to that job that doesn't cover the cost of the gasoline to propel it" don't have any clue how that will affect their tuna sandwich that they crave for lunch. So, by all means, George. Have at it.

If you really want to see who the opening up of ANWAR and off shore drilling helps most of all, look at who's stepping up to the plate to back the measure - Big Oil, and do they have have our best interests in mind? Can you say 10 dollars a gallon at election time?


P.S. what happened to Iraq helping out to pay down their war debt with oil resources and revenue, btw?

What About This MarriageThreatens Your Marriage?

In the odd chance that you live in a bubble (which arguably, some could stipulate the President does), you would not have known that Dell Martin and Phyllis Lyon got hitched again yesterday. Have a look at this happy couple and ask yourself, how are straight people harmed by these two getting married?

I'm still awaiting a plausible rationale that helps me understand how two octogenarians getting married hurt the institution of marriage. What is it about heterosexual marriage that needs protection? Because the "bible" tells us so, doesn't apply unless you adhere to a strict interpretation of the document. Where's the harm?

Really, I might argue the contrarian - in fact, the very act of Dell Martin and Phyllis Lyon getting married only strengthens the institution - as they have been faithful to one another for a lot longer than many heterosexual marriages have lasted.

If one was really concerned about what harms marriage, perhaps we should outlaw divorce first. Or alternatively, ban celebrity marriages as they end in divorce at a higher rate of those in the ordinary community. Or, even more to the point, let's ban marriages between smokers or fat people as the statistics actually indicate that if children are born to obese or smoking parents, there is a higher probability of those children following suit (which is inherently bad for their health).

So, until some one can prove that there is a harm to their marriage because these two women got married, I'll stand and celebrate with them. Why not join in the fun! There are going to be a lot of very happy, salubrious parties to jump into. Where's the harm in that?

The Foolishness of George Bush

When asked what kind of advice he would give to the Syrians, here's what the Republican President said yesterday:

Q (As translated.) To both of you, what specific, concrete requests do you wish to make or send to the Syrian President, Bashar Assad, so that he normalize his relations with the West, and of course to achieve stability in Lebanon and in the rest of --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, my message would be, stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop harboring terrorists; serve as a constructive force in the Middle East to help the advance of a Palestinian state; make it clear to Hamas that terror should stop for the sake of peace; and make it clear to their Iranian allies that the West is serious when we talk about stopping them from learning how to enrich, which would be the first -- a major step for developing a bomb; and to make it clear to their Iranian allies that Hezbollah is a destabilizing force for not only Lebanon but elsewhere.

That would be my message. I'd make it clear to him that there is a better way forward for Syria. And Nicolas and I talked about this subject today.

What? Are the Syrians teenage girls on an abstinence only education diet of health education?

What about the current situation in Iraq? Does he have some advice for the Iraqis?

Q I'd like to ask you a question first, Mr. President. (As translated.) And then a question to the President of France. (Speaking English.) President Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says that talks on a status of forces agreement are at an impasse, or a dead end -- not dead, but in trouble. How do you break this impasse, and are the conditions that the United States have set forward in support so far non-negotiable?

(As translated.) And to you, President, is the Franco-American relationship the privilege, the priority number one relationship in the transatlantic context?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Olivier, if I were a betting man, we'll reach an agreement with the Iraqis. You know, of course we're there at their invitation; this is a sovereign nation. And therefore, we're working hard with the elected government of Iraq about, you know, U.S. presence and coalition presence, in a way that the elected government is comfortable.

And it's interesting to be working with a democracy where, you know, people are trying to prepare the ground to get something passed in the parliament, for example, or the free press is vibrant. But we're going to work hard to accommodate their desires. It's their country.

And at the same time, we believe that a strategic relationship with Iraq is important. It's important for Iraq. It's important for the United States. It's important for the region. And I repeat to you that whatever we agreed to, it will not commit future Presidents to troop levels, nor will it establish permanent bases.

Anyway, we'll see how it goes. And thanks for the question -- in English. (Laughter.)

Too bad the President has been making serious bets on Iraq wagering American GI lives and hefty sums of debt to the Chinese and other (which are tantamount to taxes deferred to prop up the new welfare state that is Iraq).

And, I cannot believe George Bush is still suggesting that we are there "at the invitation" of the Iraqis? We are no more there at the invitation of the Iraqis than your 25 year old college grad is staying at your house rent free until he gets his feet on the ground. You don't like it, and you may love him, but you sure wish he would get the hell out. Moreover, you are enabling his lousy behavior by propping him up in a co-dependent way.

Regardless, I would have hoped that after nearly six years of experience running (or more aptly ruining) a war, that George W. Bush would have something more concrete to say than "we'll see how it goes."

The "Foolishness" of George Bush is that he comes at governance with the approach of an elementary school child - as if he's got a lot more to learn, but just doesn't quite get it. Too bad, because with Nine Eleven and the ensuing disasters (Iraq, Git mo, etc...) we really needed some adult style leadership, not the dualistic ("your either with us or against us") approach of a juvenile.

Minimally, the W, Rove and Co, by proof of their actions, required much more adult supervision. Unfortunately, the republican controlled congress back in 2001 was entirely too eager to follow the swagger, accepting leadership by faith over fact, and abdicated their ability to provide such oversight.

And, I've said this before, the proof is in the pudding. We now have the economy and geopolitical situation the GOP had wished for. I'm not finding it all too palatable. Are you?

It's Summer: Where's Our Lemonade?

I love America. It's one country where, if you buckle down and get to work, you can actually make something of yourself. Indeed, there is a long history of the folks migrating here to make a better life for themselves and their families. There is also a long history of, using ingenuity, Americans turn lemons into lemonade - meaning of course, turning a negative into a positive.

I was out on my run this morning - first one in a long while as I have been solo parenting for a full week. As usual, I got to thinking. I know, you "hate it when he does that."

Is it me, or, aside from the mess that was Vietnam, is George W. Bush the only President who has taken lemons and went actively out to seek and make nothing but more lemons? That is, most certainly, Nine Eleven was a negative situation. It could have been turned into a positive (and for a moment in time, it seemed like it might), but instead, Bush and his ilk turned it into negative (Iraq) after negative (Guantanamo, etc...).

The morass that we are left with after nearly 8 years of Bush feels more like a steaming pile of pig shit than anything else (without the methane capture to turn it into fuel). Where's the positive? Can any one help me out and find something positive to say about the W, Rove and Co?

A Couple of Reminders for Gitmo and George W. Bush Fans

It's good to dust off the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution every so often.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

Written over two hundred years ago, but still salient today.

Let's remind ourselves what the Constitution says about Habeas corpus:

[T]he Constitution says (I.9): "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." That sounds pretty definitive: the Military Commissions Act contained no finding that the United States has been invaded, or is in the midst of a rebellion, nor is there any evidence that either condition obtains.... [H]ere are two questions the Court needs to answer: who has habeas rights? And where do they extend? The court's answer to the first question (who?) is, basically: everyone has them. (Meaning: if you are detained by the US government, in circumstances in which habeas rights would normally obtain, your lack of citizenship is no obstacle.)

As witnessed with Gitmo, the numerous signing statements, it's obvious George Bush has been playing fast and loose with the Constitution, hasn't he? Time to reign in the bugger, I say.

McSame?

Any doubt that McCain is more of the same?

More Proof George Bush and His Pals Have Screwed the Pooch With Regard To The "War On Terror."

I've said this a long time ago, but it seems like we may be closer to it as of today. Specifically, we may actually have to let some dangerous folks go from Gitmo because the W, Rove and Co. has violated the rights of these people in a very egregious way.

I hate to further go down this prediction road, but we may only be a few more legal steps away from the Gitmo detainees filing a class action suit against the USA and we will lose that one; in the end, owning them 6+ years of their lives back, plus damages - which in the end could end up financing more terrorism. Sadly.

When you violate rights, you then abdicate the legitimate process. And because you transgress beyond the reasonable bounds of human rights, you violate the very foundation of our beloved country. And for that, we have the Republicans to thank.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The unraveling will be a long slow process. But think about it, if the W, Rove and go was on solid legal standing, they would not have been placed (moreover placed us) in such a precarious situation.

We have a responsiblity to hold the Administration that decided to marry Iraq and place it on the social welfare roles (sacrificing American social welfare in the process) in perpetuity. I really think the only real solution that could serve to redeem us here is if Bush and his cronies were moved to Iraq, by fiat, by the next President and have them work toward fixing the mess they gave us.

There is no shame in admitting we were duped into it. The shame rests in our incapacity to follow through and haul those responsible for dragging us into this quagmire to justice.




There's a reason why these folks made this above documentary:



Any one reading the same propaganda script for Iran as was shoveled down our throats for Iraq? Any one buying it?


P.S. psstt...does any one care where George Bush is today?

An American president is in Europe and nobody cares. That’s a moment.

When Republican Voters Get The Whitehouse They Dream of, We All Have To Live With The Consequences

Turns out, Republican Faithful should have headed the old adage: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Indeed, with the new book promulgated by Scotty McMessage McClellan, we learn that leadership by faith over facts doesn't work. From the Republican "victories" at the polling stations and from our "Activist" Supreme Court in Y2K we got this:

Team Dubya got caught up in a "permanent campaign," a nonstop propaganda war whose weapons were "the manipulation of shades of truth, partial truths, twisting of the truth and spin," and whose goal was to stage-manage the media narrative and thus public opinion.

Indeed, all governments try to control the message, but installation of blinders on the media and the American People has lead us somewhere, that's for certain. They have led us to a place where belief is a surrogate for fact, and faith is more important that truth or proof:

Sure, sure, truth is the first casualty of war, and politics is just war with a smile and a starched collar. But the burgeoning genre of Bush administration tell-alls, of which McClellan's is only the latest, paints a portrait of a White House utterly unconcerned with facts yet fervently attentive to public opinion polls. It is a White House whose solution to every unhappy turn of events -- the Iraqi insurgency, Hurricane Katrina, a moribund economy -- is to treat it not as a real-world problem requiring a real-world solution but as a glitch in the Matrix, "a perception problem" to be handled with the Message of the Day and the Theme of the Week.

The deeper story here is the shift from the Enlightenment worldview, whose commitment to reasoned debate and empirical truth used to be the cornerstone of our little experiment in democracy, to the faith-based worldview of fundamentalism -- not just the fundamentalism of the religious right but fundamentalisms of every sort. The Iraq war came about, in large part, through a harmonic convergence of personal passions, political agendas and ideological crusades, all faith-based rather than fact-driven. Bush, McClellan tells us, is a man who "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment" and who "to this day ... seems unbothered by the disconnect between the chief rationale for war and the driving motivation behind it, and unconcerned about how the case was packaged."

And there are dire consequences for this means of leadership. Indeed, we are witnessing the economy the GOP gave us.

The economy got a triple dose of bad news on Friday, prompting even optimistic forecasters to conclude that a deeper downturn is unavoidable.

The nation's jobless rate posted its biggest single-month jump since 1986 in May, rising 0.5 percentage points to 5.5 percent, the Labor Department reported. At the same time, the price of crude oil catapulted to a new record, raising the threat that economic weakness and unemployment could worsen in the months ahead.

The news unnerved investors, prompting a broad sell-off on Wall Street. The Dow Jones industrial average and other major market indexes tumbled 3 percent.

Friday's developments put in relief the severity of the woes afflicting an economy hammered by a housing crash, tight credit and soaring energy costs.

Is it good for you? Who shall we point the enormous wagging middle finger of blame at here? The W, Rove and Co. has been so busy deflecting blame and confounding the truth with obfuscation, they have become entirely untrustworthy. Indeed, as they ratchet themselves further into lame duck status, Bush, Cheney and pals couldn't wrangle themselves out of the stain of the reality they created.

Indeed, we even witness the wrongheaded leadership (faith over fact) style unfold before us as they proclaim to protect us and see them add another recruiting tool to the terrorists - Martyrdom for Gitmo detainees. They are asking for it, and by god, they will be given the gift if George Bush and Dick Cheney get their wish:

Thursday's arraignment before a military tribunal of five Al Qaeda members accused of planning and assisting the 9/11 terrorist atrocities seemed custom-made to assist the loathsome defendants in achieving exactly what they desire -- an aura of martyrdom...

...when it comes to the handling of these cases, the Bush administration's willful overreaching, contempt for fundamental American values and defiance of basic American notions of due process have set the stage for travesty and further tragedy.

So, as we approach 5 bucks or more a gallon as we march on to November (which it may well be 10 bucks a gallon at that point, which may be well and good to improve our habits revolving around driving and be better for the environment as we reduce our use), whom should we vote for? McSame, or change?

More of the McSame

You Thought Bush has/had a problem with the hypocrisy department? Have a look at this:

Beijing - A Good Place for Outdoor Olympics?

Aren't you glad you are not an Olympic Caliber athlete going for the gold in this atmosphere? As a recovering track athlete myself, I think I would have to cancel my run if it was like this on race day.

I don't know who got paid off so that Beijing could host the Olympics this year, but even despite the human rights violations, the Tibet concern, even just the pollution concerns would be cause enough to not hold them there.

Found this picture on a tip from a friend over at this location.

Your Daily Dose of Irony

Here's something interesting that happened while you were at work today. The President attended the ground breaking ceremonies for the new US Institute of Peace:

We're transforming the United States military so we can deliver justice to the terrorists in a more effective way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main mission of the military is to rain death across a specific target. Of course, that's one way to wage peace. Has it worked in Iraq?

In an unrelated story, here's a second dose of irony that is yet another tip that the TSA is just a bureaucratic smoke screen that lead us to "bigger" not "smaller" government contrary to one of the GOP commandments.

Our view is that it is entirely illogical to tell a pilot he is not stable enough to carry a weapon in the form of a gun when at the same time, he has access to the weapon we are all most in fear of after 9/11 — a plane loaded with thousands of pounds of jet fuel.

Is There No Hear There?

I sit here
To listen there
To hear
If there
Is no
There here

But I cannot
Hear beyond
There to here
To discern
If there
Indeed Is
No there there

Spinning Iraq

When the President of the United States uses the term, "Catapult the Propaganda," you have to understand that one of the primary jobs of the Presidential Spokesmodel is to spin the news to gain favor of the American People.

Q Just a general question, then, Dana. I mean, one of the things he talks about is spinning, exaggeration, I mean, what goes on at the podium -- which is an indictment of you, as well. Do you think there's no spinning?

MS. PERINO: You know, it's a term that I don't necessarily use. I come out here, I answer your questions, I answer them to the best of my ability based on the information and the facts that I have.

Of course not, because the term spinning is something the communists did and we are not supposed to do. Inevitably, Scotty McMessage McClellan is just calling a spade a spade and the W, Rove and Co. is in a snit about it, because, as one person said in a letter to the editor, it's what happens when the "needle of truth approaches the power bubble."

None of the current batch of spinning changes Iraq. In the lead up to the Iraq mess, we were sold a bill of goods that were not true, and the President has firmly blamed faulty intelligence, effectively deflecting any responsibility for the fact that we are in an intractable situation that is costing American lives - almost daily. Dana Perino continues to launch the propaganda for the President:

Q Can we just talk about what isn't true in the book? I mean, you go to the part about weapons of mass destruction and the big threat wasn't great and gathering as the White House said. And you said that's not true? Was there no exaggeration? Was there no hiding? Was there no spinning about the war?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of. But did we communicate about the war? Yes. And I would point you to the President's speeches -- all the speeches that the President made leading up to it; he made several comprehensive speeches making the case for why Saddam Hussein was a threat, which was, based on the intelligence that we had -- and not only the United States had, but that's what the world had. And in addition to that he talks about -- in his speech especially on February 26, 2003, when he spoke to AEI; it was before I was a part of the press office, so I would encourage you to go back and look at it, as I've had to do myself -- where he talks about that the benefit to a free Iraq would be to the Iraqi people and also to the region, and establishing a change in the Middle East when it comes to freedom and justice and democracy.

Q But the order of what was talked about at the time in the buildup to the war was largely about weapons of mass destruction.

MS. PERINO: I think that that was -- well, I think you could go back, you could weigh it -- you know, I'm looking at it, what I have seen is a comprehensive case for confronting Saddam Hussein, and that's what the United Nations of course was talking about, specifically weapons of mass destruction. But there was also a gathering threat in terms of the nexus of working -- for example, paying suicide bombers, paying families of suicide bombers.

And you know better than anyone, Martha, about the buildup to this, the reaction to this. The problem that we have is this --

Q There were no suicide bombers in Iraq.

"But we did communicate about the war?" We know. We were there, holding their feet to the fire, but no one with authority to stop it did so. Alas, we remain married to one giant welfare state called Iraq, and there is no divorce in sight.

A Short Lunch Time Haiku For You

Inspired by the workaholic tendencies that modern technologies have wrought our our souls, here's a little diversionary haiku for you.

Sandwich lettuce is
Turning brown while I sit here
Deleting email

Have a great day.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Obama's Stand In for Kennedy

Got this via Yahoo Messenger:

A friend ended up taking their now college-age daughters to Middletown for Wesleyan's commencement speechifying. There was mild applause for early speakers. When Obama was introduce the place went wild, applause, cheering, etc., and it didn't stop. Wesleyan's president finally had to say, "Please stop applauding so we can hear the speech." They loved it. The girls loved it. Heavy Secret Service. Snipers on every rooftop.

I'm sure, by comparison, Obama's was splendid. Here you can read for yourself:

I did, however, get the chance to glance at the speech he planned on delivering today, and I'd like to start by passing along a message from Ted: "To all those praying for my return to good health, I offer my heartfelt thanks. And to any who'd rather have a different result, I say, don't get your hopes up just yet!"

Of course, you can listen to it here. Of course, you can you tube it, I'm sure. Well, I'll save you the trouble - here you go.




Enjoy

"Many Mistakes Made by Civilian and Military Commanders..."

I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them," he added.

Sounds like a liberal? Nope: McSame.

"We have new commanders in Iraq," McCain said to applause.

Trouble is, we still have the same person at the head of this thing, and he's running it like it's a sideshow to the main event.

Would McCain be any different should he be selected as the next President? Doubtful.

The Memorial Day Distracted

As the smoke peels
From your grill
Can you see
Our volunteers
Strung out
All over Iraq
Dug into the
Sea of sand

Or does it sting
As the dogs sear
And you cram down
Yet another beer
with nary a care
About what happens there

As the rich get
Richer still,
And you get stuck
With the bill

The war machine
Rages unencumbered
Driven, unchecked
Churning another

And another dollar bill
For those with shares
In companies
No bidding their way
In to contracts

Tossed into their laps
By pals they elected
Into political positions
Where they were able
To start the ignition

On yet another mission
Justified with blind ambition
And falsified ammunition
Bowling over the population
With fear and trepidation

Causing yet another military
Family to grieve
While you are grilling

And the smoke peels
Away leaving us raw and burning
For the promised justice
And justification

To no avail
We wait for
A new set of politicians
To deliver us from
A tenuous position

Stuck in a quagmire
Regardless ambition
Roots us in for the duration
Divorce no longer an option

Brought to you by
A man, using the excuse
To save us from the
Terrorism, only leaving us
Married to an crumbling
Iraqi Institution

Where our own Constitution
May crumble
As we fork over its protections
and the very freedom
The Military was intended
As its salvation

McSame's Presidential Liability

Since I have been tracking presidential races, I can't recall a time when it was embarrassing to have the sitting President be your ally. Can you?

This policy of closed door fund raising events raises a cloud of suspicion around who's doing what for whom here. Have a look at this recent press briefing where Dana Perino dances around the subject.

President Bush is like the Grinch or Jacob Marley at Christmas - no one want's to touch them with a ten and a half foot pole. McSame needs the President, but at the same time, the President is a liability to his whole candidacy.

Have a look and see what you think is happening here:

Q I wanted to ask about McCain -- three fundraisers next week. First of all, why are they closed? And second, do you all expect that sort of pace, I mean, three in a week, that kind of thing, to continue?

MS. PERINO: I think we'll see -- I think we'll see, in terms of a pace. President Bush is fully committed, 100 percent committed, to making sure that John McCain is elected to be the next President of the United States of America. So he'll do what he can, when he can, in addition to being -- fulfilling all of his duties as Commander-in-Chief and President of the country.

The reason that they're closed is that the McCain campaign has a practice of having their fundraisers as closed press; and these are in private residences, which is where we have had closed press fundraisers, as well. But I expect that you'll see campaign activity pick up over the course of the next several months. But remember this election is -- the President is not on the ticket. John McCain is on the ticket and we'll see who is going to be on the ticket for the Democrats. And McCain is going to have to tell his story and get out and tell the world why he should be President of the United States. He'll have to contrast his positions with that of whoever the candidate is going to be on the other side of things, and the President will be there helping to do that.

Q To follow up -- you're saying that the McCain campaign announced it may they be closed?

MS. PERINO: I'm saying that the locations are at private residences and that -- their practice has been closed press fundraisers for -- across the board, both at private residences and other places. As you know, our practice has been somewhat different -- when they're at a larger locations like hotels, ours have been open. But that's their practice and we'll respect it.

Q Can we actually expect to see them together at any point publicly?

MS. PERINO: Next week?

Q Well, not necessarily next week, but in the near future?

MS. PERINO: Sure --

Q I mean, initially -- (inaudible) supposed to be open, at least the first one --

Q So they will be together?

Q I mean, appearing publicly together?

MS. PERINO: They'll be together in Arizona, but then we break off and we go on to Utah and --

Q Publicly, though?

MS. PERINO: Stay tuned for the details, but I think that you'll see a -- when we arrive or when we depart, I think there will be a chance.

Q Just to follow up on that, the President endorsed McCain in March, and now two months, almost three months, when this actually happens, he's going to be getting out to campaign for him. Why so long?

MS. PERINO: I think you need to look back and look at the President's schedule, and also look at President John -- President McCain has a nice ring to it, but it was a little bit premature. President Bush has done several fundraisers here in town, but he's not raising money just for a McCain campaign, but for Republican candidates everywhere. President Bush is a formidable campaign fundraiser, as has been reported over the years, and I expect that he'll continue to be.

But remember, he's not on the ticket. And also, President Bush, since that time, in, it was early March -- late February/early March -- President Bush has had an international trip to NATO; he has traveled the country to host a international summit in New Orleans, where we hosted Prime Minister Harper and President Calderón; and then we just recently got back from a trip to the Middle East where the President is trying to help bring that region along to a Middle East peace conference. And we'll do what we can when we can. But the President has Commander-in-Chief responsibilities. And next week we have a chance to go out -- we'll also be doing a commencement address at the Air Force Academy, and then we head off to another international trip in early June.

So we'll do what we can when we can.

Q So it's scheduling, that's why?

MS. PERINO: I won't say. But again, President Bush isn't on the ticket. John McCain is on the ticket, and he's the one who's out there making the case for why he should be President of the United States.

The Big Dick - All Hat At The Coast Guard Academy Commencement

In the relative likelihood that you were not in New London Connecticut yesterday, you would not have witnessed Dick "Buckshot" Cheney addressing the graduating class of the US Coast Guard Academy.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't all good patriots remove their hats when saying the pledge of allegiance? I don't have any proof that indeed the pledge was being said when this picture was snapped by some one or another of the Whitehouse press staff, but it sure looks like it.

Why the big Dick, Veep though he is, decided to wear the ten gallon hat in Connecticut while delivering a commencement address is beyond me. Any one there able to confirm this?

Care to comment?

Blog on friends, blog on all.

The Turn of Events

The prize for best opening line for any article on the current turn of events has to do to Allison Benedickt at the Village Voice:

My lady parts do not ache for Hillary Clinton.

Obama is going to kill McSame in the head-to-head. McSame can't get far enough away from Bush to look any different, and with gas at nearly 5 bucks (or more) a gallon in November, he doesn't stand a chance because at this point the Republicans have exactly the country they voted for (twice) - and it's rotting at the GOP core.

The stench won't come out with the usual political laundering, pandering or slandering. The GOP can't blame it on Clinton any more...Obama has a point

But this year’s Republican primary was a contest to see which candidate could out-Bush the other, and that is the contest John McCain won.

When Barak Obama says, essentially, Bush and Co. has lots of "splainin' to do," he's right. They do have a lot to answer for:

Pre Turns On The Afterburners

Slightly less than four minutes into this indoor mile, you can get a feel for why Steve Prefontaine was a legend....watch as he turns on the after burners in the last lap or so:

Finally Figured Out How I Lost My Appetite For Blogging

Regular readers of my posts may have wondered why I haven't been posting as much...or perhaps not (realizing that I may have an over inflated sense of my importance in the blogosphere). It could be that after several years of haranguing the Republicans, they are withering on the vine & no longer interesting, or important. One right winger puts it succinctly:

Mr. Bush has left the party at a disadvantage in terms of communications: "He can't articulate. The only asset we have now is the big microphone, and he swallowed it."

Given how the run up to November has gone, McCain proves that he deserves his nickname, "McSame."

Bush has become toxic for his own party. Those that would suggest he's a powerful man will discover how the GWB poison affects the overall operation quite evidentially in November. No doubt the term Landslide victory won't be applied to McSame. It's going to be Obama's to lose, as George Bush will prove to be a substantial liability to the whole GOP endeavor.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

For Those Weary Of Democratic Primary Shenanigans

This is a fun video I poached off Zaius Nation. If you are as tired of the inter-party bickering...and you are a fan of Star Wars. Enjoy.

Video Marketing the Jihad

My question after watching this video clip, is thus: If a terrorist is able to get a digital hand held camera delivered to him, why can't we get one of our assassins to deliver it?

Interesting Commencement Speakers

This from the Chronicle of Higher Education's list...Tony Snow, former Whitehouse spokesmodel for GWB is showing up on the circut this year. Any one in the vacinity care to report or heckle, let us know how it goes.

Seton Hall University
South Orange, New Jersey
May 12, 2008
Tony Snow, former White House press secretary and current CNN commentator

If you are into the cult of personality that is Whitehouse Press Secretaries, you can go to this one to:

Lynn University (Fla.)
Boca Raton, Florida
May 01, 2008
Dee Dee Myers, a political analyst and former White House press secretary

Looks like Tavis Smiley has a lot of free time presenting at two locations:

Long Island University at Brooklyn
Brooklyn, New York
May 15, 2008
Tavis Smiley, host of Tavis Smiley on PBS and The Tavis Smiley Show on Public Radio International

These are actually close enough together for any one in the area to compare and see if he delivers the same speech twice (wonder if he is getting paid for both of them?):

Connecticut College
New London, Connecticut
May 18, 2008
Tavis Smiley, host of Tavis Smiley on PBS and The Tavis Smiley Show on Public Radio International

Now I wonder what this commencement speaker will have to say:

Liberty University
Lynchburg, Virginia
May 10, 2008
Chuck Norris, the martial artist and actor

The list goes on and on...with over 3000 institutions of higher learning in this country alone, there will be a lot of hot air released this month. Too bad we cannot cap it and use it to off set our dependency on foreign oil.

A question for the blogopshere over the weekend: Who was your best and worst commencement speakers and why?

Blog on Friends. Blog on all.

Drill For Oil: It's The "Environmentally Friendly" Thing To Solve Our Energy Crisis

You have got to love the President unscripted when he has to answer questions that the public doesn't usually get to put before them and rely on the seasoned press pool to do. When he's answering questions, you find out what he really thinks and means. For example, he thinks drilling for oil in the ANWR is "environmentally friendly:

And we'll look at any idea in terms of energy, except I will tell you this, that if Congress is truly interested in solving the problem, they can send the right signal by saying we're going to explore for oil and gas in the U.S. territories, starting with ANWR. We can do so in an environmentally friendly way. They ought to say, why don't we -- I proposed, you might remember, taking some abandoned military bases and providing regulatory relief so we can build new refineries.

Last I checked, drilling and exploring for oil is about raping the land, not saving the land. But really, I seem to remember another president fixing the challenging oil prices by opening up the strategic reserve and that helped more then some tax rebate. This was suggested by congress, but just as typical SOP for GWB, he's only interested if Congress puts forward ideas he likes, not solid ideas that may actually work.

Q Was that a "yes" on the moratorium?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm going to look at everything they propose.

Just the ideas I stuff down their throats that benefit my pals in big oil. He keeps on pushing the opening of ANWR:

Somehow if you mention ANWR it means you don't care about the environment. Well, I'm hoping now people, when they say "ANWR," means you don't care about the gasoline prices that people are paying.

Really, when you suggest that we have...:

New technologies enables for -- to be able to drill like we've never been able to do so before -- slant hole technologies and the capacity to use a drill site, a single drill site, to be able to explore a field in a way that doesn't damage the environment.

The person doesn't realize that drilling the hole is damaging the environment from the very definition. Why doesn't he go gang busters for alternatives beyond biofuels which inflate the cost of food stores?

But I digress what about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

Q Fourteen senators, including your own Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas, are calling on you to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. You've been asked that several times over the past few years. I know what your answer has been. But do you think now, with the rising prices, the record high oil prices, it's time to change course?

THE PRESIDENT: In this case, I have analyzed the issue, and I don't think it would affect price, for this reason: We're buying, at the moment, about 67,000 to 68,000 barrels of oil per day, fulfilling statutory obligations to fill up the SPR. World demand is 85 million barrels a day. So the purchases for SPR account for one-tenth of one percent of global demand. And I don't think that's going to affect price when you affect one-tenth of one percent, and I do believe it is in our national interests to get the SPR filled in case there's a major disruption of crude oil around the world.

Really, but we are talking about offsetting the cost of oil here in America, not the whole globe. You wouldn't leak the reserve to China would you? Or do we have to pay down our debt to them for their help financing the Iraq mess you got us into?

Well...shit. Go ahead. Drill the Alaska Wilderness if it saves me ten cents a gallon. What the hell do I care if it contributes to global warming and I now have beach front property in Vegas.

Bush advocates premature ejaculation over long term solutions to very difficult problems

Typical to the republican stance on how to help the economy, we are about to be ejaculated all over with the disbursing of tax "rebate" checks. Remember, it was your money in the first place that they are handing back to you.

If you thought making risky loans to high risk populations was good operating policy, I'm sure you think Bush's tax rebate will be just the fix our economy needs. Unfortunately, my prediction is that this tax "rebate" will be just as effective as the rythm method is for fornicating teenagers. Temporarily, the act feels good, but in the end, you are still just as pregnant.

We want to make sure everyone who's eligible for a check gets one on a timely basis. This money is going to help Americans offset the high prices we're seeing at the gas pump and at the grocery store, and it will also give our economy a boost to help us pull out of this economic slowdown.

When do you expect Bush to come up with a long term strategy to fix the economy going forward? Never?

I suspect you are right. The man and his administration has been all about instant gratification over long term, difficult solutions. In the end, we end up with yet another quagmire such as Iraq where if we hadn't spent the trillion or so dollars on, we might have achieved two aims: cured the economy and caught the bad guys.

In the end, the reality sits: You can't spend your way out of an economic crisis. Pouring our rebate checks into our gas tanks may feel good in the short term, but will it save us from ourselves? Not given the fiscal irresponsibilities of this administration.

Here's fun Obama Add

Was Ronald Reagan Sane In His Youth?

I love how Republican "values" shift as people aspire to prominent and powerful positions. Have a listen to his and see what you think.




Got it off of this blog.

What Can You Do With Three Trillion Dollars?

Wall Street, "Dead Carcasses," and Vultures: Why isn't Red Envelope Treated The Same as Bear Sterns?

I found this quote for today proving once again that investing on Wall Street is just legitimized gambling:

There are a lot of dead carcasses on the road, and the vultures are out sniffing. This is the cycle of Wall Street. When bubbles crash, you get the value guys who come in and say, ‘This thing is cheap.’ -ANDY KESSLER, a former hedge fund manager.

Everyone knows that investing in stocks and other derivatives, it's the fund managers that always win - like the house in Vegas. They collect your transaction fees whether you make money or not.

Here's a good Fresh Air program to update you on how people are making bets that we will be covering for a great long while (not the least of which is the bail out of Bear Sterns).

My advice to you: If you are playing the roulette wheel that is Wall Street, don't place bets you cannot afford to lose.

Take a look at the Red Envelope story, unfolding only today. Do they get the same bail out as Bear Sterns? Doubtful. Why is that?

"Return On Success?"

So, when people who disagree with the President's Iraq agenda suggest we pull out some troops, it's bad and "a win for the terrorists." But when George suggests that drawing down troops, it's a good thing because the process is going to be called "return on success?" Sounds rather spurious to me. Have a look:

Q Paul Bongiorno, Mr. President. As you noted, Australia will begin withdrawing 500 combat troops from southern Iraq. And I heard that you accept this decision, which did, as you say, play out in our election. But how does it fit with your view, expressed quite strongly again yesterday, that to withdraw troops at this time would be to retreat? And you've described our former Prime Minister as a "man of steel." I'm wondering how you'd describe Mr. Rudd.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Fine lad, fine lad. First of all, I didn't exactly say that. And by the way, we are withdrawing troops. It's called "return on success." And our intention is to have pulled down five battalions by July. Troops are coming out -- five brigades, excuse me -- troops are coming out, because we're successful. And so I would view the Australia decision as "return on success," returning home on success.

Does it really matter what the President calls a troop withdrawal? I wait patiently for the troops to return, but I think he should not berate those who advocate withdrawal and then claim that he's the saint for doing it,particularly given the nasty situation he has caused in Iraq and has yet to fix.

That's fundamentally different from saying, well, it's just too hard, pull them all out. That sends a different signal. This is a signal in which we're working collaboratively with the Iraqi government. They know our intentions, and they know we're not going to leave them.

In the very same speech, I talked about developing a long-term strategic relationship with Iraq, as well. And for those who didn't listen to the full speech, I will remind you that it's in our interests that we enter into such an arrangement. But a long-term strategic arrangement does not commit any future President to any troop level, nor does it talk about permanent bases. But it does talk about a joint strategic relationship to make sure that the Iraqi people know, and the Iraqi government knows that we're not going to leave them in the lurch.

And so we are taking troops out, just like the Australians are, because we're being successful. And his question -- Steven Lee's question was, well, are you going to bring any further out? Not, are you going to bring any out; are you going to bring any further troops out -- from that which we committed to do earlier. And the answer is, it depends on what our commanders say, and the folks in Washington say, and it depends upon conditions on the ground. His real question was, have the conditions changed such that you believe your commander is going to make a different recommendation that he might have two days ago? And I can't answer that question. I can only tell you what I'm going to do after we get back from NATO.

Thank you for coming. I've enjoyed it.

So, we are being successful in Iraq? Really? Have a gander at these pictures and decide for yourself. If this is what success looks like, the bar must be really by George Bush standards. Just goes to show us he was right to suggest that we "not misunderestimate" him.

Does any one else find it reprehensible that George Bush berates people for advocating withdrawal and then tries to take the high road by pasting some kind of euphamistic phrase over it? Moreover, it's reprehensible that he suggest what is ocuring in Iraq is a success.

President Bush Stokes The Empty Rhetorical Fire And Thrusts His Political Agenda Forward On the Backs of 4000 KIA GIs

One thing is clear in this, the defining "ideological struggle of the 21st century," is that the president is a master of empty rhetoric. Take a look at this paragraph and let's unpack it.

But there's one thing that is consistent. No matter what shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the same -- retreat. They claim that our strategic interest is elsewhere, and that if we would just get out of Iraq, we could focus on the battles that really matter. This argument makes no sense. (Applause.) If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq -- the convergence point for the twin threats of al Qaeda and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called "the place for the greatest battle," the country at the heart of the most volatile region on Earth -- then where are they?

Here we see Bush set up his straw man again and knock it down in front of a captive audience corralled by the GOP orchestrators and choir directors.

No is suggesting that we "retreat" from anything. In fact, a prescription for success in Iraq as authored by George and his war time profiteering brainiacs was at one point inclusive of withdrawing troops. You remember, "they stand up, we stand down?" The fact of the matter is that simply by withdrawing troops does not mean that victory is theirs.

So, now by articulating the new slogan for the Bush and co, mouthpiece for the terrorists, is to link Iran and OBL (where is he by the way?) in this brilliant piece of propaganda labeling the "twin threats." So, does this mean that we have gone from the triple threat of an axis of evil to the twin threats of Iran and Al Queda that things have improved or gotten worse for America? Really, the man is all hat and no cattle.

Asking the question "is Iraq in the strategic interest of the United States" is the rhetorical equivalent of the "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of question. It's irrelevant because we are there. We have no choice in that matter. Bush made it the central front on the war on terror because he was reckless and could care less about the civilians in Iraq.

To answer his question, the vital interests in our country right now seem to be located in our country. This doesn't mean that Iraq becomes less important, but right now it is clear that he values Iraq over the US as he's pouring money into that operation while simultaneously killing the very fabric of our country.

If he really believed in the cause, after he finishes his term, he would dedicate the remainder of his life to fixing Iraq. But is he moving his family to Baghdad after he leaves in January as a statement of his belief in the country and his cause? Doubtful. But that would be a move that proves his statement. Don't hold your breath.

What is more reprehensible about Bush and his team of propagandists arming the "presidential propaganda catapult," is their never ending flogging of the KIA GIs in Iraq to support their political aims.

Four thousand of our finest citizens have sacrificed their lives in this mission. Every one of them was loved. Every one is missed. And we thank God for the gift of these brave Americans

-- and we ask Him to comfort their families. Every one of them will be honored throughout our history. But the best way to honor the fallen is to complete the mission, and lay the foundation of peace. (Applause.)

What exactly is that mission Mr. Bush? It's changed so frequently, I can't keep it straight. Please, stop levering dead GIs to keep the fuel pouring on the conflagration that caused their deaths. Please.

Iraq Attack: Now You Can Relive It

Frontline has a new documentary that highlights the events that comprised/comprise "Bush's War." I caught it last night on the HD PBS channel.

If you would like to amplify your queasiness and heighten your belief that perhaps going to Iraq was the wrong thing to do, I suggest you watch it. The closing words, "Stalemate," really makes the whole Iraq "WMD Hunt, Liberation, Freedom and Democracy spreading" debacle more despicable and reprehensible on our part. Unloading the fury we unleashed on Iraq over these low five years seems less and less justified and more and more like a quagmire that could have been avoided if George Bush and his Administration was not there.

Unfortunately for America, we are now married to Iraq and much of it is all water under the bridge. Iraq has become a welfare state we can't afford (shoot, we can't even figure out how to fix social security. How can we be expected to support the Iraqis?) Can we apply for a divorce from Iraq under a new President? Doubt it. The bigger question is how do we hold the bastards that got us Iraq accountable for this mess? Perhaps it will never be allowed, but it that doesn't mean someone shouldn't be held accountable for it.

4000 KIA: Brought To You By George W. Bush

Civilian Deaths, Military Deaths...no end in sight.

No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure -- but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq.

Perhaps the President's definition of victory is different from the one that involves the withdrawal of troops, but one could safely ague that withdrawal of troops doesn't necessarily equate to or ensure victory for our enemies.

Indeed, as originally intended, the Iraqis were supposed to "stand up, so we could stand down." Thus, by Bush's own definition, withdrawal of the troops is a necessary part of the victory equation not a sign of defeat. Again, we see the president trying to have his cake and eat it too.

What's most irksome about George Bush's Iraq "plan" is the shifting quicksand for both rationale for the initial invasion and the definition of victory that makes the whole debacle quite untenable. At nearly $ 5000 dollars per second, and many lives lost already and no end in sight, I ask this question once again. At what point does one more GI KIA no longer worth it?

Can you tell this kid filming his/her father's funeral that her/his dad was a "necessary cost?"

God Loves Guns

Based on the President's Easter benediction, you would think God loves guns. Certainly, it's plain: God loves strong military might.

On Easter, we hold in our hearts those who will be spending this holiday far from home -- our troops on the front lines. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices that they and their families are making. America is blessed with the world's greatest military, made up of men and women who fulfill their responsibilities with dignity, humility, and honor. Their dedication is an inspiration to our country and a cause for gratitude this Easter season.

God Bless America, may she always be right!









.....psst...what are you doing looking down here....yes, May God Bless America and may she always be right....That's what I typed....

















psstt....why do you continue to scroll down...what? We weren't right about WMD in Iraq? My goodness, do you think we are on shaky ground here?








Psst...why do you keep scrolling down....God does live the Military, particularly ours. God thus, must love guns, no? Am I wrong?







Allah Akbar!

Fox News: Tool of The Devil, Tool Of The Right

News? You be the judge:



"Icky?" Karl Rove is a happy man every time he has lunch with Rupert Murdoch.

"Becase We Acted..."

No doubt, we are all tired of listening to the sound bites carefully selected from today's Presidential Propaganda Catapult launch from the Pentagon. I just want to unpack one paragraph. Have a gander and see what you think:

Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children.

Saddam's dead, sure. But we have been responsible for putting a lot of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children in the ground too.

Because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms and children's prisons have been closed for good.

Sure, Saddam is dead and cannot open the McFrancise version of his "torture" chambers, but this claim is hollow because Bush and his cronies still allow torture anyway, and by our own hands (Waterboards for Every One).

Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles.

But with all the saber rattling toward Iran, it's looking a lot like we may invade that neighbor. Or is all the threatening rhetoric about Iran getting the nuke just a lot of hot air?

Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land.

But the suicide bombers keep coming, and the IEDs, which are more threatening are still exploding. It could be argued that our presence in Iraq has led the recruiting drive for the Jihadists making it substantially easier for the terrorists to recruit more terrorists because we acted in Iraq.

Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations.

I may be quibbling about grammar here, but regimes don't act. People do. And last I checked our troops are still in harms way getting shot at. Does it matter that it's not a "regime" but a reconstituted army of believers who used to follow Saddam?

Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer.(Applause.)

Well, that's most certainly debatable, and in the face of the threatening language George Bush used yesterday when talking about Iran, it doesn't pass muster. You can't spur fear and simultaneously say we are safe. Bush continues to dance the fine line between foolishness and faith preferring to lead via faith over fact, and all I know is I most certainly don't feel safer for it.

Ever The Fear Monger: Bush Set To Beat The Drum For The Terrorists Once Again

Amidst the backdrop of protests happening around the globe, George Bush is scheduled to again spout his usual fear laden diatribe to drum up more support for his grand "democracy spreading" experiment in Iraq. Really, however you like to slice it, OBL couldn't ask for a better person to beat the fear drum for his cause.

President Bush says he has no doubts about waging the unpopular war in Iraq despite the "high cost in lives and treasure." He says that retreat now would embolden Iran and provide al-Qaida with money for weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States.

Bush has taken our country down the road we never should had traveled and there's no easy way out of it. I just wish he would stop mongering the fear to get us to support him and his ungodly and unfathomably costly war to assuage his on guilty conscience (if he has one). No doubt, these words come easy to the man who hasn't lost a child nor had his child incapacitated because of his Iraq mess. "High Cost in lives and treasure" my God. He has no idea how bad it is does he?

No Basis For Comparison

Found out this about Barack Obama's mother:

Kansas was merely a way station in her childhood, wheeling westward in the slipstream of her furniture-salesman father. In Hawaii, she married an African student at age 18. Then she married an Indonesian, moved to Jakarta, became an anthropologist, wrote an 800-page dissertation on peasant blacksmithing in Java, worked for the Ford Foundation, championed women’s work and helped bring microcredit to the world’s poor.

Makes me wonder what George W. Bush's mother has done to advance the world. I'm sure there's no basis for comparison, but it looks to me that Barak Obama is coming from a solid rather the entirely privileged lineage like some Presidents we know.