Macdonald's Animal Farm

The Republican push for Sharia Law continues...

2011-02-28T15:26:00.000-08:00

The State of Tennessee is home to the latest group of Republicans seeking to impose their particular brand of Sharia law in the United States of America and the members of the right-wing pundit-ocracy remain vigilant in the silence.

According to media reports, Republicans are proposing legislation that would prohibit Tennessee school teachers from mentioning or discussion homosexuality in classrooms across the state.

In what appears to be a wild turn from the preventing the teaching of human sexuality in classrooms, the Republicans in the state are now in favor of having teachers and educators from Kindergarden to middle school preach the gospel of heterosexual sexual relationships while refraining from mentioning the existence of homosexual sexual relationships.

This is another example of how the Republicans are interested in oppressing gay/homosexuals with the same zeal and vigor to bring the Republican party's idea of Sharia law to the United States.

The Republican Party supports Sharia Law

2011-02-18T21:51:00.000-08:00

During the last election it wasn't odd to hear the worrisome cries of Tea Party Republicans about the pending threat of Sharia Law being forced upon Americans. In fact, in a couple states, the Republican legislative bodies in Oklahoma, Georgia, Nebraska and Wyoming (to name a few) passed anti-Sharia law statues. Arizona went as far as to outlaw Karma.

Well, it turns out that people like Frank Gaffney and Sarah Palin were right about Sharia Law coming to the US. Unfortunately the real impact of Sharia Law is being seen in the United States, and it isn't through the actions of Muslim extremists or liberals. Nope, Sharia Law is a live and well thanks to the actions of the Republican party. And I don't hear a word of fear or criticism coming from conservatives.

Since the beginning of the new year Republican in South Dakota have proposed legislation that would justify honor killings and sanction the killing of abortion providers.

In the US House of Representatives, Republicans seek to oppress women by eliminating tax deductions for private insurance plans that cover abortions.

Then the Republicans decided that it was in their best interest to alter the legal definition of rape in an effort to prevent women from obtaining an abortion.

And most recently the Republicans voted on legislation designed to prevent women from receiving medical assistance from birth control to pap smears by prohibiting the federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

Sharia Law is all about controlling the lives of women and making them second class citizens. And through these legislative actions, the Republicans are seeking to control women and subjugate them as second class citizens by denying them their legal rights.

It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans are against big government and it's reach into our everyday lives. Except when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights and a woman's right to chose. When it comes to women, Republicans support big government reaching into a woman's private life to grab hold of her uterus in ways they would never allow when it comes to the government grabbing 30 round magazines from guns like that used by Jarrod Laughtner.

And Republicans hold homosexuals in the same regard as Sharia law and point to their bible as evidence and justification for their oppression of gay people and by denying them the right to marry.

Yes, Sharia Law has come to the United States. And it is being introduced by the very people who warned us that it was coming to our nation. Looks like the Republican party wasn't warning us about outside influences, they were warning us about the enemy from within.

The Aftermath.

2011-01-09T11:50:00.000-08:00

The extreme political rhetoric of the last 2 years comes in large part from the "right" side of the political spectrum. There is serious consequences to be had when it comes to political discourse in this country following the shooting in Arizona.

I see why conservatives are in large part pushing the "he is crazy/insane" defense. As I see their argument, if the shooter is crazy/insane, no one is responsible for his actions. Except the shooter. Well if the shooter is crazy/insane, then by the very definition of the word means that the shooter is not responsible for his actions and was influenced to act by an outside force.

If I were a conservative, I would hope like hell that this kid is sane, because with a sane individual it is easier to ascribe personal responsibility too their motives and actions. If he is insane, it looks like this shooter's motivations can be attributed to whomever he listened to, or followed.

It is being reported that the shooter has an affiliation to a group known as the American Renaissance.

As it pertains to Palin, and the other merchants of right wing misinformation and extreme political vitriol, I can only hope that this is a moment of reflection and a chance to change the tone and tenor of politics. But I fear that this just a chance for them to "reload" and take aim at the "bulls-eye" on their political enemies.

Propaganda at it's finest.

2011-01-02T13:58:00.001-08:00

I have been getting SPAM email from two websites that are fronts for getting out the propaganda of World Net Daily. One of them is Vision to America. It is birther central there. It is all birther, all the time! The second is The Patriot Update. It is another birthers unite site!

Since I started posting to these sites I have learned:

Conservatives/Republicans are by in large John Kerry flip floppers. They are fond of posting that Obama should adhere to poll results. Of course, back in 2006 and 2008 when the electorate gave majorities to the Democratic Party in the house and senate, these folks weren't crying that Bush should adhere to the will of the electorate. Quite the opposite in fact. That makes them flip flopper. Whether they realize it or not.

These same folks would brag about how Bush is a real leader, who doesn't lead according to poll results. Of course to validate their point they would follow it up with a reference to Clinton leading according to poll results. And now, these same individuals are demanding that Obama do what they never asked of Bush, and what they criticized Clinton for doing. Clearly there is a whole lot of flip flopping going on.

Now, regarding the birthers and their beliefs; if they are going to call for the impeachment of a sitting president, they should understand how the process works. If they want Obama to be tried for treason, they really can't believe that he is Kenyan born. Of course, it is most likely that they are oblivious as to who can and cannot be tried for treason. They are also under the delusion that just because you impeach a president, or find one guilty of treason, it magically undoes the actions taken by the congress and the president.

One other thing I have learned from the posters in these forums is that many(most) of them are completely unaware of the legislative process involved in repealing health insurance reform. They seem to believe that if the House of Representatives repeals Obama's health insurance reform, it's repealed. No other actions are required.

It is sad that these people who like to think of themselves as strict constructionists are so uninformed when it comes to the US Constitution, and the legislative process.

Oh the irony of it all.

I watched this...

2010-12-07T19:51:00.000-08:00

and responded HERE with THIS

Can you explain what exactly the Republicans settled for as a part of this "bipartisan agreement?" You actually believe that they would not vote to extend unemployment benefits? (They realized that you and the Democratic Party's fear of tax increases exceeded their fear of not extending unemployment benefits.)

Sorry, but this is yet another example of you caving to the Republicans rather than fighting for what you believe in. Why didn't you demand that the members of your party take a vote on extending tax cuts for those making $250,000.00 or less before the November election? It is rather strange that you put more time and energy motivating the Republicans to not vote than you do the members of the party that you lead.

And quite frankly I have to wonder just how much damage would be done to the economy by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Everyone keeps talking about how tax cuts are the only way to create jobs. Really? If tax cuts were the end all be all that you and the Republicans keep saying, why then did the Bush tax cuts fail to create jobs? And why aren't those very tax cuts creating jobs in this economy?

Yeah, I notice that you don't want to respond to what I consider the weakness of the tax cuts create jobs canard. Of course, the tax increases that took place under Clinton's tenure seems to indicate that in an economic downturn raising taxes creates jobs and wealth. Oh wait this is the worst recession since the depression, how could I forget.

According to Bernanke, even with tax cuts the unemployment rate won't decrease, and it won't create jobs for 4 or 5 years. So explain how the alternative of letting the tax cuts expire will slow down any recovery that will take another 5 years?

You bailed out the banks, promising that this would turn around the economy. You promised that the Recovery Act would create jobs, and it didn't. Now you say that this deal with Republicans will create jobs. Really? Or is it more of the same. Every legislative action taken to create jobs has failed to create jobs, and has only empowered the banks and the financial industry. Just like when Bush was president, and just like when you are the president, the divide between the rich and the middle class has grown ever wider. (And they call you a liberal, a socialist!

Sorry President Obama, you made promises that you have repeatedly caved on, from the public option, to DADT, to not extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.00. If you gave up fighting this year, why should anyone believe that you will fight any harder for repeal in 2012?

Well I guess this "bipartisan agreement" is your last best chance at winning re-election.

My first presidential election was back in 1984. This will be the first presidential election where I will not be voting for a president in 2012 if my options are between you and any Republican.

Change, you President Barack Obama, can believe in.

Look what the SPAM Filter dragged in

2010-11-15T18:13:00.000-08:00

Let Your Voice Be Heard!

We want to get a sense of your thoughts on the results of the Mid-term election. Please fill out the survey below. By providing us your email, we will be able to send you the results once they are tallied. In 6 months, we will ask for your input again to see how you think the new Congress is doing.

Now, with a Republican majority in the house:

Do you believe the newly elected members will try to repeal the Obamacare bill?

Yes
No
Don't Care

What's your most important item you want Congress to address?

Cut Taxes
Cut Spending
Get the Economy Going

Do you think the Republicans will pay attention to the legislative processes and procedures of the House of Representatives (Read the Bill, 72-hour rule):

Yes
No
Unsure

Do you foresee the Republicans compromising with the Democrats?

Yes
No
Undecided

Do you think the newly elected members will keep their campaign promises?

Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Very Unlikely

Do you believe President Obama will shift to the center?

Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Very Unlikely

In regard to the Stimulus Law, do you want the Republicans to:

Work to Repeal the Law
Cooperate with Democrats on Revising the Law
Leave the Law as it is

In regard to the bailouts, do you want the Republicans to:

Defund the Bailouts
Repeal the Bailouts
Leave the Bailouts as they are

Should the Tea Party work to become a viable 3rd party if the Republicans fail to push for the things the Tea Party patriots want?

Yes
No
I hope not

Who would you like to see run on the 2012 Presidential ballot?

Newt Gingrich
Sarah Palin
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
Other

If you answered "other", please provide their name below:

This unscientific poll was brought to you by: The Patriot Update.

I hope they send me the results so I can post those as well.

Campaign 2010

2010-11-03T00:46:00.001-07:00

I was really not surprised that the Democratic Party lost the majority in the house and saw their majority shrink in the senate. It was inevitable when you consider that the very people that elected Obama to office and provided him with majorities to enact the change that they could believe in found themselves on the receiving end of political hyperbole, with little change, and less to believe in.

Of course, the president didn't do himself any favors when he blamed liberals for holding him to his "hope and change" promises which included a public option as a part of health care reform. To use a baseball metaphor, Obama swings, and that is strike one!

Under my plan, Americans will be able to choose to maintain their current coverage if they choose to. For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program, and provide subsides to afford care for those who need them.

If they wonder about the voter turnout among the Obama coalition of 2008, they should start here. Of course, the White House decided that the best way to ensure that they would get out the vote was to chastise liberals for daring to hold Obama to his campaign promises, like the aforementioned health care.

When I hear Democrats griping and groaning and saying ... 'the health care plan didn't have a public option', and ... 'the financial reform -- there was a provision here that I think we should have gotten better', or, 'you know what, yes, you ended the war in Iraq, the combat mission there, but you haven't completely finished the Afghan war yet', this or that or the other, I say 'folks, wake up'.

Yeah, nothing fires up the base like blaming them for your political cowardice. And nothing fires up the base more than having the VP repeat the same attack against the very people whose support you will need in the fall election cycle.

Obama and his administration revealed that they were more worried about the concerns of the Tea Party Republicans, than they were of their own supporters. In the national media Tea Party Republicans where being hailed for their anger against the establishment, while the liberals are pushed to the back of the bus because for being angry with the president and his unfulfilled campaign promises. And this is another swing and a miss by Obama, strike two.

The last point I would like to make is about getting out the message. Obama was said to have used the internets to his advantage in his run for the White House. And yet in the subsequent election cycle he appears to have forgotten all that they knew, or whomever was working for them joined the Republicans in 2010.

Allow me to explain. I like to think of myself as an average voter, I actually read ballot propositions before I vote on them as opposed to relying upon commercial propaganda to secure my vote. I like to know something about candidates before I vote for them. When I created my Google email account I found myself the recipient of what I can only describe as political SPAM. In my estimation, (based upon my email SPAM filter) the Republicans and their surrogates completely overwhelmed President Obama and his Democratic party allies.

The two attached screen captures are of just the first 50 of 116 emails I received going back to October 4th, 2010. You can do the math if you like, but at a quick glance it is easy to see that for every one email notice I received from the Democratic Party and their surrogates, I received 4 emails from the Republicans and their surrogates promoting fear.

And with that pitch, we catch Obama looking at strike three. The election is over and from the looks of things, we might not have to wait for his presidency to come to an end in 2012.

Juan Williams and NPR

2010-10-22T15:30:00.001-07:00

There is something missing in the recent furor of the firing of Juan Williams comments that he made to Bill O'Reilly. People are quick to condemn NPR for their actions. Williams of course doesn't see anything wrong with his comments. I see something very wrong with what Williams said as he echoed the spin of Bill O'Reilly.

Let's look at what Williams said.

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Excuse me Juan Williams, but you are in fact a bigot. What makes Williams comments the bigoted speech I have come to expect from hosts and guest of Fox News programs is the fact that the Muslim extremists who attacked the US on 9/11 didn't wear traditional Muslim attire, or Muslim garb.

Funny, you'd think that a credible newsman like Williams would be aware of the facts about terrorist attacks in this country. I would love for him to cite when an extremist Muslim terrorist was wearing Muslim garb? According to every act of terrorism that I have heard about in the past 10 years, the perpetrators were dressed in traditional western style clothes and not what the bigoted Juan Williams refers to as Muslim garb.

Juan Williams is a "liberal" apologist on Fox News. His appearance on O'Reilly's show only cements his role as Fox commentator. And now he is being rewarded for his loyalty to News Corp. and his own bigotry.

From my perspective Williams should be thanking NPR for firing him. Had they not fired him he would not have signed his contract for $2 Million dollars.

What I have learned from O'Donnell and Angle

2010-10-15T23:13:00.000-07:00

Debates can be amazing for what they reveal about the cognitive machinations of political candidates.

I first watched the debate between Delaware senate candidates Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell. I learned that when Coon's is offered the chance to take a swipe at his opponent he opted against it. Of course, O'Donnell was swinging for the fences as she took ill formed thoughts and tried to turn them into the "gotcha" moments her mentor Sarah Palin warned her about.

And Wolf Bliter hit her with that "gotcha" moment when she was asked whether she believed evolution is a myth.

"What I believe is irrelevant, because what I will support in Washington, D.C. is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught in their classrooms."

Her beliefs are irrelevant? If her beliefs are irrelevant, why is she running for office?

But for me the quote that deserves a jaundice eye came as she tried to avoid being accountable for her beliefs about evolution.

"So when you look at his position on things like raising taxes, which is one of the tenets of Marxism, not supporting eliminating the death tax, which is a tenet of Marxism -- I would argue that there are more people who support my Catholic faith than his Marxist beliefs."

When she spoke about taxes being a tenet of Marxism, I had to laugh. Clearly O'Donnell isn't as familiar with Marx. If we follow O'Donnell's point to it's logical conclusion that raising taxes "is one of the tenets of Marxism" the United States of America was a "marxist" nation long before Marx was ever born, or had written the Communist Manifesto.

But perhaps the disturbing response of the night came when O'Donnell responded to a question about foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan.

When we were fighting the Soviets over there in Afghanistan in the 80s and 90s, we did not finish the job, so now we have a responsibility to finish the job and if you are gonna make these politically correct statements that it's costing us too much money, you are threatening the security of our homeland.

Oh no she didn't? The US was not fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan "in the 80's and 90's." The Soviet's left Afghanistan in 1989. And what job was she referring to that wasn't finished? It appears that O'Donnell doesn't know her Afghanistan from her Iraq.

Now there is Sharron Angle. Boy talk about a boring debate between her and Reid. After watching the debate it was clear that I am glad that I don't live in Nevada. As I watched the debate I kept wondering how in the hell did Reid become the Senate Majority Leader? His lack of preparedness was both alarming and disconcerting to watch.

But alas, what I learned from Angle supersedes that of the unprepared of Harry Reid. When asked about whether a senator creates jobs, the loss of jobs.

Once again, Harry Reid, it’s not your job to create jobs, it’s your job to create policies that create the confidence for the private sector to create those jobs. And they have lost confidence because of things like Obamacare. There’s a, a business in Reno, where he wanted to hire twenty-four – five – more employees but instead laid of five, just because of the provisions in Obamacare.

We’re seeing those kinds of policies actually crush our economy over the last 20 months.

Is Angle at all aware that what she is calling Obamacare was signed into law in March of this year, and that various provisions have only been in effect since September of this year. How is it that policies of Obamacare have been crushing our economy for 20 months?

Of course, her repeated denials of verbatim quotes by the moderator were expected. Angle refused to acknowledge her prior previous statements about phasing out Social Security, eliminating the Dept of Education, and her motivation for telling Tea Party candidate Scott Ashjian she "got juice" in Washington DC. (Geeze, I thought that Harry Reid was the only career politician in the race.)

The most telling moment of the evening came when Angle tried to attack Reid on immigration. Angle's false allegation about Reid voting for Social Security benefits for "illegal immigrants" was the opportune moment to point out the absurdity of Angle's point, such that it was. She said;

Harry Reid has voted to give Social Security to illegal aliens, not only before they were citizens but after they were citizens.

So, Reid voted to give Social Security benefits to "illegal aliens," not only "before they were citizens but after they were citizens" too? Reid missed a golden opportunity to ask Angle why is she be opposed to giving Social Security benefits to immigrants who became citizens.

Ah, the joy of debates. If Reid loses to Angle it will be of his own doing. Should he retain his seat, I hope to hell that the Senate Democrats are smart enough to remove Reid from any majority or minority leadership roles.

Killing in the name of Glenn Beck.

2010-10-11T12:39:00.000-07:00

By Byron Williams own words, he credits Glenn Beck for providing him with his motivation to kill. Williams completely undermines the claim of Glenn Beck that "you have to get them young" in order to believe propaganda. Williams clearly believes the propaganda espoused by Beck. To the point of explaining away Beck's role in his own conspiracy to kill innocent civilians for his terrorist ideology.

Glenn Beck is promoting or inciting terrorism and hiding behind the First Amendment. Byron Williams makes it clear who he gets his marching orders from.

UPDATE:
More Byron Williams in his own WORDS.(.pdf)

In this corner...

2010-09-15T23:00:00.001-07:00

Well now that the primary season has come to an end and the general elections on the horizon, the true impact of Tea Party Republicans (TPR) will be measured. To listen to some pundits and members of the pundit-ocracy merely winning primary races equates to a political revolution the likes the nation hasn't witnessed since the...since the Revolutionary War.

Personally, I am waiting for someone to ask the question: What if any impact will Tea Party Republicans have in the general election should they actually win seats in the house and senate?

Let's for a moment take a look at the total number of TPR that will be seeking office this November.

US House of Representatives: (12)
Jesse Kelly Az., Raul Labrador, Id., Robert Dold, Il., Brad Zaun, Ia., Todd Lally, Ky., Andrew Raczkowski, Mi., Dan Banishek, Mi., Vicky Hartzler, Mo., Anna Little, NJ., Keith Rothfus, Pa., Tim Scott, SC., Bob Inglis, SC.(sitting Republican that ran with TPR backing).

US Senate: (6)
Joe Miller, Ak., Ken Buck, Co., Rand Paul, Ky., Sharron Angle, Nv., Pat Toomey, Pa., Mike Lee, Ut.

If we are to project the Republicans having majorities in both the house (218) and senate (51) I can't help wonder where in the pecking order will the TPR fall within the whole of the Republican party? Except for Bob Inglis of SC., it seems to me that TPR freshmen will have little seniority or voice within the party.

Do the TPR actually think that the election of their own will actually change the power structure of the Republican Party in either the house or the senate? If the TPR were wise, they would realize that as the minority voice in their party, with their low on the totem pole committee assignments, the opportunity to change the power dynamics in Washington DC will go by the wayside.

I see the TPR candidates becoming the very politicians that they pretend that they are so against. The TPR candidates if elected will march in lock step with the agenda as set forth by senior Republicans like Lamar Smith and Darrell Issa who plan on impeaching Obama.

The only revolution members like Lynn Westmoreland of the Republican party are interested in consists of shutting down the government as they did back in 1994.

As far as I can tell, the supporters of TPR have been duped in the worst way. And they the only way they will ever truly grasp how they have been fooled is only after the TPR are sworn into office in 2011.

Health Insurance Reform

2010-03-25T21:56:00.000-07:00

The teabaggers were out in force protesting the pending vote last weekend. The carried their signs, they hurled their insults and they said that the congressional Democrats should vote to support their positions.

Well the proverbial smoke has cleared and the only people left standing are the president and the members of his party as the house passed the senate's version, not once but twice.

And in the aftermath of the vote on Sunday in the house of representatives, the teabaggers revealed the disdain for democracy and civil discourse by hurling bricks and cutting gas lines. The teabaggers and their Republican allies have an ever morphing idea of what true presidential leadership is.

Under George Bush, the invasion of Iraq was carried out against the will of the people who did not support the war. To hear the Republicans in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, real presidential leadership was to stay the course despite opposition and the protests across the nation. Protests that far surpassed the attendance of any teabagger protest.

How the times change. With Barack Obama as president those very Republicans who cheered on George Bush's leadership and his willingness to ignore the will of the people dare to impugn Obama for not following the will of the teabaggers. Ironically enough, those Republicans said that Bush didn't lead by poll results are angry with Obama for not leading according to the polls.

Another case of Republican hypocrisy. What a surprise.

During the public debate the Republicans made an issue of not being able to read the bill. They complained about the size and scope of the health insurance reform, The Republicans complained that they could not read the bill and therefore they could not vote to support it.

Where were these Republican principles back when they voted for the PATRIOT ACT? Seems rather strange to complain about a bill that would provide protections to the people (but more importantly the insurance industry) as opposed to voting for a bill that would restrict the freedoms we take for granted, and yet hold so dear to our hearts.

The Republican party believed that the failure to pass the health insurance reform bill would be Obama's "Waterloo." Republicans wanted to make Obama a lame duck president in his first and only term as president. They were looking to win back majorities in the house and senate. With the passage of health insurance reform this will be even more difficult for the party of "No."

The Republicans reasons for wanting to take back the house is all about the census. Yep, the census. The party in power will be the one responsible for redistricting and the creation of districts that are favorable to their party winning reelection.

With Barack Obama's signature on health care reform the Republicans find themselves in a place they never expected to find themselves in the run up to the 2010 election. They find themselves between Barack and a tea spot.

What 60 vote majority?

2010-01-22T12:22:00.000-08:00

There has been talk in the media about how the election of Brown cost Obama his 60 vote majority in the US senate. Sorry, the 60 vote majority that the Democrats "held" was as shallow as the rain puddle on my front walk. Those purported 60 votes held by the Democrats were in fact 59 because Lieberman is a member of the Democratic Caucus in name only. After Lieberman, the list of "blue-dog" Democrats includes Evan Bayh, and Ben Nelson. 58, 57, yeah, Obama's 60 vote majority in the senate never existed.

I don't much admire George Bush for his policies (which oddly enough Obama supports, but I digress) he was able to get his legislation through the house and the senate without the daily threats of the filibuster. Yes, he used reconciliation, but that was because he didn't have the magical 60 votes. Which brings me to my point about just how jack-boot lock step the Republican party was at passing legislation. The Republicans in the house and senate were consistent in pushing their presidents agenda forward. The Democrats not so much.

And speaking of the filibuster. The Republicans oft criticized Democrats for contemplating using the filibuster against Bush's agenda. And hypocrites that all politicians are, the Republican strategy of just say no, is to say yes to the filibuster. And if the Republicans want to filibuster, I say make them get on the senate floor and actually filibuster whatever legislation they plan on voting against.

The Democrats and Obama are afraid of their own shadow. There is no leadership in always trying to seek a bi-partisan solution to the problems that ail the nation. There comes a time where proclaiming yourself the leader means you actually need to lead. And Obama isn't leading. Obama never had a 60 vote majority in the senate, and until he drops the pretense of passing bi-partisan legislation he will never bring change (he talked so much about) that I am many others can believe in.

The FBI Phishing SCAM!

2009-12-01T23:22:00.001-08:00

I love spam. Well, not really.

From time to time I get some crazy emails telling me that there are oodles and oodles of cash just waiting for me from some bank in Africa, or a former nation of the Soviet Republic with a really important sounding name. All they need from me (and everyone else) is their personal information.

Sadly, there are those that are swept up by these scams and end up getting taken for whatever money they are asked for, or worse they provide private account information and find themselves victims of fraud.

So in my email I find this important notice from the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller. The perpetrators of the fraud even provide a link to the bio page of Mr Mueller. So, surely the email must be real, right? Sadly the perps in question made a huge mistake. Well it is a huge mistake if you have any common sense and pay attention to the details. It seems that the head of the FBI doesn't have a government email address ending with the .gov suffix. All correspondence is to be sent to a Gmail address. And the fact that every word begins with a capital letter.

So here it is, the letter I received.

ANTI-TERRORIST AND MONEY LAUNDRY CRIMES DIVISION
FBI HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
J. EDGAR HOOVER BUILDING 935
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20535-0001
Website: www.fbi.gov
Email: rbrtmuell3@gmail.com
ATTENTION FUND BENEFICIARY.
This Is An Official Advice From The FBI, Foreign Remittance/Telegraphic Dept.(FRTD), It Has Come To Our Notice That The ADB (African Development Bank) And C.B.N (Central Bank Of Nigeria) Africa Has Released Your Part Of Inheritance/Contract Payment Of 10,500,000.00 U.S Dollars Into Bank Of America In Your Name As The Beneficiary.
The Bank In Africa Knowing Fully Well That They Do Not Have Enough Facilities To Effect This Payment From Europe To Your Account, Used What We Know As A Secret Diplomatic Transit Payment S.T.D.P To Pay This Fund Through Wire Transfer. They Are Still Waiting For Final Confirmation From You On The Already Transferred Funds, To Enable Them Crediting Into Your Account Accordingly. Secret Diplomatic Transfer Payment Are Normally Funds Related To Drug/Terrorist And Money Laundry System Of Payment, Why Must Your Payment Be Made In Such Secret Transfer, If Your Transaction Is Legitimate And Not Related To Drug/Terrorist And Money Laundry, Why Can't The Bank In Africa Via Europe Effect Direct Transfer Into Your Account Than Secret Diplomatic Payment Transfer.
Due To The Increased Difficulties And Unnecessary Scrutiny By The American Authorities When Funds Come From Through Such Payment Process From Europe, Africa And Middle East, Based On The Records We Had In The Past Always Identified Such Method Of Payment As Drug/ Terrorist/Money Laundry Funds, To Avoid Problem With The Us Government As Soon As These Funds Reflect In Your Account In The U.S.A, It Is Our Mandatory Obligations To Ascertain The Documentation And Certification Of This Funds Before The Final Crediting Into Your Account.
We Advice You Contact Us Immediately, As The Funds Have Been Stopped And Held In Our Custody Pending When You Were Able To Provide Us With A Diplomatic Immunity Seal Of Transfer (Dist) Within 3 Days From The United Nation International Fund Monitory Unit (UNIFMU) That Authorize The Transfer And Certified That The Funds Originated From Africa And Middle East Is Free From Terrorist/Drug And Money Laundry Or We Shall Confiscate The Payment. We Will Allow The Funds To Be Release Into Your Account Immediately You Make Provision The Required Document.Kindly get back to this office..
FBI Director ROBERT S. MUELLER III
Email: rbrtmuell3@gmail.com
You Will Be Directed Where And How To Get The Document If It Is Not In Your Possession.
YOURS FAITHFULLY,
FBI Director ROBERT S. MUELLER III
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/directors/directmain.htm

Maybe everyone should send an email to the wannabe Director of the FBI. Rather than responding that you want to aid in the fight against terrorism, that you are part of a sleeper cell.

The Revolution will be Televized!

2009-06-23T12:57:00.000-07:00

Well, sort of. The fledgling revolution in Iran is being played on YouTube. And it has a companion blog.

How come we don't hear Republicans decrying that we are all Iranians now? It appears that interjecting in the affairs of others is the party's message. Clearly the Republicans have no sense of history and what took place in 1953 and 1979. (The Republicans have learned nothing of the belligerence of the Bush administration and what that cost the nation.)

Perhaps we are witnessing the next phase in the growth of Iran. We can only hope that the nation will grow more open and less repressive as a result of these protests.

Eating your own to survive after only 100 days in the wilderness

2009-05-13T22:01:00.000-07:00

Not long after the "Republican Revolution" in the 1990's it was the refrain of Republicans and the supporters to talk of the demise of the DNC. The DNC loss of majorities in the house and senate were hailed as milestones for the RNC and the beginning of the end of the DNC.

Well, two decades later, there has been a shift. The DNC once again holds majorities in the house and the senate, there is a black man in the White House and the Republicans are in apoplectic shock. And in what I would consider knee-jerk fashion, the Republicans elected a black man to head their national party and summarily took away his ability to spend money as if he was Marion Barry looking for a crack fix.

We have seen over promoted and under attended "tea-bagging" parties promoted (sponsored) by Fox News. A sure sign of a grass roots movement if there ever was. After Obama's first 100 days in office we have all borne witness to the fratracide within the Republican party. And I ain't talking about Arlen Specter leaving party in hopes of running unopposed as a major party candidate. (I think Specter and the DNC is in for some Pennsylvania primary fireworks in 2010.)

We have the former VP trouncing members of his party while promoting radio hosts over a combat veteran of a war that neither the former VP or the radio host had the temerity to fight. And the same VP appears more interested in his reputation than that of his party. Yeah, defend the VP as if he has some sterling reputation. I wonder how the the former VP would withstand being waterboarded by a former Navy Seal turned wrestler, turned governor? The VP would probably confess to killing Sharon Tate?

And speaking of waterboarding, I believe that Charles Grodin may have found the man to waterboard a certain loudmouth of Fox News all in the name of a good charity! Can't wait to see what happens the next time he visits. Something tells me that the subject of waterboarding and a certain charity will be off limits.

So, the "party of no" is finding that slowly their members are starting to vote yea against the party dogma. And in what can only be described as shear idiocy, the party of no is looking to reinforce their name, their particular branding by jumping in with both feet to relabel the DNC. Rather than looking inward, the RNC looks outward and tries to create their own alternative reality where Fox News is fair and balanced and that moderates within the RNC are nothing more than donkeys in elephant costumes. Because to be a real Republican is to hold the ideals of conservatives from the south, regardless of where one lives.

While I don't think that the RNC is dead as once was prescribed of the DNC, I do believe that it would be most ironic to watch the party that replaced the Whig party found themselves going the way of the Whigs.

If there was no crying in baseball, would there be no irony in politics?

Charles Freeman on his withdrawal and the "Likud Lobby"

2009-03-16T22:45:00.000-07:00

I can't help but think of Raymond Burr of the old television series, Ironside when I hear Charles Freeman speak. That said, I am disappointed that Obama did not fight for Freeman's nomination as the Director of National Intelligence as he fought for Tom Daschle's nomination as Director of Health and Human Services. If Freeman's withdrawal from consideration as the DIA is a precursor of the impact of the "Likud Lobby" it will serve as an example of how much hasn't changed under President Obama.

Watch the video.

HUDSON RIVER PLANE CRASH - UPDATE‏

2009-01-28T22:22:00.000-08:00

I received an email from a former professor regarding the plane crash in the Hudson River. It reveals what REALLY brought the airplane down!

Here's what REALLY brought the airplane down!

The Fascist Israeli Government

2009-01-27T00:33:00.001-08:00

This report is the first time I have ever watched on a US news broadcast a serious and compelling view of the Israeli government. Israel has recreated the 21st century equivalent of a Warsaw ghetto. And the US government is in collusion with the Israeli governments actions to oppress, and to kill-off the inhabitants living within the ghetto. (Please allow for the commercial to run.)

What'dya call that thing?

2009-01-15T01:12:00.001-08:00

I have always referred to my pedicab as that, a pedicab. Of course there are others who have called my cab a rickshaw. Which is not, in my humble opinion a pedicab. (Many an old veteran of former military endeavors regaled me with tales of catching a ride on the rickshaw somewhere in Asia.) Still others call it a bike taxi, pedal taxi and the pedal cab.

Well, I was recently re-reading a book that some may or may not be familiar with titled, The Quiet American(see pg 11) by Graham Green. (It was made into a movie in 1958 and 2002.) The story takes place in Vietnam. Well, it turns out that in this book, The Quiet American mentions on more than one occasion our favorite human powered three wheel machine of human conveyance, the trishaw.

So the next that I am asked what I call my pedicab, I will reply, "This is my trishaw."

Happy trishaw riding!

Yes We Can

2008-11-04T21:31:00.000-08:00

Text of Obama's Election Night speech

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation’s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics – you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you’ve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to – it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington – it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they’ll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor’s bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America – that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing – Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons – because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America – the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Call me when it's Wednesday.

2008-11-02T15:23:00.000-08:00

I vote by absentee ballot. And I sent my ballot in nearly 2 weeks ago. For the first couple of days after sending of my ballot I watched some news where members of the pundit-ocracy talked about the election; where they play a clip of this candidate or that and then spend the next five minutes trying to explain what was just said. I guess the pundit-ocracy doesn't believe that the viewing public has the ability to understand first hand what a candidate says and thinks.

For the last three days I have avoided watching any of the news shows. I can't take anymore of the pundit-ocracy telling me what I should think about what they think about what a candidate thinks.

And I can't take listening to John McCain for one more minute. When I see John McCain I can't help think of the goblin bankers in the first Harry Potter movie.

I voted for Barack Obama. And against a slew of ballot propositions. I am hopeful that Obama will cement the legacy of John McCain the maverick, for having lost to the first African American president of the United States of America.

After the election maybe the country can finally do away with the antiquated electoral college.

Waiting to exhale, after the Vice Presidential Debate

2008-09-30T00:01:00.000-07:00

When I was a child the anticipation of Christmas morning was almost unbearable. I can only imagine the frustration of my mother who waited for me to fall asleep so she could play Santa Clause. I had that same anticipation preceding my first kiss. It was there on that day that I gave away my virginity.

And now, this Thursday at 6 pm Pacific Standard Time, I wait with that same anticipation for the pending Vice Presidential debate between Democratic party nominee Joseph Biden and Republican Party nominee Sarah Palin. And in all honesty, I almost feel a little dirty because my anticipation, my motivation for watching is as prurient as watching the Indy 500 waiting for a traffic accident.

I know, it is horrible of me. I want to watch because I can't wait to see if Sarah Palin will crash going into the third turn. I wonder will she be able to overcome the intense pressure and media spotlight on every word that she speaks. Think about this: every word she utters holds the potential of being comic fodder for the caustic comedic wit of Tina Fey.

How many times can you watch the Saturday Night Live skits about Palin before they are no longer funny? I know that I should not look, but I just can't help myself. I feel like I am rubber necking on the highway slowing traffic hoping that the traffic jam up ahead is something more ghastly than a driver getting a speeding ticket.

I confess that in those moments, where I look hoping to see the carnage on the side of the road that I don't really want to see the aftermath of death and destruction. And in all fairness to Palin, I don't really want to see her look like an accident victim on the stage with Joe Biden looking like a moose in the headlights about to be struck down.

Of course, I will watch...it is a guilty pleasure...and the anticipation is once again almost unbearable!

A Layman's reading of the $700 Billion Bail Out Bill

2008-09-28T23:55:00.000-07:00

I am of average intelligence, and have always thought it important to read and understand what I am getting myself into. And while I am not a member of the house or the senate I think that it is important to read the language contained in the Bail Out legislation pending before congress. I can only hope that those elected officials (including the would be presidential candidates) voting in support or against of this legislation actually read the language, parse the language, before casting their vote.

When it comes to politics I am pretty cynical. It is why I read the propositions on my voter's ballot in their entirety. I don't care much for the spin of 30 second commercials designed to convince the voter who doesn't think for themselves, but waits for the right sound bite to determine their vote.

Of course, the politicians sitting in DC and across the country aren't any better at reading through the legislation that they are to vote for or against. Some recent examples that come to mind, the passage of the PATRIOT Act. The rush to invade Iraq, and now this Wall Street Bail Out. Funny, whatever happened to letting the market decide the fate of business?

Well, I started reading the language contained in the Wall Street Bail Out pending before congress, and by the time I got to the ninth page (of 110) I already found the first reason to not support the legislation.

(d) PROGRAM GUIDELINES.—Before the earlier of the end of the 2-business-day period beginning on the date of the first purchase of troubled assets pursuant to the authority under this section or the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish program guidelines, including the following:
(1) Mechanisms for purchasing troubled assets.
(2) Methods for pricing and valuing troubled assets.
(3) Procedures for selecting asset managers.
(4) Criteria for identifying troubled assets for purchase.(p 9)

Sorry, but I don't think Paulson is in a position to determine the "mechanism for purchasing troubled assets." Nor do I think him capable of determining the "methods for pricing and valuing troubled assets." In senate testimony Bernanke argued,

"If we keep the range of participants too narrow, only failing institutions, for example, then we won't have a robust, competitive auction. The more participants we have, the more people who are involved in offering these assets, (then) we'll have a competition."

According to a Bloomberg article, Paulson's former company, Goldman Sachs Group and Morgan Stanley "may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid," according to Bank of America. (Yeah, I wonder if I should really trust B of A.) In reading the language of the pending legislation, there appears to be a provision that would benefit Paulson's former company Goldman Sachs under the section titled PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT (p.9).

In making purchases under the authority of this Act, the Secretary
shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in a program established under this section, including by preventing the sale of a troubled asset to the Secretary at a higher price than what the seller paid to purchase the asset. This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in conservatorship or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, United States Code.

The following section titled, SEC. 102. INSURANCE OF TROUBLED ASSETS.(p10) Under the heading of "(a) AUTHORITY.—" Paulson basically has the same authority he wrote into the original 2 and 1/2 pages initially presented to congress. I guess all the talk about Paulson getting down on one knee was to thank Pelosi for giving him everything that he and Bush were looking for.

I confess that I had to laugh at the "protections" placed in this legislation for the taxpayers. While Paulson writes the rules as he thinks of them, he is supposed to remember

The premiums referred to in paragraph (1) shall be set by the Secretary at a level necessary to create reserves sufficient to meet anticipated claims, based on an actuarial analysis, and to ensure that taxpayers are fully protected. p11

Under SEC. 104. FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT BOARD (p14) We learn that the foxes will be stewards of the hen house.

MEMBERSHIP.—The Financial Stability Over24
sight Board shall be comprised of—
(1) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
(2) the Secretary;
(3) the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency;
(4) the Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission; and
(5) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

I feel so much better having only read the first 16 pages. Now if I could only overcome the sick to my stomach feeling I am currently experiencing. I should take solace in noting that the last of the "additional duties" of the Oversight Board is "protecting taxpayers, in accordance with section 112(a)" (p16).

I am pleased to learn that The Financial Stability Oversight Board

shall terminate on the expiration of the 15-day period beginning upon the later of—
(1) the date that the last troubled asset acquired by the Secretary under section 101 has been sold or transferred out of the ownership or control of the Federal Government; or
(2) the date of expiration of the last insurance contract issued under section 102.

As it stands, I'd be voting against this legislation if my vote mattered. I can only hope that Kucinich is correct and that the Republicans can stave off this legislation. I haven't even gotten a quarter of the way through the bill and it sickens me to see that the only benefactors of this legislation is that of big business. If this legislation passes, it will be Bush's final act in completely gutting the nation. And Obama can kiss his chances at getting elected good-bye.

UPDATE: I thought I'd have fun and check my site meter. And while I was away I was visited by someone from NASA and the USDA. I hope that they liked what I penned. Hey government employees, leave a comment or something. It appears that my government visitors found me by searching with the words "layman," "700" and "bailout" in no particular order.

Obama agreed with McCain? Well Sort of.

2008-09-27T14:19:00.000-07:00

There is an effort to make more of the number of times (I keep hearing the number 11 tossed about) Obama agreed with McCain during their first debate. So I thought, why not just have a look at what was said by Obama with regard to his agreeing with McCain. Let's look at each time Obama "agreed" with McCain. This list will not go into the number of times Obama disagreed with McCain, or stated outright that he believed McCain to be wrong.

OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis.

So, Obama agrees that responsibility is a good thing. So this is agreeing with McCain's policies? No. Obama offered up a salient caveat to McCain's comment. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.

Obama agrees that earmarks have been abused. This is yet another one of those moments where Obama hardly endorses the McCain agenda. It would be illogical to disagree with the point on earmarks particularly after watching the news coverage of the "bridge to nowhere." Advantage no one.

OBAMA: John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform...But the fact is that eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we're going to get the middle class back on track.

Obama agrees again about earmarks (aka pork barrel spending) but Obama then takes McCain's point and makes it his own, by pointing out that ridding the budget of earmarks won't help the middle class. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

Once again Obama agrees about the point about tax rates, and not McCain policy and then goes on to explain that whole McCain might be right, but McCain is also misleading the public because there are loopholes that benefit corporations and they don't pay the highest rates in the world as McCain asserts. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

This is probably the closest Obama gets to agreeing with a McCain policy. Of course, Obama takes the agreement on the "surge" and ties it into his central point about the mismanagement of the Bush administration policy in Iraq which McCain supported, despite his criticisms. Advantage Obama.

Obama missed out on a prime opportunity to hit McCain with what I think would have been the knock out punch every pundit said was missing from the debate. Obama should have brought up a comment made by McCain about getting out of Iraq if the Iraqi government wanted the US out and then Obama should have reminded everyone about how Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports Obama's 16 month time table for withdraw.

OBAMA: And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

So, he agrees with McCain not on policy, but on principle. Then Obama provides a salient response to just how imprudent McCain has been. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

Again, agreement in principle, of the conditions on the ground, but it is not on any endorsement of any policy of McCain. In fact, Obama takes where they agree on principle and turns it against McCain pointing out a choice to be made and the problem with McCain's strategy and legitimacy. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer.

Again, this is hardly Obama endorsing McCain's foreign policy. This position has been enunciated by both parties for years.

On another note, I can't help but disagree with Obama when it comes to Israel and Iran. He is just as belligerent as Bush and McCain.

OBAMA: No, actually, I think Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues. Obviously, I disagree with this notion that somehow we did not forcefully object to Russians going into Georgia.

Yes, they agree again in a failed principle. Sadly, both candidates are wrong about Russia's involvement with Georgia. Advantage McCain.

OBAMA: The second point I want to make is -- is the issue of energy. Russia is in part resurgent and Putin is feeling powerful because of petro-dollars, as Senator McCain mentioned.

That means that we, as one of the biggest consumers of oil -- 25 percent of the world's oil -- have to have an energy strategy not just to deal with Russia, but to deal with many of the rogue states we've talked about, Iran, Venezuela.

So, Obama agrees not with McCain's policies on Russia, just the notion about Russia benefiting from petro-dollars. He then makes a valid point about the futility of thinking that the US can drill our way free of our dependency on foreign oil.

I don't think I missed any of the times Obama agreed with McCain. I did leave out the times Obama agreed with Jim Lehrer. So, these are those moments where Obama agreed with McCain, and the pundit-ocracy thinks that it is important. And maybe they are, but for an entirely different reason. It is important because it shows the difference in how either man views the world and how each would lead if president.

A Question of Leadership: A contrast of styles

2008-09-17T22:07:00.000-07:00

When McCain was telling a crowd of supporters that the fundamentals of the American economy is strong the DOW was tanking. Following the 500 point drop both presidential candidates came out swinging. Now is as good a time as any to demonstrate what they would do if they were the president. What transpired was the difference between night and day.

To address the crisis that has befallen the stock market we have two very different responses. Obama came out with a six point plan to address the situation. In contrast, McCain demonstrated his leadership skills by calling not for some immediate action, he called for a 9/11 like commission.

Now, in comparison, we have one candidate that offers up a plan. The second offers up a plan to let others decide the best way to solve the problem. Yeah, commissions by their very nature aren't very expedient. So, McCain's "plan" of letting other plan a solution to the problem will be great once we have weathered the storm and all that it entails.

So I am struck by the thought as to what type of leader either candidate would be in a moment of crisis. And in doing so, I have to admit it gave me the chance to reflect. This moment calls into question which candidate is best suited for answering the call at 3 am. Clearly Obama has shown that he thinks on his feet, whereas McCain thinks best when a commission does it for him.

Republicans fail to remember history

2008-08-06T21:58:00.001-07:00

It is bad enough that the MBA president has proven that he has run the nations economy into the ground just as he did all his failed businesses. His dad, and his dad's connections bailed his ass out of his failed endeavors as a leader. And come November 2008 the US voting public will seek to elect a candidate that we hope will bail the nation out of the morass Bush has left us in.

And we are left with two candidates, McCain (aka: McSame, McBush) and Obama. I was looking at videos on YouTube when I came across this gem of a video. It is really a real kick in the pants to any Republican arguments against Obama because he lacks "experienced" beyond serving as a Illinois State Legislator. Well I think I should just let the video do the talking.

Pedicab Drivers Become CPR Accredited

2008-06-19T02:41:00.000-07:00

Fresno, CA (June 18, 2008) – Shuttlebugz, the environmentally-friendly pedicab service, had some of its drivers take a training course last night to become accredited in CPR.

Jeff Gerlitz, a shuttlebugz driver, led the course. He has been CPR accredited for more than 25 years, and has been teaching it for 20.

Gerlitz said that shuttlebugz are around for more than just getting people to their destinations.

“They’re also security, they’re also parking, they’re also keeping an eye on the neighborhood,” Gerlitz said. “Now they just have another skill that if somebody’s in need they can jump right in and help them.”

Jeff Macdonald, operations manager for shuttlebugz, has been with the company practically since it began. Last night was his first time going through a CPR course. He said that he would now look at his job a little differently.

“It gives me a different perspective on riding a pedicab, that’s for darn sure,” Macdonald said. “I’m going to look at situations very differently now.”

Shuttlebugz owner Joe Burke also took part in the class. He is a former safety officer for the USDA, and was getting re-certified in CPR.

“We’re always more sets of eyes when it comes to security in general,” Burke said, “and we are going to be first responders now that we have the CPR training and certification.”

July 4th will mark the second anniversary for shuttlebugz. The business currently has a fleet of eight cabs, along with 16 drivers. It serves downtown Fresno, including Chukchansi Park and Fresno Convention Center events, Fresno’s Tower District, and parties and special events. Shuttlebugz were in operation at last weekend’s air show at Chandler Executive Airport, and will also be available at the “Thunder in the Park” motorcycle run in July.

Burke has recently been in talks with Hanford officials about the possibility of having shuttlebugz in the city. The pedicab company recently did a test run at a celebration in Hanford, and will do a few more runs prior to a big event there in October.

Burke said during the training that he was impressed with Gerlitz’s teaching skills.

“I think he’s been doing a great job,” Burke said, “and I’m especially proud of my drivers, because they’re really participating and they’re serious about this, and I can see they’re all learning a lot.”

You can watch the video interviews if you follow this link.

Hillary's Only Hope

2008-05-20T22:48:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Primary process is proving that Hillary Clinton doesn't believe that the rules apply to her (or her husband). It is pretty clear that she believes that she is owed the party nomination. And after listening to Terry McAuliffe speak on Tuesday, he was pretty confident that the delegates from Florida and Michigan were going to be seated and that Hillary would be the beneficiary.

And I can't help think that the only the way that Hillary can win the nomination is if the May 31 meeting on the DNC that the of the 30 members, those loyal to the DLC will secure her nomination on that day and deprive Obama of what he has to this date earned.

And should the Rules Committee decide to change the rules at the expense of the other 48 states to favor Clinton this is one independent voter who will be voting Libertarian or possibly Green party. Oh wait. I won't vote for Ralph Nader either.

Hillary Clinton's supporters

2008-05-14T10:32:00.000-07:00

It is really interesting reading some of the pro-Hillary responses in the comment section of various articles in the internets. I have noticed that Hillary supporters are quick to point out that because Hillary won a primary (like WV) that Obama can't win against McCain in the general election come November. This sort of mindset reveals that a vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain.

Another interesting bit of information that might be of some note to Hillary supporters, according to the exit polls, those that voted for Hillary did so because of her husband. I guess the people of WV figure that a vote for Hillary is a vote for her Bill.

It looks like Hillary has but one objective, win the Democratic Party nomination. If she doesn't win the nomination then she appears determined, destined to destroy the party with blessings of her aforementioned supporters.

The Snow White Effect

2008-04-13T23:59:00.000-07:00

When I train drivers to operate pedicab I stress to them the importance of having fun. I explain to them that if they set the bar at having fun when they drive that they will not only have fun but they will make money too. Of course, there are those drivers that climb upon their pedicabs with the sole intent of making money, to hell with the simplistic notions of having fun. If it works for them, so be it. I don’t begrudge those drivers

Well that last sentence isn’t all that true. I do have one caveat. I do begrudge those drivers when they work an event or venue and start bitching and bemoaning the fact that they can’t get any rides, and they aren’t making any money. And then at the end of the night when they are called upon to pay their rental fee the bitching starts all over. I’m sure you have heard it before, especially those drivers that have been around longer than me.

From where I sit in the “cheap seats” these drivers chase away potential fares. I started thinking about the various venues where the drivers interested in making money are always first to start complaining about how they aren’t making any money. And all it takes is one…it spreads like a virus, infecting other drivers and the way they think. The smiles tend to vanish, and what you are left with are drivers with chips on their shoulders and they all want a “break” on their rental fee.

So like I was saying, I started thinking about these drivers and these situation and I came up with my own theory. (Yeah, I know…I know…you have a theory too.) I call it the Snow White effect.

Everyone should be familiar with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Well, in my theory, there are some drivers that take on the characteristics of several of the dwarfs. The first and the most obvious is:

"Grumpy:" Never smiles, scares away potential fares, the last person anyone wants a ride from is the driver that doesn’t look like they are having fun. First to bitch and bemoan. The last person you call when you need a second pedicab.

"Bashful:" Too quiet for their own good. Relies on the kindness of passer-bys rather than soliciting potential fares. Needs encouragement. Usually available when a second cab is needed. Easily swayed to the “Grumpy” side.

"Sleepy:" You guessed it! They are the ones that spend more time on the backseat than the front seat. When roused they can get the job done. Capable of transforming into “Grumpy.”

"Dopey:" Just can’t seem to get it together. One and done. Can talk the talk, but can’t pedal the pedal.

"Happy:" They smile, they are the one’s having a good time and that people remember and look for after the game, after the concert etc. Encourages “Bashful” and “Dopey.“ They are often disliked by “Grumpy.”

“Doc:” An older and wiser “Happy.”

Well, there you have it, The Snow White Effect. I’d classify myself as “Happy.”

Which dwarf are you?

Moqtada al-Sadr's Surge

2008-04-08T00:31:00.001-07:00

Well I can't wait to hear how BE-trayus will testify before the three potential presidential candidates. I suppose as a blogger I should embed a few links, but I a must confess I haven't the interest in doing any heavy lifting beyond the implements I use to draw.

Hillary Clinton Recounts, err, Recants

2008-03-25T18:27:00.001-07:00

IT is really strange how a simple idea can change, can morph into something completely unexpected. The latest comic posted about Hillary is one such creature. The original idea (and drawing) contained the image of Hillary running across the page, fleeing what where originally arrows that said OBAMA upon the arrow shafts. And the tag line at the top was, "I'M THE BATTLE TESTED CANDIDATE."

Well, a lot can happen over the course of 24 hours. Now As I was drawing the cartoon for the second time, because Hillary looked like she was walking like an Egyptian more than running away I was struck by the recent furor of her recounting then recanting herstory about her trip to Bosnia back in 1996.

A challenge for my fellow pedicabbers (and non-pedicabbers)

2008-03-20T23:03:00.000-07:00

I wanted to offer a challenge to my fellow pedicab drivers. You can think of it as the ultimate karma ride and you don't even have to turn a single pedal stroke. What is it? I want to challenge you all to donate a pint of blood, plasma or donate platelets.

I started out donating whole blood when I was in my late 20's to my local blood center, the Central California Blood Center. I was first motivate to donate because a family friend was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of 6. After donating over 6 gallons (yes, 6 gallons) of whole blood over the years (I have met others who have surpassed 6 gallons) I was told about Platelet Apheresis, the process of donating platelets.

Well, it has been several years since my first apheresis donation. And there is one question that I am asked most often, and that is how much do I get paid. Well folks, I don't get paid. I give of myself freely and in return I receive the occasional free t-shirt, or a coupon to Baskin Robbins Ice Cream. I even have a few plastic displays that proclaim just how much of this (blood) or that (platelets) I have donated over the years.

So, once again I challenge all my fellow pedicab drivers, to donate whole blood, plasma or platelets. When you donate you give the "gift of life." If you are willing to take up this challenge you should consider registering with the National Marrow Donor Program. Here is one more interesting fact for those that aren't aware, "only 5 percent of the eligible population of blood donors actually gives blood."

What I'd like to find out is, how many of those that donate regularly ride a pedicab?

I'd like to extend this challenge to anyone and everyone that reads my blog to go out and donate!

Cross posted over at Pedicab Blog.

Geraldine Ferraro, victim of reverse racism.

2008-03-12T20:25:00.000-07:00

Like Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro plays the victim when she is the perpetrator of some pretty vile statements. She repeatedly states that Obama is where he is because he is black, and for no other reason. Then she says that Obama should thank her for what she has said. She wasn't trying to denigrate what he has accomplished, she was paying him a compliment. And now, well now she is the victim of what I would best describe as reverse racism from the Obama campaign.

Thanks to Geraldine Ferraro and Keith Olbermann for the inspiration.

Calling John McCain at 3 am

2008-03-12T01:14:00.000-07:00

If experience is the measure by which we are to select our preferred presidential candidate in the 2008 election cycle then all I can say is: We are fucked! Let's face it the candidates with the most experience are Hillary Clinton (according to her) and John McCain. Now we should remember that the experiences of both of these candidates led them to vote in favor of abdicating their constitutional role to declare war against Iraq and allow Bush carte blanche to do whatever he has seen fit as it pertains to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. (Bush has seen fit to interpret the same abdication as giving him the authority to attack Iran. But that is another cartoon and another post.) Neither Clinton or McCain have the wisdom to be the President of the United States. Of course Bush didn't have either wisdom or experience and look what he has done to make the world more unstable.

Experience...Red Phone...3am...

2008-03-10T22:44:00.000-07:00

The inspiration for this cartoon came after I came across this! Who would have thunk it...being inspired by Tom Daschle. It certainly wasn't divine inspiration. I have yet one more cartoon in the works (I just need to draw the damn thing) stemming from the 3 am phone call...

In a strange way I suppose that I should be thanking Hillary for providing me the material that I have been using to hoist her upon her own petard.

Thanks Raw Story.

The Red Phone

2008-03-05T23:15:00.000-08:00

It's 3 am and the red phone in the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. is ringing. Who is going to answer the phone? If you want someone with experience then you'll have to accept that between the Hillary Clinton and John McCain, then McCain is the candidate for you. After all, McCain has more experience than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Of course, the same experience that Hillary claims would make her a better commander-in-chief is the same experience (when her husband was the president) that led her to vote in favor of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Her experience was surely lacking when she voted to support Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein cause he tried to kill his father. Why should her experience be any more valuable now then it was back then?

An aside: If Hillary is the DNC candidate it will be interesting to see her try to out-hawk McCain on Iran. Oh boy I can already imagine the cartoons...

The Call at 3 AM

2008-03-04T21:15:00.000-08:00

I was watching the news, and Hillary was talking about her victories in Rhode Island and Ohio. Her first victories after losing 12 states in a row to Obama. She was on the stump throughout her "victory" speech while in Ohio. Hillary began touting her commercial and her argument that Obama doesn't have the experience necessary to take the call at 3 am. To Hillary's way of thinking, she has the experience (most of it her husband's) to answer the "red phone" if there were an emergency at 3 in the morning.

Now, as she spoke I got to thinking about if Hillary does become the Democratic Party presidential nominee and faces John McCain in a presidential debate. I started to wonder about the intellectual honesty of Hillary Clinton. Imagine that while in a debate with McCain the moderator asks Hillary Clinton:

"During the Democratic Primary you ran a commercial that accused Barack Obama of lacking the experience it takes to respond in a moment of crisis should the call come in at 3 am. Now, your opponent is a former POW, a decorated military man who has served his country for the better part of 30 years. If the phone rings at 3 am, do you still want the person in this debate with the most experience to take that call? And is that person you?"

If Hillary Clinton is "intellectually honest," then she would have to defer to John McCain. Let's face it, if you want the person answering the phone at 3 am to have the most experience, then McCain wins hands down against either Democratic Party candidate.

It was funny that Bill Bennett said on CNN that McCain would be able to use the Hillary "3 am" commercial against Obama by changing the ending that showed McCain answering the phone. Bennett was right. But Bennett was also short-sighted. McCain will be able to take Hillary's vaunted commercial and use it against her. And she won't have her experience to stand on.

Pedicabbing at the Rogue Festival

2008-03-03T01:53:00.000-08:00

Finally, a video of pedicabbing in Fresno. The Rogue Festival is an annual event that draws local artists and artists from various locations across the planet for the Tower District in Fresno California.

Better still, I can now be found on YouTube! If I die tomorrow, my life will be complete.

It's probably just me, but there is something inherently ironic in the song playing throughout the video. If you haven't picked up on it, the title is "Kicked in the head by a stripper."

Super delgates? Super fiasco!

2008-02-12T15:31:00.001-08:00

After watching this video...oh hell I didn't even need to watch the video first at Raw Replay to know that the DLC and the DNC aren't at all interested in the will of the people.

The very idea that a 21 year old who is voting in his first presidential primary, and first presidential election is first a super delegate, and second that his vote is worth more than my vote in determining whether Hillary or Barack will be the presidential nominee of the DNC.

And to think that when a Republican I have exchanged email with said that the Democrats were afraid of the will of the voter, I defended the Democrats and assailed the actions of the Republicans for their opposition to independent voters like me participating in their party primaries. It appears that my "favorite fascist" (as I affectionately refer to him) was right about the Democrats fear of voters like me.

Don't Ask. Don't Tell. Redux

2007-11-04T22:22:00.001-08:00

I knew that the military had had a tough time recruiting, that they were offering "character waivers," and their ranks are being filled by a greater number with criminal records. I hate to say it, but can you imagine the moral outrage of the Republican Party if the lesser standards had been implemented while the sitting president were a Democrat, occupation or no occupation in progress.

This cartoon was the inspiration of Geology Bob, a former geology professor of mine.

It's The Oil, Stupid!

2007-09-27T20:23:00.000-07:00

It's The Oil, Stupid!
Dilip Hiro

Here is the sentence in The Age of Turbulence, the 531-page memoir of former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan, that caused so much turbulence in Washington last week: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Honest and accurate, it had the resonance of the Bill Clinton's election campaign mantra, "It's the economy, stupid." But, finding himself the target of a White House attack -- an administration spokesman labeled his comment, "Georgetown cocktail party analysis" -- Greenspan backtracked under cover of verbose elaboration. None of this, however, made an iota of difference to the facts on the ground.

Here is a prosecutor's brief for the position that "the Iraq War is largely about oil":

The primary evidence indicating that the Bush administration coveted Iraqi oil from the start comes from two diverse but impeccably reliable sources: Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary (2001-2003) under President George W. Bush; and Falah Al Jibury, a well-connected Iraqi-American oil consultant, who had acted as President Ronald Reagan's "back channel" to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-88. The secondary evidence is from the material that can be found in such publications as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

According to O'Neill's memoirs, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill, written by journalist Ron Suskind and published in 2004, the top item on the agenda of the National Security Council's first meeting after Bush entered the Oval Office was Iraq. That was January 30, 2001, more than seven months before the 9/11 attacks. The next National Security Council (NSC) meeting on February 1st was devoted exclusively to Iraq.

Advocating "going after Saddam" during the January 30 meeting, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, according to O'Neill, "Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's aligned with U.S. interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what U.S. policy is all about." He then discussed post-Saddam Iraq -- the Kurds in the north, the oil fields, and the reconstruction of the country's economy. (Suskind, p. 85)

Among the relevant documents later sent to NSC members, including O'Neill, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It had already mapped Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American corporations likely to be interested in participating in Iraq's petroleum industry.

Another DIA document in the package, entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," listed companies from 30 countries -- France, Germany, Russia, and Britain, among others -- their specialties and bidding histories. The attached maps pinpointed "super-giant oil field," "other oil field," and "earmarked for production sharing," and divided the basically undeveloped but oil-rich southwest of Iraq into nine blocks, indicating promising areas for future exploration. (Suskind., p. 96)

According to high flying, oil insider Falah Al Jibury, the Bush administration began making plans for Iraq's oil industry "within weeks" of Bush taking office in January 2001. In an interview with the BBC's Newsnight program, which aired on March 17, 2005, he referred to his participation in secret meetings in California, Washington, and the Middle East, where, among other things, he interviewed possible successors to Saddam Hussein.

By January 2003, a plan for Iraqi oil crafted by the State Department and oil majors emerged under the guidance of Amy Myers Jaffe of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. It recommended maintaining the state-owned Iraq National Oil Company, whose origins dated back to 1961 -- but open it up to foreign investment after an initial period in which U.S.-approved Iraqi managers would supervise the rehabilitation of the war-damaged oil infrastructure. The existence of this group would come to light in a report by the Wall Street Journal on March 3, 2003.

Unknown to the architects of this scheme, according to the same BBC Newsnight report, the Pentagon's planners, apparently influenced by powerful neocons in and out of the administration, had devised their own super-secret plan. It involved the sale of all Iraqi oil fields to private companies with a view to increasing output well above the quota set by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for Iraq in order to weaken, and then destroy, OPEC.

Secondary Evidence

On October 11, 2002 the New York Times reported that the Pentagon already had plans to occupy and control Iraq's oilfields. The next day the Economist described how Americans in the know had dubbed the waterway demarcating the southern borders of Iraq and Iran "Klondike on the Shatt al Arab," while Ahmed Chalabi, head of the U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress and a neocon favorite, had already delivered this message: "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil -- if he gets to run the show."

On October 30, Oil and Gas International revealed that the Bush administration wanted a working group of 12 to 20 people to (a) recommend ways to rehabilitate the Iraqi oil industry "in order to increase oil exports to partially pay for a possible U.S. military occupation government," (b) consider Iraq's continued membership of OPEC, and (c) consider whether to honor contracts Saddam Hussein had granted to non-American oil companies.

By late October 2002, columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times would later reveal, Halliburton, the energy services company previously headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, had prepared a confidential 500-page document on how to handle Iraq's oil industry after an invasion and occupation of Iraq. This was, commented Dowd, "a plan [Halliburton] wrote several months before the invasion of Iraq, and before it got a no-bid contract to implement the plan (and overbill the U.S.)." She also pointed out that a Times' request for a copy of the plan evinced a distinct lack of response from the Pentagon.

In public, of course, the Bush administration built its case for an invasion of Iraq without referring to that country's oil or the fact that it had the third largest reserves of petroleum in the world. But what happened out of sight was another matter. At a secret NSC briefing for the President on February 24, 2003, entitled, "Planning for the Iraqi Petroleum Infrastructure," a State Department economist, Pamela Quanrud, told Bush that it would cost $7-8 billion to rebuild the oil infrastructure, if Saddam decided to blow up his country's oil wells, according to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in his 2004 book, Plan of Attack (pp. 322-323). Quanrud was evidently a member of the State Department group chaired by Amy Myers Jaffe.

When the Anglo-American troops invaded on March 20, 2003, they expected to see oil wells ablaze. Saddam Hussein proved them wrong. Being a staunch nationalist, he evidently did not want to go down in history as the man who damaged Iraq's most precious natural resource.

On entering Baghdad on April 9th, the American troops stood by as looters burned and ransacked public buildings, including government ministries -- except for the Oil Ministry, which they guarded diligently. Within the next few days, at a secret meeting in London, the Pentagon's scheme of the sale of all Iraqi oil fields got a go-ahead in principle.

The Bush administration's assertions that oil was not a prime reason for invading Iraq did not fool Iraqis though. A July 2003 poll of Baghdad residents -- who represented a quarter of the Iraqi national population -- by the London Spectator showed that while 23% believed the reason for the Anglo-American war on Iraq was "to liberate us from dictatorship," twice as many responded, "to get oil". (Cited in Dilip Hiro, Secrets and Lies: Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and After, p. 398.)

As Iraq's principal occupier, the Bush White House made no secret of its plans to quickly dismantle that country's strong public sector. When the first American proconsul, retired General Jay Garner, focused on holding local elections rather than privatizing the country's economic structure, he was promptly sacked.

Hurdles to Oil Privatization Prove Impassable

Garner's successor, L. Paul Bremer III, found himself dealing with Philip Carroll -- former Chief Executive Officer of the American operations of (Anglo-Dutch) Royal Dutch Shell in Houston -- appointed by Washington as the Iraqi oil industry's supreme boss. Carroll decided not to tinker with the industry's ownership and told Bremer so. "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved," Carroll said in an interview with the BBC's Newsnight program on March 17, 2005.

This was, however, but a partial explanation for why Bremer excluded the oil industry when issuing Order 39 in September 2003 privatizing nearly 200 Iraqi public sector companies and opening them up to 100% foreign ownership. The Bush White House had also realized by then that denationalizing the oil industry would be a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions which bar an occupying power from altering the fundamental structure of the occupied territory's economy.

There was, as well, the vexatious problem of sorting out the 30 major oil development contracts Saddam's regime had signed with companies based in Canada, China, France, India, Italy, Russia, Spain, and Vietnam. The key unresolved issue was whether these firms had signed contracts with the government of Saddam Hussein, which no longer existed, or with the Republic of Iraq which remained intact.

Perhaps more important was the stand taken by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the senior Shiite cleric in the country and a figure whom the occupying Americans were keen not to alienate. He made no secret of his disapproval of the wholesale privatization of Iraq's major companies. As for the minerals -- oil being the most precious -- Sistani declared that they belonged to the "community," meaning the state. As a religious decree issued by a grand ayatollah, his statement carried immense weight.

Even more effective was the violent reaction of the industry's employees to the rumors of privatization. In his Newsnight interview Jibury said, "We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines built on the premise that privatization is coming."

In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, much equipment was looted from pipelines, pumping stations, and other oil facilities. By August 2003, four months after American troops entered Baghdad, oil output had only inched up to 1.2 million barrels per day, about two-fifths of the pre-invasion level.

The forecasts (or dreams) of American planners' that oil production would jump to 6 million barrels per day by 2010 and easily fund the occupation and reconstruction of the country, were now seen for what they were -- part of the hype disseminated privately by American neocons to sell the idea of invading Iraq to the public.

With the insurgency taking off, attacks on oil pipelines and pumping stations averaged two a week during the second half of 2003. The pipeline connecting a major northern oil field near Kirkuk -- with an export capacity of 550,000-700,000 barrels per day -- to the Turkish port of Ceyhan became inoperative. Soon, the only oil being exported was from fields in the less disturbed, predominately Shiite south of Iraq.

In September 2003, President Bush approached Congress for $2.1 billion to safeguard and rehabilitate Iraq's oil facilities. The resulting Task Force Shield project undertook to protect 340 key installations and 4,000 miles (6,400 km) of oil pipeline. It was not until the spring of 2004 that output again reached the pre-war average of 2.5 million barrels per day -- and that did not hold. Soon enough, production fell again. Iraqi refineries were, by now, producing only two-fifths of the 24 million liters of gasoline needed by the country daily, and so there were often days-long lines at service stations.

Addressing the 26th Oil and Money conference in London on September 21, 2005, Issam Chalabi, who had been an Iraqi oil minister in the late 1980s, referred to the crippling lack of security and the lack of clear laws to manage the industry, and doubted if Iraq could return to the 1979 peak of 3.5 million barrels per day before 2009, if then.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government found itself dependent on oil revenues for 90% of its income, a record at a time when corruption in its ministries had become rampant. On January 30, 2005, Stuart W. Bowen, the special inspector general appointed by the U.S. occupation authority, reported that almost $9 billion in Iraqi oil revenue, disbursed to the ministries, had gone missing. A subsequent Congressional inspection team reported in May 2006 that Task Force Shield had failed to meet its goals due to "lack of clear management structure and poor accountability", and added that there were "indications of potential fraud" which were being reviewed by the Inspector General.

The endorsement of the new Iraqi constitution by referendum in October 2005 finally killed the prospect of full-scale oil privatization. Article 109 of that document stated clearly that hydrocarbons were "national Iraqi property". That is, oil and gas would remain in the public sector.

In March 2006, three years after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, the country's petroleum exports were 30% to 40% below pre-invasion levels.

Bush Pushes for Iraq's Flawed Draft Hydrocarbon Law

In February 2007, in line with the constitution, the draft hydrocarbon law the Iraqi government presented to parliament kept oil and gas in the state sector. It also stipulated recreating a single Iraqi National Oil Company that would be charged with doling out oil income to the provinces on a per-capita basis.The Bush administration latched onto that provision to hype the 43-article Iraqi bill as a key to reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites -- since the Sunni areas of Iraq lack hydrocarbons -- and so included it (as did Congress) in its list of "benchmarks" the Iraqi government had to meet.

Overlooked by Washington was the way that particular article, after mentioning revenue-sharing, stated that a separate Federal Revenue Law would be necessary to settle the matter of distribution -- the first draft of which was only published four months later in June.

Far more than revenue sharing and reconciliation, though, what really interested the Bush White House were the mouthwatering incentives for foreign firms to invest in Iraq's hydrocarbon industry contained in the draft law. They promised to provide ample opportunities to America's Oil Majors to reap handsome profits in an oil-rich Iraq whose vast western desert had yet to be explored fully for hydrocarbons. So Bush pressured the Iraqi government to get the necessary law passed before the parliament's vacation in August -- to no avail.

The Bush administration's failure to achieve its short-term objectives does not detract from the overarching fact -- established by the copious evidence marshaled in this article -- that gaining privileged access to Iraqi oil for American companies was a primary objective of the Pentagon's invasion of Iraq.

Birds of a feather...

2007-08-28T16:00:00.000-07:00

FLOCK TOGETHER!

According to some, those talking heads of the Republican persuasion would have you believe that the mainstream media has a liberal bias. I say what complete bullshit! Did you get a gander at your television news yesterday?

The big news yesterday was not that Alberto Gonzalez resigned as the US Attorney General, it was that Michael Vick pled guilty to fighting dogs, killing a few...he pled guilty to everything but gambling on the dog fights. As if that really makes a difference.

You would have thought that the Attorney General resigning would have gotten far more play in the "liberal media." But it didn't. What an opportune time for the AG to resign. And Thank goodness we have a compliant media.

And then there is Senator Larry Craig. And don't get me started on Craig's behavior and the hypocrisy in entails.

Bush Iraq Policy Redux

2007-07-11T19:10:00.000-07:00

Well it does appear that the Bush policy of "We're fighting them in Iraq so that we can defeat them abroad, so we don't have to fight them here at home." has proven an abysmal failure. It is being reported that al Qaeda is at pre 9/11 strength. The article from the Associated Press states,

Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

This appears to be yet another nail in the proverbial coffin of the Bush Cheney led war on terrorism. Maybe this latest report will cause a few fence sitting Republicans to finally see the folly of Bush's war in Iraq.

On another note, it is nice to see that the Australia's Defense Minister is bluntly honest as to why their nation is in Iraq. They are all about the oil.

Karma Rides

2007-06-27T23:06:00.000-07:00

OK, everyone is familiar with the concept of a karma ride. It is usually a short ride that takes place at least once in a shift. Then there are free rides that turn into a trip for a tip. I have spent afternoons offering rides "on the house" that are just as profitable as nights when I tell customers that I work for tips. (And I know that there are others who could say the same.)

Well last Saturday night I met an elderly lady who missed her bus and was stuck downtown. (She was frail, and walked with what I would describe as a slow and wobbly step. She reminded me of Miss Havisham from Charles Dickens' Great Expectations.) It was 8 pm and the buses stopped running at 7 pm. I asked the woman if she could call someone to pick her up. She said that she had just moved and had no phone and no one to call to pick her up. I asked her how far away she lived and she said that it was not that far and gave me the name of one major street by her home.

I seriously considered taking her to a taxi and having the taxi driver take her home at my expense. I quickly discarded this notion as I replayed her climbing into my cab with my assistance. Could I trust a taxicab driver with my passenger? I decided that I could not. Now that I was committed to taking the old woman home I started asking her what landmarks she could remember were near her new home. She narrowed down my options by informing me that she lived near a corner liquor store located next to a small restaurant.

Taking what I know of the area where she lives I started riding for the street she could remember the name of. I figured that if I started riding that she would eventually see the liquor store and/or the restaurant and we'd find her home in no time. I figured that she lived in one of two places and started riding hoping that I was correct. As we entered the first intersection I thought might be the correct one I asked her if she saw anything that looked familiar. She responded that she did not. I told her not to worry because it was just a matter of time before we arrived at her home.

Well, about a 1/2 mile later we approached the second intersection that fit her criteria. I again asked her if anything looked familiar. She paused, squinted and then recognized the two corner businesses. I asked her which way did I needed to drive and she told me to turn left, which I did as soon as the light turned green.

After a left turn and then another right turn we approached her home. I pulled up along side the curb next to her residence and dismounted from my pedicab. As I reached out to help my passenger off the pedicab she started crying. Through her tears she thanked me and apologized for having no money to give me. I explained that I didn't want her money and that I was just glad that she was home now. After helping her down off my cab she continued to cry as she gave me the tightest hug she could offer.

I am by no means the nicest man in the world, but for a moment last Saturday night, I was the nicest man in the world for elderly woman who I have never met. And that is the best tip of all.

Cross posted at Pedicab blog.

Heartbreaking fares

2007-06-11T18:25:00.000-07:00

Recently our company was contracted by the city to provide pedicabs during the lunch hour (10 am to 2 pm) downtown. Over the past couple of weeks a majority of my passengers have been those that work downtown offset with the occasional jurist escaping for the lunch recess. I love my job! I get to exercise, conduct social experiments and make a little money on the side.

In riding downtown at lunch time I have come to know a new type of pedicab passenger. They are not your average passengers. They don't want to go to lunch. They aren't interested in going shopping. And they aren't in the least bit interested in walking and getting their exercise. So who are these passengers that I speak of? The passengers to whom I refer are the children and their mothers (and fathers) who for whatever reason are only allowed supervised visits with their children.

Last Friday I was stopped by a mother who asked about getting a ride for herself and her two kids. I said sure. Then she paused, turned to the CPS (Child Protective Services) worker to ask permission to ride my pedicab. He consented and then told me that we could only go so far as he had to be able to see us at all times. It was a strange feeling being watched. I could only wonder what the parent must be going through. How awkward a moment is it to spend quality time with your children knowing that there is someone looking over your shoulder the whole time.

Again, I don't know the circumstances that led to this arrangement. There is a plethora of reasons that I won't attempt to explain, rationalize. I could not help feel sorry for the mother and the children. The children were rather subdued despite my efforts to distract them with my skill at weaving between a series of light poles at slow speed. I guess that they too could feel the watchful eye of the CPS worker.

Today I gave yet another ride to a mother who was spending time with her children under the watchful eye of the CPS worker. Today's ride was different as the CPS worker joined the mother and her children for a ride through downtown. Together they enjoyed the ride while the children laughed and had a good time. I imagine that there will be other mothers (fathers) with their children seeking to escape if only for moment.

As a pedicab rider there are those times when my job can be physically demanding. After a long night the parking garage gets harder to climb. But after today I am convinced that the CPS worker has a tougher job than I do.

Cross posted over @ Pedicab Blog.

All Wet (aka: Getting Hosed)

2007-06-08T01:20:00.000-07:00

So this cartoon wasn't posted after it was drawn. Truth be told, I drew this cartoon twice. In the first rendition Pelosi looked more like an angry old man in drag. Of course, there are those that thought that such a representation of Pelosi was preferable. As the artist I had to go with something that I was more comfortable with. I can always draw (get it?) upon the experience in the future should she develop an overly mannish appearance.

I suppose that the people getting hosed are really the US soldiers that are left to fight and die in Iraq. If I were truly a gifted cartoonist I would have included them in the cartoon, perhaps under the feet of the elephant. This cartoon was definitely more prescient a week ago than it is today, but I liked the image and those that I talked with about the cartoon really liked the imagery so with all deliberate hesitation I give to you, All Wet (aka: Getting Hosed).

Good-bye Cindy Sheehan

2007-05-29T11:54:00.000-07:00

Good Riddance Attention Whore
by Cindy Sheehan

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called “Face” of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such “liberal blogs” as the Democratic Underground. Being called an “attention whore” and being told “good riddance” are some of the more milder rebukes.

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of “right or left”, but “right and wrong.”

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt “two” party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an “attention whore” then I really need to be committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a “grateful” country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.

Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford, Texas? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too…which makes the property even more valuable.

This is my resignation letter as the “face” of the American anti-war movement. This is not my “Checkers” moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America…you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

The legacy of Bush.

2007-05-21T22:48:00.000-07:00

Bush is always talking about his impact and his legacy as the President of the United States being decided by historians. Of course, this is not what Bush meant when he made his comment,

"My attitude is, if they're still writing about (number) one, 43 doesn't need to worry about it."

Now, I am no fan of George Bush and his presidency. In fact, I have been opposed to virtually every idea that Bush has proposed from his tax cuts for the wealthy to the invasion (and occupation) of Iraq.

As a critic of this president I can say that there are two distinct areas that George Bush's presidency has had a positive impact on a historical level. The first would be the oil industry. Before the invasion of Iraq the cost of a barrel of oil was nearer to $25.00 than it was $65.00. (And it looks like gas prices aren't going to decrease anytime soon.)

And the second would be that of the military industrial complex. The warning of Eisenhower about the military industrial complex (and the lessons of the Vietnam War) have gone unheeded. The forewarning from Eisenhower and the experience of Vietnam were lessons that the current president and the members of his administration have ignored to the peril of US service personnel and Iraqi civilians. If not the world.

There are some issues that I can't reduce to a simple cartoon image.

Republicans Retreat From Their War History

2007-05-11T13:40:00.000-07:00

How the GOP ditched decades of hard-headed foreign policy realism

Steve Chapman | May 10, 2007

We all know that when it comes to war, Republicans are strong and resolute, while Democrats are weak and craven. We know because Republicans tell us so.

Those have been the constant GOP themes in the congressional debate over the Iraq war. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio accused Democrats who want to mandate withdrawal by a certain date of proposing "a timetable for American surrender." They were cheering for "defeat," charged Arizona Sen. John McCain. President Bush vowed that unlike his partisan opponents, he would not "cut and run."

During last week's Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, Rudy Giuliani cited the 40th president as a model of fortitude in dealing with enemies. Among "the things that Ronald Reagan taught us," he declared, is that "we should never retreat in the face of terrorism."

No one present was impolite enough to mention that far from spurning retreat in the face of terrorism, the Gipper embraced it. After the 1983 terrorist bombing in Beirut, which killed 241 American military personnel, he recognized the futility of our presence in Lebanon and pulled out.

Boehner portrays himself and his colleagues as brave patriots who would never accept anything less than victory in war. But in 1993, when things got tough in Somalia, he voted for withdrawal. John McCain likewise favored "defeat" in that conflict. He opposed a timetable for withdrawal not because he wanted U.S. forces to stay but because it would take too long. Our soldiers, he insisted, should leave "as rapidly and safely as possible." Or, you could say, cut and run.

At the same time, Democrats were warning of the dangers of retreat. Among them was a senator from Massachusetts named John Kerry.

Both times, the Republicans favoring withdrawal had the right idea. In neither case was our intervention justified, and nothing at stake in Lebanon or Somalia was worth the cost in American lives.

They also favored an outcome short of victory in the Kosovo war of 1999, when the GOP-controlled House voted down a resolution supporting the president's air campaign. Most House Republicans also supported a measure calling for the withdrawal of American troops from the Balkans.

Back then, House Republican Leader Tom DeLay said, "The bombing was a mistake," and urged Clinton to "admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." Can you guess the title of DeLay's new book? No Retreat, No Surrender.

The truth is, Republican presidents are not known for staying the course in the face of adversity. Dwight Eisenhower ran on a promise to end the Korean war, which he did -- on terms that allowed the communist aggressors to remain in power in the North. Richard Nixon negotiated a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese government, which provided for a U.S. pullout. Gerald Ford presided over the fall of Saigon and the final, humiliating American evacuation.

In those instances, the presidents came to grips with the unpleasant truth that sometimes, you can't achieve the desired outcome without an excessive sacrifice, if at all. But when it comes to Iraq, Republicans insist we should be ready to pay any price in pursuit of a victory that has eluded us for so long. In their view, weighing the costs against the benefits, or acknowledging that we don't have a formula for success, is tantamount to appeasement.

What Republicans stood for in the past was a sober realism about the limits of our power and our good intentions. That spirit is absent today. They act as though slogans are a substitute for strategy. What they claim as steadfast resolve looks more like blind obstinacy.

It's silly to say victory is the only option unless you actually have a way to achieve it and are willing to commit the necessary resources. The administration and its allies on Capitol Hill insist that this time, they know what they're doing. But they said the same thing at every point along the way, and if they had been right, the phrase "Mission Accomplished" wouldn't be a national joke.

Maybe at last they have found the key to success. More likely, though, they are just wasting lives and money postponing the inevitable. It's terrible to lose a war. But as several Republican presidents could attest, it's even worse to persist in one you can't win.

H/T to Antiwar.com and Reason Magazine.

Editorial: Heavy Price

2007-04-21T14:43:00.001-07:00

The following editorial comes from Arab News (The Middle East's Leading English Language Daily). I came across this editorial during one of my oft visits to Watching America.

The massacre of 32 students at Virginia Tech University has left Americans dumbstruck. It is the latest and so far the most bloody in a series of murderous attacks at US educational institutions. At each of the appalling crime scenes, youngsters have settled grudges or played out video game fantasies with powerful automatic weapons. And those weapons are sold over the counter in virtually each of America’s 50 states. However at this hour of America’s horrified grief, in which all decent people worldwide share, it is worth pointing out that there is a lesson here which, on past evidence, no US administration will choose even to hear, let alone learn.

That lesson is this: if a suicide bomber walks into a crowded market in Iraq and blows himself up along with 32 innocent bystanders, it is terrorism. If the same thing happens in America, it is not. Americans — and by extension anyone in the country — enjoy a constitutional right to bear arms. However anachronistic this may seem to outsiders given that the days of frontiersmen and citizens’ militias are long past, there still remains a powerful lobby, funded by the weaponry manufacturers themselves, that defends what it claims is a fundamental right.

Yet at the same time, the Americans lose no time in insisting that others around the world surrender their weaponry — whether the weaponry belongs to Afghan tribesmen, Iraqi neighborhood patrols or, on a larger scale, the nuclear arms of North Korea and the suspected Iranian atomic program. The scale of the weapon is irrelevant. There is an inherent moral contradiction in the rights that Americans seek to maintain for their own citizens and the demands they make on the citizens of other countries. The unfortunate truth is that because the US has consistently sought to impose different standards on non-Americans, it has left itself open to charges of hypocrisy. Its partial treatment of Israel with its own nuclear weaponry, created from stolen or supplied US technology, only compounds this. All nations naturally and understandably maneuver to gain the best advantage. It is part of the international power game. But America, the sole superpower, needs the trust of its friends and allies if it is to play an effective international role.

Its constant use of double standards destroys that trust. The damage unfortunately goes much further. Most Americans simply do not see the falsity of their own position. So sure are they of their own moral rectitude that they utterly discount the standards and concerns of others as either irrelevant or wrong. This is all the easier for them because of the widespread ignorance of the outside world which, in the present administration, extends from the man in the street all the way to the president himself. This lack of international knowledge and awareness is the more remarkable given that America is such a rich mix of races and cultures. Yet once within the capacious US borders, immigrants sign up to a constitution which includes this obsolete right to carry guns whose sole purpose is to kill. Gangland murders and campus massacres by deluded youths armed with lethal firepower are the price Americans pay for this blindness. Though they may be terrified and deeply disturbed, they do not see such crimes as terrorism or indeed as constitutionally state-sponsored terrorism.

There are times when I wonder how the rest of the world looks at the US. And here is a fine example.

Four Years and Counting in Iraq

2007-03-18T23:38:00.000-07:00

Funny how time flies...it seems like only yesterday that I was sitting in the court house waiting to see if I would be chosen as a peer to a defendant waiting to be tried in court of law. I sat in a room with my fellow prospective jurors waiting for my number to be called watching the television at the front of the room. I can't recall the particular station (possibly CNN), but I do remember what was on that morning.

It was the first day of what the Bush administration referred to as "shock and awe." Having watched the previous Gulf War in 1991, I was hardly in shock or awe of what I was witnessing. Undoubtedly the Iraqis residing in Baghdad were in "shock and awe" as the US military flew thousands of sorties over their country, delivering death and destruction to the already sanctions worn nation.

As I sit in the comfort of my home, I remember sitting next to a gentleman who was waiting to be called as a potential juror. We spoke ever so briefly that morning. He commented that the US military was going to destroy Iraq and destroy Saddam Hussein. I told him that he was probably right about that (the US military is well equipped when it comes to wreaking havoc upon our enemies). But then I said something that abruptly ended our conversation. I said to the gentleman,

We will never find and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You cannot find what does not exist.

The look I got that morning was one of incredulity. That was the first time I got that look from an SOB (Sycophant of Bush).

As luck would have it, I was not selected as a juror. I was dismissed from jury duty shortly after returning from lunch at 1:30 pm. The gentleman that I spoke with every so briefly was selected with a group of others to adjourn to a courtroom located on the third floor of the courthouse. Kind of ironic.

You know, if I was big on conspiracy theories, (and I am not) I'd think that someone heard what I said and realized that if the president of the United States can't convince me that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was connected to al Qaeda and what transpired on 9/11 and that the Iraqi people would "greet us with flowers" and "greet us as liberators" than I'd never convict anyone.

Durbin's Gulag

2007-03-08T00:15:00.001-08:00

November 7th, 2005...the date that I originally posted this cartoon. The press was up in arms, and so too were the Republicans over the words spoken by Senator Richard Durbin, he said:

"You would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."

It was damn near impossible to watch a news program on any of the 24 hour networks without having to suffer through the bloviating Republicans who sought to shame Senator Durbin and the Democrats in both the house and senate.

So why did I repost the Durbin cartoon you ask...well you see it was this article I was reading over at The Raw Story. Well needless to say it reminded me of what transpired when Durbin spoke out against this administration.

POLAND -- The CIA operated an interrogation and short-term detention facility for suspected terrorists within a Polish intelligence training school with the explicit approval of British and US authorities, according to British and Polish intelligence officials familiar with the arrangements.

Intelligence officials identify the site as a component of a Polish intelligence training school outside the northern Polish village of Stare Kiejkuty. While previously suspected, the facility has never been conclusively identified as being part of the CIA's secret rendition and detention program.

...

According to a confidential British intelligence memo shown to RAW STORY, Prime Minister Tony Blair told Poland's then-Prime Minister Leszek Miller to keep the information secret, even from his own government.

Sadly this event, like so many others has disappeared down the memory hole. Care to comment?

Libby's Lousy T-Shirt

2007-03-07T00:44:00.001-08:00

Now that Libby has been found guilty on four of the five charges, I believe that my prescient cartoon deserves to be reposted for all to see. It will be interesting to see whether or not Libby is allowed to remain free on bond pending his appeal for a new trial. Libby deserves to be in jail...rather than walking around as is he wasn't found to guilty of four of five charges. I can only hope that Libby's appeals process is fast tracked so he can get to stepping in his prison uniform.

I have little doubt that Bush will pardon Libby long before January 2009. maybe Fitzgerald will be able to convince Libby that it is in his best interest to roll over on his boss, Dick Cheney. It is most interesting that the day after his subordinate was found guilty in a court of law that Dick Cheney learned that he had blood clot in his leg. Is it possible that the blood clot is the cover story and that Cheney has yet another little heart attack post Libby conviction?

Just speculating...

Libby's Lousy T-Shirt

2007-02-26T09:29:00.000-08:00

I might be hedging my bets by posting this now, but I wanted to be ahead of the curve should Scooter Libby find himself the recipient of a meaningful prison sentence. I know, innocent before guilty, blah, blah, blah...I suppose I might be a little more inclined to think that Scooter deserves the benefit of the doubt before I pass down my sentence, but where is the fun in that? And is it not my prerogative to write, or in this case draw what I think, cause of that First Amendment thingy.

And now would be a good time to briefly mention Dick Cheney. It says very little about the Vice President in-charge-of-national-delusions when he appears on Australian television attacking those that have pointed out the failure of the current administration's invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Doesn't Cheney realize that by attacking his fellow Americans that he is emboldening our nations enemies? (Where the hell is the jingoism of FauxNews when you need it?) Cheney has fallen victim to his own rhetoric...made one to many trips to the kool-aid bowl with the Prime Minister of Australia.

The long and the short of it...

2007-02-26T02:50:00.000-08:00

This personal blog hasn't really been all that personal. It has always been about politics rather than than a collection of random personal events. Well, this post will go where no post has gone before. I am going to write about a recent random personal event.

I have been an avid commuter bicyclist for the better part of 20+ years. I have commuted to work in the rain, sleet and the density of low clouds often referred to as fog. I have had a few near hits with motorists over the years. And sadly I have also had a few close encounters that have not ended at all well.

Back when I was 18, I was responsible for a head-on collision at 30 miles an hour with a AMC Gremlin. I literally "walked away" with multiple lacerations and broken leg. In my mid 20's I was a victim of a hit and run that taco'd my front wheel, bent the frame/fork and dislocated a thumb. In my 30's I was side-swiped and forced off the road.

And just last week I was in a accident with an SUV. It was a glancing blow. I tried to avoid a completely unavoidable SUV in a local parking garage as he pulled out in front of me. I hit the left front fender of the SUV doing between 10-15 mph and was thrown over the handle bars, over the hood of the vehicle and did a most ungraceful belly-flop upon the concrete floor.

As I lay upon the ground I did a mental assessment of what had just taken place, and was taking a physical inventory: no head injury, my neck was good to go, I could move my fingers, wrists and arms. My toes wiggled, my knees were able to bend, I had no broken bones...but I tell you what, my stomach was bothering me. So maybe, just maybe I could have a broken rib or two.

The best way to describe the pain in my stomach is to have you imagine, or better yet, recall the last time you had the wind knocked out of you and multiply it by 10. And remember, at this point I am still in shock and haven't even begun to feel the pain. The motorist who hit me called 911 and was asking me if I was alright. I told him that I believed that I was but wasn't sure.

When I rolled over and sat upon my backside I noticed that both my knees were swollen, and that I had some blood on my left shin. (I subsequently learned my left brake handle is most effective at removing skin.) The driver of the SUV was still talking to the 911 operator and was asking me if I need an ambulance. I was thinking about being late for a 7 o'clock appointment and wasn't able to process the need for an ambulance. Did I mention the pain in my abdomen?

I was able to move from the middle of the parking garage floor to a safer spot near several vacant parking stalls. As I tried to determine the damage I had sustained to my abdomen the police arrived and so to did the paramedics. After the paramedics took my vital signs and asked me a battery of questions regarding what hurt on a scale from one to ten, I decided to go to the emergency room. (The pain in my abdomen was nearer to 14 than ten.)

So, I am on my way to the hospital emergency room when one paramedic tells me in no uncertain terms that he believes that I have ruptured my spleen. I started thinking about NFL quarterbacks (Lief? and Sims?) who suffered from ruptured spleens, and that means major surgery. And my fears of needing surgery grew when the numbing sensation that is shock started to wear off in the ER. I was unable to catch my breath, and was starting to hyper-ventilate. It is really difficult to stay calm and breathe slowly when you can't catch your breath. (Now recall the last time you had the wind knocked out of you and multiply it by 20.)

After an hour or so, and the drawing of blood, not to mention the well placed probing of fingers I learned that I had injured my spleen and that I might have injured my liver as well. My doctor told me that I was going to be transfered to another hospital near by and that is when I started to get worried. Upon arriving at the second hospital I was admitted to triage where I learned that doctors were anxious to get a series of examinations completed so they could begin aiding me in my recovery.

My worry was compounded by the knowledge that I was facing potential major surgery. My new doctor spoke to me with a calmness that was most unnerving. Before I left the first hospital I was told that if my spleen was bleeding that it was probably minor. At the second hospital the talk of my spleen bleeding started to sound even more dire, more problematic. I was getting really scared. When I inquired as to the options facing me, I was told of the less invasive operation where they repair the spleen by going through the femoral artery in your thigh. (I believe it is referred to as an angiogram.) And the second option, the complete removal of my spleen.

This is when I learned some interesting information about my spleen. Apparently, a ruptured spleen is a serious condition. Without emergency treatment, a ruptured spleen can cause life-threatening bleeding. Your spleen is located just under your rib cage on your left side, a prime spot for injury. With enough force, a blow to your abdomen — during a sporting mishap, a fist fight or a car accident, for example — might lead to a ruptured spleen.
The spleen helps your body fight infection and filter unwanted material, such as old or damaged blood cells. The spleen also produces red blood cells and certain types of white blood cells. A ruptured spleen may pour a large amount of blood into your abdominal cavity. If the rupture is small, surgical repair may be possible. Typically, however, the entire spleen is removed in emergency surgery.

(And to think, one paramedic referred to the spleen as being as worthless as one's appendix.)

So, armed with all this information, and feeling more worried about my circumstances the doctor informs me that if my spleen has to be removed that I will be left with quite the abdominal scar (5-6 inches long). I told the doctor that I wasn't interested in adding another scar to the sizable collection I have already obtained. She laughed and told me that she would do what she could.

Well to make an already long story short, the doctors were able to repair my spleen by going through my femoral artery in my thigh. (WHEW!) I even got to see some digital video taken during actual procedure. Of course, I was heavily sedated and I am still unable to accurately describe what took place beyond telling you that it was "pretty cool" to watch.

I was ever so lucky to have been taken care of skilled health care professionals who treated me with dignity, respect, and were always wiling to help me and address my concerns. And that includes the couple of times that I complained about the oxygen alarms that went off at all hours of the day.

And for those of you wondering whether or not I have given up riding a bicycle for good, I say "No." I plan on getting back out there, commuting across town as I head off for yet another appointment. Only now I'll have to do it riding a new bike.

Remember, SHARE THE ROAD!

Before I forget, do you know anyone with a Specialized Langster that they are willing to sell at a reasonable price? If so have them email me with their information.

UPDATE:

I was thinking that it was the most unkindest cut that I failed to mention the people who supported my through me ordeal through their personal visits and/or their phone calls. My family and friends did not fall short in wishing me the best with their questions and their positive spirits. I owe you each an apology for my actions and again I want to take this moment to thank you all.

Habeas Corpus

2007-01-26T01:07:00.000-08:00

The original cartoon I drew was of Bush and Lady Liberty...he was stealing her scales and the punch line was going to be about how Justice is blind. And then I learned about a recent exchange that took place between Arlen Spector (R) and the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez during the most recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Afterwards the change from George to Alberto gave greater clarity to the image and idea that I had been attempting to convey. And as far as I am concerned, the only people more opposed to the Constitution than Alberto Gonzalez are George Bush and Dick (I'm in Denial) Cheney.

Now before you read The words of the Attorney General I want you to read the portion of the Consitution as it pertains to the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2:
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.

Sounds pretty straight forward. And it is rather ironic that a "strict Consitutionalist" like the Attorney General would go to such lengths to avoid the simplicity of the straight forward language of the Constition. But I digress.

Here is the exchange. (Full transcript)

SPECTER: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees — aliens in Guantanamo — after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can the statutory taking of habeas corpus — when there’s an express constitutional provision that it can’t be suspended, and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees.

GONZALES: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: Well, you’re not right about that. It’s plain on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the Constitution, except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. They talk about John Runningmeade and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being imbedded in the Constitution.

GONZALES: Well, sir, the fact that they may have talked about the constitutional right to habeas doesn’t mean that the decision dealt with that constitutional right to habeas.

SPECTER: When did you last read the case?

GONZALES: It has been a while, but I’ll be happy to — I will go back and look at it.

SPECTER: I looked at it yesterday and this morning again.

GONZALES: I will go back and look at it. The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away. But it’s never been the case, and I’m not a Supreme —

SPECTER: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?

GONZALES: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas.” It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except by —

SPECTER: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

GONZALES: Um.

Defined Insanity

2007-01-09T22:16:00.000-08:00

The chance that Bush is going to lay out some new strategy on Iraq is slim and none in my estimation. With each passing year (this being the ~~fifth~~ fourth year of the invasion and occupation of Iraq) the war in Iraq resembles the war in Vietnam. Of course this is something that I have believed for some time. I have the essay to prove it.

Of course, the similarities are even greater now than when I first penned my essay, or for those Bush apologists, penned my skreed. The latest similarity to add to the list is the politicians, in this case Bush had decided to run the war as he sees fit over the objection of the commanders on the battlefield. (Politicians micro-managing the war from Washington DC.) And to think, Bush said he was leaving decisions like increases in troops to the commanders in the field.

One last thought regarding It is not another Vietnam; it is Bush’s Vietnam (the title of the essay) and it has to do with the troop casualties. If not for the improvements in medical technology since the Vietnam War, it is my belief that the number of dead US service personnel would rival the number of dead, in a war where the lessons taught have been long forgotten.

It is not another Vietnam; it is Bush’s Vietnam
04/14/2004

Last week on the floor of the Senate, Arizona Senator John McCain (R) argued that the war in Iraq is not Vietnam. I would concur that Iraq is not Vietnam. I also agree with the recent statement made by Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy (D) that “Iraq has become George Bush’s Vietnam.”

And here’s why.

When comparing Vietnam to that of Iraq some distinct similarities arise between the two wars. To begin with both conflicts were started under false pretenses. In Vietnam there was the Gulf of Tonkin. In Iraq, there was the threat that Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction.” Prior to each war, presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush went before a joint session of congress, armed with artificial evidence and came away in both cases with congress abdicating it’s constitutional roll to declare war by citing the War Power’s Act.

Both wars demonstrate(d) that the U.S. Military possesses superior training and a technological advantage that the enemy cannot hope to overcome. While it has yet to be demonstrated in Iraq, in Vietnam the lack of superior weapons did not inhibit the North Vietnamese who relied upon guerilla tactics and co-mingling with local civilian populations. Likewise in Iraq, the use of guerilla tactics and the co-mingling with local civilian populations is blamed for the all to frequent deaths of civilians.

Like our involvement with Iraq, as with Vietnam, failure is (was) not an option. The U.S. government through the citizens and consequently the U.S. military, the nation must refuse to look weak. During Vietnam and now with Iraq, supporters of the war would often accuse those opposed to the government’s actions as “anti-American” or worse aiding the enemy.

To “appear weak” would hasten our nation’s “failure” and consequently “the spread of communism” in South East Asia euphemistically referred to as “the domino theory.” Today, the war in Iraq presents the country (and the world) with a twist to the domino theory. Today, appearing weak and any subsequent failure would prevent the spreading of democracy in the Middle East.

Most recently it has been reported that recently trained Iraqi soldiers refused to fight against Iraqi insurgents questions the loyalty the Iraqi’s have to the United States. As in Vietnam, the issues of loyalty challenged the notion that the U.S. is “winning the hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese/Iraqi civilian population for whom U.S. soldiers are supposedly dying for.

Bush, like Johnson braced the nation for the continuation of hostilities. Each president in turn has warned the civilian population about the need to increase the numbers of troops. With an increase in the numbers of soldiers serving in Iraq (as with Vietnam) will bring with it an increase in the number of wounded and dead.

Is it any wonder that we read and hear how Iraq has or is becoming another quagmire? As the Vietnam War stretched out over time it became clear that the Johnson administration had no exit strategy for Vietnam. Similarly, the Bush administration has no exit strategy for Iraq.

During the Vietnam War it was often argued that the politicians limited the effectiveness of the war effort. In the early stages of the war in Iraq saw members of the administration scoffing at the assertions of General Eric Shinseki regarding the number of troops needed in fighting the war in Iraq.

Of all the similarities shared between Johnson’s Vietnam and Bush’s Vietnam for what it is worth both presidents hailed from the state of Texas. There is the potential for one more share connection between these two men, these two wars, that is too be determined in the November 2004 election. So we wait…

In these last few lines of similarities I am reminded of the saying about ‘those who have forgotten the past are doomed to repeat it.’ The war in Iraq demonstrates that the nation as a whole has forgotten the past and has failed to learn and remember the lessons that Vietnam had supposedly taught us.

Historic

2007-01-09T21:51:00.000-08:00

I had every intention of posting this cartoon after I drew it on the 4th, but sometimes the best laid plans...blah, blah, blah, blah.

Frontline in the "War on Christmas"

2006-11-30T10:30:00.000-08:00

Tis the season to foist the argument of the absurd upon the public. The staff over at Media Matters has documented the whole bloody affair. Thanks Media Matters.

The War on Christmas Wages On

Bill O’Reilly declares more victories and casualties in America’s “War on Christmas”

Washington, DC – Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly revived his annual “war” on Christmas debate by announcing the wins and losses for the 2006 season. O’Reilly stated that “the return of Christmas to most retails stores in America” was a “big win[] for Americans, who believe this country stands for what’s right.” However, remaining positive, O’Reilly also highlighted several losses this season including the retail chain Crate & Barrel for its policy of using the term “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” and the New York City school system for its policy of prohibiting nativity displays while allowing Santa Claus, Christmas trees, and reindeers, and other “secular” symbols of Christmas.

In response to O’Reilly’s comments, Media Matters for America spokesman Karl Frisch said: “Bill O’Reilly’s contrived ‘war’ on Christmas is another example of how he has created divisiveness where there is none. It is clear that O’Reilly would rather invent a culture war in the United States than admit to a real civil war taking place in Iraq.”

O’Reilly went on to declare that he would no longer shop at Crate & Barrel due to its supposed rejection of Christmas because of its use of the term “Happy Holidays” in its stores, adding, “Maybe the imams who got thrown off the plane [in Minneapolis] [would] shop” there.

As Media Matters has documented, O'Reilly began warning of a "siege" on Christmas shortly before the 2004 holiday season with Fox News host Sean Hannity, which continued with the inclusion of Fox News host John Gibson through the 2005 season. Gibson is the author of The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought (Sentinel, October 2005).

An Essay On Our President

2006-11-13T20:55:00.000-08:00

Edgar Lawrence Doctorow occupies a central position in the history of American literature. He is generally considered to be among the most talented, ambitious, and admired novelists of the second half of the twentieth century. Doctorow has received the National Book Award, two National Book Critics Circle Awards, the PEN/Faulkner Award, the Edith Wharton Citation for Fiction, the William Dean Howell Medal of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, and the residentially conferred National Humanities Medal.

Doctorow was born in New York City on January 6, 1931. After graduating with honors from Kenyon College in 1952, he did graduate work at Columbia University and served in the U.S. Army. Doctorow was senior editor for New American Library from 1959 to 1964 and then served as editor in chief at Dial Press until 1969. Since then, he has devoted his time to writing and teaching. He holds the Glucksman Chair in American Letters at New York University and over the years has taught at several institutions, including Yale University Drama School, Princeton University, Sarah Lawrence College, and the University of California, Irvine.

==========================================================

An Essay On Our President
An essay by E.L. Doctorow

I fault this president (George W. Bush) for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our twenty-one year olds who wanted to be what they could be.

On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMDs he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him; you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion, which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousand dead young men and women who wanted be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life....They come to his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it.

So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options, but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

This president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing --- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children....

He is the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead; he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty; he does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford health insurance; he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills --- it is amazing for how many people in this country this President does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the safety regulations for coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a- half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneously aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war. The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into is his characteristic trouble.

Finally the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective war making, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

A Tale of Two Parties

2006-11-06T07:40:00.000-08:00

Exit Stage Left

Exit Stage Right

Nothing like waiting til the last minute to post...I have been meaning to post since the 24th of October after completing these two cartoons...but I opted for procrastination over immediate gratification.

Let me take the time to thank those folks who have made the time to visit my blog on a regular basis looking for new material. I haven't been a very good blog host as of late. I have spent the past three weeks working on a 85 year old house a friend recently purchased. Let me just say that stripping off 4 plus layers of paint dating back to 1921 is a time consuming pain in the ass. I suppose I could do half-ass work...but then I'd not be able to look back with pride and a greater sense of accomplishment!

See you in the funny papers!

Found in my email...

2006-11-06T07:30:00.000-08:00

It is quite interesting...with a hint of the ironic.

DEMOCRATS:

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971 -1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Florida Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze, Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57.
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam.
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star.
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953.
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

REPUBLICANS -- and these are the guys SENDING PEOPLE TO WAR:

* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage. & gt;
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve. (Bush's Machiavelli)
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve. Neocon warhawk & gt;
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve. Neocon warhawk
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non- combat role making movies.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. Remember how the Bush campaign trashed him in the Republican primaries in 2000?
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback. (Win one for the Gipper!!)
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base. (Our gift from Austria)

Pundits & Preachers:
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
* Charlie Daniels: did not serve.
* Ted Nugent: did not serve. (He only shoots at things that don't shoot back.)

Please keep this information circulating

Illinois State Sen. Howard W. Carroll

Seeing Pink Elephants

2006-10-02T22:20:00.000-07:00

Foley has opted to hide and the best way to hide from the media is to go into rehab. Is there any previous reports of Foley being an alcoholic? It is disturbing to know that Foley hasn't the courage to admit that he is gay and that he is attracted to younger men. I won't call him a pedophile because in Washington DC the age of consent is 16. (And you know damn well that it ain't no accident.) Foley apparently has "issues" and I suppose being from the party of religious hypocrites he should get right with his right-wing god and attend one of those camps where he can get religion and get reprogrammed as a heterosexual man.

Of course the Republican Party has shown that it is the political party that demands accountability from others before demanding it from their own. You know that Foley's proclivities are/were well known. It is ubsurd to think that people didn't know that this was going on. The Republican Party is looking a lot like the Catholic church right about now...everyone does their best to cover-up what is going on until it turns into a cover-your-ass affair. Just look at the Republican leadership like Hastert and Boehner, all they can think about is not being exposed as complicit in the covering up the actions of one of their own. So what is one to do? Call for an investigation...and you can bet that Hastert and Boehner will have reports by the end of October that will find that the party leadership did everything in its power to reign in Foley, the rogue Republican.

Duck and Cover (Bush cutting and running from the truth)

2006-09-28T14:20:00.000-07:00

What a week...on Sunday Bill Clinton put Chris Wallace, Faux News whore-caster in his place and called out Faux News as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party. This prompted Roger Ailes attempt to rebuff Clinton by accusing him of attacking all journalists for the way he handled Wallace. The only problem as I can see it with Ailes position is that Wallace isn't a journalist. Nice try Roger.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) came out and what it revealed that Bush's "stay the course" stategery was nothing more than failed political propaganda. But you already knew that. (Of course, there is still a segment of society (Bush sychophants) that believe that Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9-11.)

The Democrats held hearings on Capitol Hill this week with a few general that served in Iraq that believe Rumsfeld should resign or be fired. (Where the hell is Trump when you need him.)

On Tuesday it was pretty clear that Bush was feeling mighty uncomfortable during his press conference with Hamid Karzai on Tuesday. The last time I saw Bush squirm that much was during the first presidential debate with John Kerry. You might remember it, that was the night Rove was talking in Bush's ear feeding him answers...it prompting a few unscripted responses to unanswered questions.

And don't even get me started on the Bush administration and the Republican Party's desire to void the US government's treat obligations to the Geneva Conventions. It is most interesting that Bush is concerned about what he calls overly broad or vague language "outrage against humanity" found in the Geneva Conventions.

Remember that Bush is the same individual who speaks in overly broad and vague language as a matter of record. It was Bush that brought us "compassionate conservative," "the bigotry of low expectations," "fuzzy math," too name only a few.

Under Bush the US is becoming more and more a fascist state.

So, how hard is it to apply for Canadian citizenship?

Popeye-coli

2006-09-25T21:30:00.000-07:00

I haven't much to add to the whole spinach/e-coli story...I will say this much: I found it interesting that this close to an election that the story wasn't viewed even for a moment as an act of terrorism.

Ideological Pinata

2006-09-20T12:06:00.001-07:00

There are times when I rethink the cartoon now committed to paper, and Ideological Pinata is just such a cartoon. It might make more sense to have Bush in the background pulling the rope attached to the pinata. Then the only problem becomes who should be blindfolded swinging wildly in an effort to strike the pinata.

Any suggestions?

Happy Anniversary

2006-09-11T00:35:00.000-07:00

For a moment I pondered waxing eloquent on the political use of 911 and thought better of it. I will say that the freedoms that the Bush administration, the Republican Party and Democratic Party sacrafice today for security, will be forever lost tomorrow.

George's Presidential Lies

2006-09-10T20:15:00.000-07:00

Well folks, it is quite amazing how the secret CIA prisons that George Bush was denying the existence of only months earlier (remember when Sen. Durban spoke about the existence of American gulags and was pilloried for it by Republicans and the media?) has now announced that the CIA in fact did have secret prisons (gulags) in several former soviet block nations. Of course, the complicit media isn't concerned with focusing on the lies of this administration so much as the media is interested in going along for the ride.

Oh where for art thou, "liberal media?"

George Bush

Bombs Away!

2006-08-23T01:15:00.000-07:00

In Lebanon the UN is trying to pull together peacekeepers, but as it stands Italy is worried about taking Israeli fire; the Russians are on the fence; Egypt's influence has been tarnished...and in the end all Kofi and the UN can do is warn the world of the pending security vaccuum in Lebanon.

I can't help think about all the bitching by the current administration about the failures of the United Nations to act decisively in the Middle East...yeah, this is one of those moments where the US government is showing that the United Nations is only as effective as the sum total of all of its parts. And the US is not interested in changing the status quo in Lebanon or proving that the UN can act decisively.

I am reminded of a cartoon that I thought about drawing during the Israel's bombing campaign of Lebanon. It was a simple image, a bomb falling over a map of Lebanon, and on that bomb were two things the first was the letters IDF (Israeli Defense Forces), and the second, "Made in the US of A."

And the title of the cartoon that I never took the time to draw? Why they hate us. I suppose that late is always better than never...maybe I'll draw and post it anyway...

Lebanon, Kofi Annan, U.N., Peace, Italy, Russia, Israel, Egypt

Feeling the Pain at the Pump

2006-08-17T00:22:00.000-07:00

The Interview

2006-08-17T00:17:00.000-07:00

If the 60 Minutes interview was scored like a prize fight, it was pretty clear that Ahmadinejad controlled the interview and was able to out point Wallace round after round. With all deference to Wallace, at best, he lost a split decision.

Ahmadinejad, CBS, Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes

Joe hanging his new shingle

2006-08-09T18:18:00.000-07:00

And then there is Joe Lieberman. You know your days are numbered when the opposition party is more loyal to you than the members within your own party. The Republican Party loves two Democrats, the first is Zell Miller and the second is none other than Joe Lieberman. And lets face it, when it suits the Republican Party they will donate to any candidate, irrespective of that canidates party if they think that it will benefit the Republican candidate. You can be sure that Lieberman will be holding open his hand to Republican donors. The real question becomes whether or not Joe will align himself with the RNC and declare himself a Republican should he find himself victorious over Lamont and any Republican challenger this November.

Update 20060817: It appears that Joe Lieberman is styling himself as the "independent Democrat" candidate running for the Senate.

Joe Lieberman, Independent

Passions of the Mel

2006-08-09T18:05:00.000-07:00

I figure that I am letting Mel off easy. It must be hell to be a religious fundementalist who praised Mel's work in the Passion of the Christ to now having to revile him for his antisemitism.

700 and counting...

2006-07-16T21:51:00.000-07:00

700 and counting...

Signing Away the Constitution?
by William Fisher

NEW YORK - Last March, the U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring Justice Department officials to give them reports by certain dates on how the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

But when President George W. Bush signed the measure into law, he added a "signing statement". The statement said the president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Late last year, Congress approved legislation declaring that U.S. interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

But President Bush's signing statement said the president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

These are but two examples of more than 100 signing statements containing over 500 constitutional challenges President Bush has added to new laws passed by the Congress -- many times more than any of his predecessors.

...

Another opposition view came from Prof. Edward Herman of the University of Pennsylvania, who told IPS, "The brazenness of Bush's use of this practice is remarkable. But even more remarkable is the fact that this de facto further nullification of congressional authority fails to elicit sustained criticism and outrage. It is part of a step-by-step abrogation of constitutional government, and it is swallowed by the flag-wavers and normalised."

"We are in deep trouble," he added.

Signing statements are not new -- their use started with the fifth U.S. President, James Monroe (1817-1825), and from that time they were used sparingly and mostly for rhetorical purposes. Until Ronald Reagan became President in 1980, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, made 247 signing statements between them.

But President Bush has taken the practice to a new level, attracting criticism both for the number of statements he has issued as well as for his apparent attempts to nullify any legal restrictions on his actions.

I suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article.

Bush, Constitution, signing statements, torture

Kim Jong Il-ing

2006-07-14T00:49:00.000-07:00

Kim Jong Il-ing

When looking at the situation that is Iraq, it is a good thing that Bush chose to invade the weakest of the three nations that comprise his "axis of evil." Future presidents will look to George Bush as having provided the essential ground work for another generation of nation/state antagonists that the US can go to war with in the years to come.

Reading for your entertainment/edification. Thanks Antiwar.com

North Korea Walks Out of Talks
Japan-S. Korea Rift Widens Over Missiles
US: No Breakthrough on North Korea
Poll: Americans Plead for Diplomacy With North Korea

Kim Jong Il, George Bush, Bush, axis of evil, Antiwar.com

The Genie's Lamp

2006-07-14T00:24:00.000-07:00

Genie's Lamp

Subverting IAEA-NSG Regime
by Gordon Prather

The Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) recognizes the "inalienable right" of all signatories to "the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information" related to the "use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

...

That means Iran has the "inalienable right" to acquire the nuclear reactors that Russia has undertaken to supply and the uranium-conversion equipment that China undertook to supply.

As a non-nuclear-weapons signatory, the NPT requires Iran to subject all transfers to the Safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

On the other hand – thanks to Bush-Cheney-Condi-Bolton – the Democratic Republic of North Korea (DPRK) is no-longer a NPT signatory, and hence, has no such "inalienable right" to acquire nuclear reactors, uranium-enrichment and uranium-conversion equipment, even if to be used for peaceful purposes.

But neither is DPRK prohibited from making such acquisitions.

India, George Bush, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT,

Rest in Peace Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay

2006-07-11T00:13:00.000-07:00

RIP "Kenny Boy"

From all indications Ken Lay is dead. At least that is what I gathered by reading here, here, here, and here...you get the picture. Of course there are those that believe Kenny Boy is not dead, that he faked his own death to avoid having to serve his prison sentence. Granted I haven't read anything of the sort personally. But then again I never tried searching the internet using the words Ken Lay faked death.

Ken Lay, Kenny Boy, George Bush, Rest in Peace, RIP

A note of apology.

2006-07-11T00:07:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to post a quick apology for not posting for the better part of a week. My personal life which I have not mentioned before, (as I have tried to maintain a political blog of cartoons and commentary) has affected my desire to post for the past week. It wasn't that I didn't have any fresh material it's just, well, I just haven't had the desire to post. My heart hasn't been in it. I will make a more concerted effort to posting on a regular basis, between 3 and 5 times a week.

I have several cartoons that address the issue of nuclear proliferation that I will be posting for your entertainment and edification in the coming days. Stay tuned!

In-die-pendence Day

2006-07-04T00:58:00.000-07:00

In-die-pendence Day

In the retelling of history, on this day the founding fathers of this nation declared to the King of England who by historical coincidence shares the name of our current president a list of grievances against the King and crown by a subjegated people. The Declaration of Independence was submitted by a fledgling democratic state that believed there are

"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..."

Well in this modern era, the original ideals of the Declaration have slowly eroded in the fear of our post September 11th world. With this in mind, I give you the Declaration of Impeachment.

By David Swanson

Veterans for Peace has drafted a Declaration of Impeachment using nothing but excerpts from the Declaration of Independence (plus a few words in parentheses). It reads as follows, and should be read at picnics and protests on the Fourth of July:

…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.

…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…design(s) 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.

…The history of the present King (George)…is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny…To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

§ He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

§ He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

§ He has…deprive(ed) us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury…transport(ed) us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

§ He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us…

§ He is at this time transporting large Armies…to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

§ He has constrained our fellow Citizens…to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

A (President) whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore…do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People…solemnly publish and declare, That these…Free and Independent (People)…are Absolved from all Allegiance to the (Bush Administration), and that all political connection between them and (this Administration), is and ought to be totally dissolved…And for the support of this Declaration…we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Rush Limbaugh Celebrity Endorser

2006-06-30T14:44:00.000-07:00

Celebrity Endorser

This is one of those cartoons that doesn't need any links or extra commentary. By now you have learned that Rush Limbaugh got caught with a prescription for Viagra in someone elses name as he returned from the Dominican Republic. Limbaugh might find himself in violation with an earlier plea agreement he made with Florida prosecutors for "doctor shopping." It is what it is. Hopefully those that take the time to enlarge the image will enjoy the graffiti.

Have a nice weekend.

Rush Limbaugh, Celebrity, Viagra

Bush's orders SWIFT and CHIPS

2006-06-30T14:40:00.000-07:00

SWIFT and CHIPS

I did want to acknowledge the experts at CounterTerrorism Blog. It was after reading this article, and in particular this portion of text which reads

"The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."

After this paragraph I started thinking about SWIFT and CHIPS. As it turns out, the aforementioned paragraph came from the UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group report that can be found here (pdf). You will find a couple other article that pertain to this subject, here and here.

I also came across this article "Disgracefully" Attacking the Messenger over at Truthout.org. Seemed like an appropriate follow up to me.

UPDATE: The saga continues...the House of Representatives passed a meaningless resolution condemning the NY Times for reporting the news and doing the job of congress which is supposed to serve as a consitutional check to presidential power grabs. The most interesting turn of events would have to be the alternative reolution of Barney Frank who took his pen out and mad a few edits to the original resolution.

While I have no doubt that I could describe Barney Frank's edits, some things you just have to see for yourself (pdf).

SWIFT, CHIPS, UN, Bush, Barney Frank

Score one for the US Constitution and International law

2006-06-29T09:30:00.000-07:00

The Bush administration learned today that the US Supreme Court rejects 'war on terror' military tribunals.

The US Supreme Court has ruled President George W Bush overstepped his powers and breached the Geneva Conventions by setting up special war crime tribunals for "war on terror" suspects.
...
Major Michael Mori, the military lawyer appointed to defend Hicks before the tribunals says he is not surprised by the US Supreme Court decision. "It doesn't come as a shock to me. The military lawyers who have been defending the defendants at Guantanamo have been saying this all along. Any real lawyer who isn't part of the administration knows this violates the Geneva Conventions."

The Supreme Court today ruled that Bush isn't the Dictator-in-Chief. The Court ruled that Bush has overstepped his bounds as the president. I don't know the specific ruling from the SC, but I am aware of the powers of congress found in Article 1, Sec. 8; of the US Constitution include

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water (emphasis mine).

Of course it is important to know that the sycophants for Bush in the house and senate are fast at work looking for a way to run around the recent Court's ruling in order to reestablish the Dictator-in-Chief's supreme power. And to think, Bush said that the Supreme Court would be the final arbitor of what is to happen with the "detainees" of Guantanamo Bay. It was June 16th, when Bush was heard to say,

"Eventually these people will have trials, and they will have counsel, and they will be represented in the court of law...

"[M]y answer to them is, is that we are a nation of laws and rule of law. These people have been picked up off the battlefield and they're very dangerous. And so we have that balance between customary justice, the typical system, and one that will be done in the military courts. And that's what we're waiting for."

I'm waiting for the US legislature to once again abdicate their constitutional role.

Bush, US Supreme Court Geneva Conventions, war on terror, Article 1, Sec. 8;, sycophants for Bush, Dictator-in-Chief, detainees, Guantanamo Bay

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's 'cut and run' timetable

2006-06-24T15:52:00.000-07:00

Nouri al-Maliki's timetable. (See the previous post on this subject.)

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki

Iraqi Prime Minister advocates 'cutting and running'

2006-06-24T15:23:00.000-07:00

Well, that isn't exactly how Newsweek is reporting the latest coming out of Iraq. In the article Maliki's Master Plan Newsweek article we learn that

A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.

I can't wait to see the same Republicans that accused the Democrats in the house and senate of supporting a policy that requires the US to "cut and run." Will the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki be accused of advocating a policy of "cutting and running" like the Democrats?

The Democrats might just have a chance to parlay these recent developments to the advantage in the larger content of the Iraq war debate, such as it is. It can't bode well for Bush and the Republicans to argue that the Democrats want to "cut and run" when they are proposing amendments that are supported in part by the Prime Minister of Iraq, whom Bush recently praised.

The Prime Minister's plan makes distinctions between the Iraqi insurgents and the al Qaeda terrorists (a distinction that the Republicna party has sought to obliterate).

Maliki has made reconciliation and control of party militias the main emphasis of his new government. This plan follows a series of secret negotiations over the past two months between seven insurgent groups, President Jalal Talabani and officials of the U.S. embassy. The insurgent groups involved are Sunnis but do not include foreign jihadis like al Qaeda and other terrorist factions who deliberately target civilians; those groups have always denounced any negotiations.

The idea of reconciliation is something that the Republicans won't find favor with. Apparently the Sunnis in the fledgling democracy in Iraq are pushing for reconcilation for the "national resistance"

The distinction between insurgents and terrorists is one of the key principles in the document, and is in response to Sunni politicians' demands that the "national resistance" should not be punished for what they see as legitimate self-defense in attacks against a foreign occupying power. Principle No. 19 calls for "Recognizing the legitimacy of the national resistance and differentiating or separating it from terrorism" while "encouraging the national resistance to enroll in the political process and recognizing the necessity of the participation of the national resistance in the national reconciliation dialogue."

Before we get the cart before the horse on this interesting bit of news we should look at the loophole(s) that will afford Bush and the Republican party some level of comfort should the Democrats find themselves aligning their position to something akin to the Iraqi Prime Minister.

The plan also calls for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq, but it doesn't specify an actual date (emphasis mine)—one of the Sunnis' key demands. It calls for "the necessity of agreeing on a timetable under conditions that take into account the formation of Iraqi armed forces so as to guarantee Iraq's security," and asks that a U.N. Security Council decree confirm the timetable. Mahmoud Othman, a National Assembly member who is close to President Talabani, said that no one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable. The problem is specifying a date, which the United States has rejected as playing into the insurgents' hands.

There is certainly some similarities between the Levin Amendment and the Iraqi plan. Their isn't much of real time table to either. Both are essentially "conditions based" plans. Of course, you won't hear the Republicans making such comparisons between the two troop reduction plans. The Democrats want to "cut and run." The Iraqis, well I'll have to wait and see how they respond.

I will leave you with what I'd refer to as an interesting quote from an anonymous senior coalition military official,

"One of the advantages of a timetable—all of a sudden there is a date which is a much more explicit thing than an abstract condition. That's the sort of assurance that [the Sunnis] are looking for."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, cut and run, cutting and running, Democrats, Republicans, Bush, Iraqi insurgents, al Qaeda terrorists, President Jalal Talabani, U.N. Security Council, Levin Amendment

Staying the Course

2006-06-23T10:08:00.000-07:00

Staying the Course

The Senate Democrats offered up two seperate amendments for dealing with Iraq this week. The first was authored by John Kerry and Russ Feingold calling for the complete withdrawall of US troops by July of 2007. And the second was the Levin Amendment. As you know both amendments failed to muster the required 51 votes need for passage.

Of course, the really puzzling thing about these two amendments is not that they failed, but the response of the Republican Party and the role of the MSM to serve as the echo chamber. OK, so it isn't really a suprise. The Democrats are wholly inept when it comes to dealing with the media. If I were a paid Democratic Party strategist I'd be pushing back against the frivolous charge of the Republican Party that the party is divided with the simple and what I would consider an effect response.

The Democrats are united in holding the president accountable for his policy in Iraq. As it stands, the Democrats are the only party offering up ideas to alter the "stay the course" mentality of this administration. The American public believes that the war in Iraq was a mistake, they want the troops to come home and the Democratic Party is the only party in Washington DC working to ensure that this happens.

So the next time a member of the Republican Party, or the MSM wants to posit the notion that the Democratic party lacks ideas, remember the amendments offered by Democrats. Remember that "staying the course" in Iraq has proven to be costly and ineffective.

Democrats should be taking the fight to the Republicans with a greater sense of urgency. The Democrats need to be the hammer rather than continue to get hammered on the subject of Iraq and troop reductions and/or troop withdrawal. Just once I'd like to hear a Democrat make a statement that would surely cause consternation for the Bush administration and the Republicans in either the house of senate. What Democrat has the courage, the balls to say, "If congress had passed the amendment by Jack Murtha the deaths of Pfc. Menchaca and Pfc. Tucker could have been prevented. It is encumbent upon congress to do more protect the lives of those US troops serving in Iraq."

Yes, the question was rhetorical.

John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Carl Levin, Iraq, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Republican, Democrat, staying the course, Jack Murtha, Bush administration, Pfc. Menchaca, Pfc. Tucker, troop reductions, troop withdrawal

The Hitler vs. Coulter Quiz

2006-06-22T09:11:00.000-07:00

You'll laugh, you'll cry, so why not take The Hitler vs. Coulter Quiz. OK. I admit it, you won't be laughing or crying when you finish. You might be swearing and thinking vile things about Ms. Coulter.

Hitler, Coulter

Stay the Course

2006-06-21T10:58:00.000-07:00

Stay the Course

The Democrats are walking into another serious defeat this November. As the war in Iraq rages on (Yep, that is "war in Iraq" and not the "war on terror.") with a do nothing congress that has abdicated it's constitutional role to serve as a check to an administration that acts with the contraint of an intoxicated female preforming for the Girl's Gone Wild cameras during Spring Break.

If the Democrats really want to take back control of either the house or senate this year they need to start politicizing the "war in Iraq" like Karl Rove standing before Bush's sycophant party base. Or Jack Abramoff buying and selling political influence within the Republican party. They need to start convincing the public as a whole that they are serious about changing what has become the status quo within congress.

My advice to the Democrats, take the recent deaths of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker as evidence of the failed "stay the course" policy of the Bush administration and the do nothing congress. Democrats should be arguing that the do-nothing Republican controlled congress failed to seriously debate the Resolution authored by Congressman Jack Murtha which would have saved the lives of Pfc. Menchaca and Pfc. Tucker.

Democrats, Republicans, war in Iraq, war on terror, Iraq, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, Jack Murtha, Bush

Bush's secret visit to Iraq

2006-06-21T10:09:00.000-07:00

Veiled in Secrecy

I guess I should have posted this when Bush's visit to Iraq was the hot story. Of course, the subject is still worthy of mention. I can't help think that the veil of secrecy used to mark Bush's visit to Iraq only underscores the failures of this administration in its planning and subsequent implementation of it's Iraq policy.

Mission Accomplished.

H. RES. 861

2006-06-16T00:40:00.000-07:00

A Stitch in time.

And just it time it is...the Republicans are pulling out all the stops in the run up to the November election by introducing H. RES 861. They have taken advantage of the US public with such frequency that they have come to rely upon the ~~gullibility~~ fears of the voters and a belief that the poll numbers on Iraq will eventually fall in their direction.

Let's review this blatant political ploy, titled H. RES. 861 - DECLARING THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL PREVAIL IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, THE STRUGGLE TO PROTECT FREEDOM FROM THE TERRORIST ADVERSARY that rests before the House. Let us review the rules of debate shall we.

1. Closed rule.

2.Provides 10 hours of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

3. Waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution.

4. Provides one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.

5. Provides that, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

I have to admit that rules 1, 3 and 4 do put a damper on any serious debate on the issue. This is election year politics at its finest. The resolution lacks any substantive measures. It is election year mastubation. It is a partisan devise hoping to capitalize upon the fears of the US populace. Actually, it is designed to play upon the fears of those members of the Republican party that the leadership ~~feels~~ knows it can exploit this November.

OK, let us dispense with the meaningless "Where as" this and "Where as" that... and get to the Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (Please note how a resolution of the "war ~~for~~ on terrorism" fails to include any mention of Osama bin Laden.)

(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Gee, reminds me of the original Resolution where congress abdicated its constitutional role to declare war or serve as a check to the Bush administrations unabashed power grab. That resolution too has many "Where as" this and that, that preceded the Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives.

Isn't it ironic that only a couple of ~~weeks~~ days ago Republicans referred to the "war in Iraq" when discussing Iraq. But the closer that November gets, the "war in Iraq" is being described as the war ~~for~~ on terrorism." Like then and now, Iraq had no connected to what occured on 9/11.

H. RES. 861, fear, Iraq, War on Terror, Osama bin Laden, Bush administration

Schwarzenegger's Duality

2006-06-14T00:01:00.000-07:00

Schwarzenegger's Duality

It is a fine line that the governor from Calee-fornia walks as he seeks to win his re-election bid this November. Arnold supports civil unions, or domestic partnerships,

"I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners. I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback."

but doesn't support in gay marriage as demonstrated by his veto of AB 849.

As a supporter of gay rights it does appear that Arnold has a problem with a bill that would include the roles of gay Americans in classroom textbooks. According to the reports, the governor plans to veto this legislation as well, or at least that what the GOP governor's communications director Adam Mendelsohn said,

"The issue for the governor is he is not supportive of the Legislature micromanaging curriculum. California has an 18-member standards board that is a national model for looking at curriculum. The governor just believes it's not the Legislature's job to determine curriculum."

The communications director could have offered up a more consise answer, but is an election season now isn't it. We have so much to look forward to here is California.

And speaking of the election season...the first campaign commercial of the Schwarzenegger's reelection bid talked more about Phil Angelides than it did the governors record. Do you think that the governor is worried about losing to a very liberal Democrat this November? I will admit that I did see that the second commercial from Schwarzenegger's campaign was all about talking up his "accomplishments" as governor. To be honest, when I think of his accomplishments the first thing that comes to mind is the costly and unsuccessful special election.

California, Schwarzenegger, Arnold, civil unions, domestic partnerships, classroom, textbooks, gay Americans, election season, Phil Angelides, November

Bush's Loyal Servant

2006-06-12T00:02:00.000-07:00

Loyal Servant

In the beginning the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter was angered by the domestic surveillance program authorized by President Bush. Back in May of 2006 Specter was reported to say,

There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here. What's the point of having a statute if...the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"

In the beginning,

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would conduct hearings on the warrantless monitoring of international phone calls, faxes and emails of U.S. citizens or residents since 2002.

But as this paragraph started that was in the beginning. And since then, many things have changed...in the begining there was an aire of determination.

At the beginning of the end, as there really is no middle to this tale, the once determined Arlen Specter was and is no longer. As the end approaches we have learned that

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter reversed course Tuesday, announcing he will not call on phone company executives to testify on their cooperation with the government in a secret eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency.

Reversed course? Sounds like Specter has lost his way...the determined senator became the broken senator. His concern has given way to cowardice? Or maybe apathy? Wait he did say,

"I categorically reject the idea I'm backing off."

Wait a minute, maybe Specter is still determined. Maybe he isn't a coward after he publicly criticized Vice President Dick Cheney and the administration in his three page letter(.pdf). Well he did, did he not...

"I'm not accusing anybody of anything. And I'm not saying the vice president acted in bad faith...

I don't think the president has acted in bad faith here. I think he is functioning on something which he thinks needs to be done to protect the country. But he doesn't have a blank check. He's not the final word. We have a Constitution. The Constitution says that the Congress has oversight. And, on a constitutional issue, that's the Judiciary Committee.

Now is that determination or what? I mean maybe I'm being a little rough on Arlen. Maybe he isn't the loyal servant and ripe for the derision represented in my cartoon.

Maybe he isn't...or maybe he is when one takes into consideration that Arlen Specter has decided to offer a sweeping compromise on proposed NSA legislation. According to this report,

[t]he new proposal specifies that it cannot "be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to gather foreign intelligence information or monitor the activities and communications of any person reasonably believed to be associated with a foreign enemy of the United States."

It goes on furhter to state,

[a]nother part of the Specter bill would grant blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized warrantless surveillance under presidential authority, a provision that seems to ensure that no one would be held criminally liable if the current program is found illegal under present law.

Reads to me like I was correct about Arlen, despite my waffling in the previous paragraph. It looks like Specter is a very undetermined coward and loyal servant of King George, the Decider-in-chief who clearly believes "the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like."

Arlen Specter, President Bush, Senate Judiciary Committee, National Security Agency, NSA, Dick Cheney, King George, Decider-in-chief, The Constitution

My Ann Coulter Fantasy

2006-06-10T00:14:00.000-07:00

Yep! This is my Ann Coulter Fantasy.

Not nearly as sexually provocative as you were expecting? I know there are many social conservative males that find Ann to be a very attractive woman. Of course there is something uniquely perverse knowing that a single white female who wears short skirts, flaunts her sexuality is widely viewed as a spokesperson for social conservatives (including the christian ones).

Okay, the cartoon was originally inspired by the story that Ms. Coulter is currently in the midst of a pending legal fight. According to the reports Ms. Coulter may be guilty of voter fraud. "Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct in Florida is a felony." It should be noted that she has hired the same legal firm that represented George Bush against Al Gore in 2000.

It should be noted that this is just a fantasy of mine. I know damn well that Ann Coulter has about a snowballs chance in hell of doing felony time in a Florida prison for violating the state's election law. Maybe they can get her on being a tax cheat. Oh who am I kidding, right-wing disinfotainers (Republicans) get sweetheart plea agreements and don't do jail time in Florida.

Ann Coulter, fantasy, voter fraud, Florida, Bush, Gore

Marking the death of al Zarqawi

2006-06-08T14:00:00.000-07:00

Marking al Zarqawi

According to the reports, the leader(?) of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead. This is the second time that the media has reported his death. Back in November of 2005 al Zarqawi was reported to have been killed in Mosul. It is being reported that the are able to identify al Zarqawi's remains by scars and finger prints. You figure that al Zarqawi would be easy to identify as the guy with the surgically amputated leg. Of course, there is plenty of conflicting information about the actual role of al Zarqawi and his leadership role in Iraq. In April of this year the Telegraph of India ran the story Ruthless Zarqawi kicked out.

Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the most feared commander in the Iraqi insurgency, may have been forced to surrender his leadership by rival groups, angered by his tactics and the interference of foreign fighters in the Iraqi conflict.

Of course there is the story run by the Washington Times, Zarqawi replaced as al Qaeda chief in Iraq addressing the issue as to the role al Zarqawi plays.

Jordanian-born al Qaeda militant Abu Musab Zarqawi has been replaced as head of the terrorist organization in Iraq in a bid to put an Iraqi figure at the head of the group's struggle, said a leading Islamist.

And then there are the comments made by Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg who was a victim of al Zarqawi.

"I'm sorry when any human being dies...and I feel bad for that. His death will reignite yet another wave of revenge. It's an endless cycle as long as people use violence to fight violence...When Nick was killed I felt that I had nothing left to lose...I was not a risk-taking person, but I've done things that have endangered me. I have beenshot at...Every time we kill an Iraqi...we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. When are we ever gonna learn that that doesn't work?

Does the death of al Zarqawi provide the Bush administration with an opportuntity to draw down the numbers of US soldiers serving in Iraq? Now that al Qaeda has been dealt "a severe blow" surely the Iraqi military would be able to fend itself from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. (Particularly when one considers the recent events in Somalia.) It is clear that the civil war, sectarian violence will continue in Iraq with or without the US military presence. Or the presence of al Zarqawi for that matter.

Abu Musab al Zarqawi, al Zarqawi, al Qaeda, Iraq, Mosul, Nick Berg, Michael Berg, Bush, civil war, Somalia

I've entered a cartoon contest...

2006-06-07T10:09:00.000-07:00

It is Science Idol: the Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest. The contest was brought to my attention by Kate who blogs at Out in Left Field. The contest rules are pretty simple, don't be related to the judges or the sponsors, participants are allowed to enter five cartoons to be submitted no later than 11:59PM on July 31st, 2006. Sounds easy enough...

Well I dug through my stash and found five old cartoons and then I drew up a sixth and thought it would be fun to post them here and see which of the six I should include as part of my final submission. I'll post them the oldest to the newest. So without further ado...

#1. Un-bear-able

#2. Proven Theory

#3. The New T-Rex

#4. Square Peg, Round Hole

#5. De-evolution

#6. Elephantary Science

As long as I don't draw anymore, I have a pretty good idea which of the five I'll be submitting. Rather than mentioning the five I should submit, which one of the six do you think I should exclude. I could be swayed to change my mind...

cartoon, contest, UCSUSA

The Gore world in his hands

2006-06-05T23:10:00.000-07:00

The Gore world in his hands

In this moment of national strife, the Republicans are firing up their Fags and Flag agenda (with an assist going to Hillary Clinton) for the 2006 mid-term elections. The Republicans want you to be afraid, very afraid of Fags who want to get married like heterosexual couples. Not to mention their desire to protect the US flag from those people that would burn it in protest. While the Republicans are opposed to burning the US flag, they would certainly be more amenable to burning a few fags in protest. But I digress.

Now with all this strife and hostility facing the US electorate, I thought that a happy song was in order to lessen the growing animous over these life and death challenges that we all face. Let us join together and sing a song that will bring us all together and make our country a the envy of all the world.

In your loudest voice I want you to sing along...ready...on 4...and a 1, 2, 3, 4

He's got the Gore world in his hands,
He's got the Gore world in his hands,
He's got the Gore world in his hands,
He's got the Gore world in his hands.

He's got my brothers and my sisters in his hands,
He's got my brothers and my sisters in his hands,
He's got my brothers and my sisters in his hands,
He's got the Gore world in his hands.

He's got the sun and the rain in his hands,
He's got the moon and the stars in his hands,
He's got the wind and the clouds in his hands,
He's got the Gore world in his hands.

He's got the rivers and the mountains in his hands,
He's got the oceans and the seas in his hands,
He's got you and he's got me in his hands,
He's got the Gore world in his hands.

He's got everybody here in his hands,
He's got everybody there in his hands,
He's got everybody everywhere in his hands,
He's got the Gore world in his hands.

See...you feel better now don't you...

You don't?

Well, I tried.

Bush, Republicans, Hillary Clinton, Fags, Flag, Gore

Till the well runs dry.

2006-06-04T00:25:00.000-07:00

Till the well runs dry

I didn't listen to Bush's latest radio address on the manufactured importance of a marriage amendment, but I did think that I should at least read what he said and explicate those portions of the address that I thought interesting. So let's stop wasting time and start having fun!

Alright then lets jump to the second paragraph, third sentence. There is something strangely familiar about reading,

Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

I not really sure why it is, but these words had me thinking about what Bush has said on prior occassions about freedom and democracy.

I believe, firmly believe -- and you've heard me say this a lot -- and I say it a lot because I truly believe it -- that freedom is the almighty God's gift to every person, every man and woman who lives in this world. That's what I believe.

Ok, moving along...Bush obviously doesn't have much faith in the role of judges in our democratic nation. Bush is mighty upset with the legal rulings in five different states, Washington, California, Maryland, New York and (say it aint so) Nebraska.

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Did you catch how the first four states, blue states have "activist judges." While Nebraska, a red state doesn't have an "activist judge" so much as one that just "overturned" a constitutional amendment.

As I read through Bush's fear laden diatribe it became rather obvious that Bush just might be more worried about the acceptance of gay marriage in this country than another terrorist attack,

The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say.

Are you scared yet? What will it take for you to be so afraid of gay people getting married? Worse still is knowing that Bush feels comfortable enough to play the "gay-card" in an effort to ~~manipulate~~ rally, his parties most loyal and faithful adherents. Remember,

[a]s this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity.

Of course, actually living up to the ideals of tolerance, respect and dignity is something that is remembered by Bush to be used as a wedge issue. Like the title of the cartoon and this post, Bush and the Republican party will use this issue till the well runs dry.

______________________________________________________

Allow me to take the time to mention that this my 400th post, on my 1 year anniversary. Of those 400 posts, roughly 320 of them contained cartoons. While my cartoons are predominately black and white, the first time I used color in one of my cartoons goes back to July of 2005. It is only recently that I have offered up something other than just black and white.

I'd like to thank all of you, the 10,000 or so visitors (particularly the half-dozen regulars) that have taken a moment, (literally a second in some cases) of their time to visit. (Truly the most depressing statistic provided by the hit counter is time visited.) Maybe next time others will leave a little more of themselves behind in the form of comments instead of just the tracking information of my hit counter. I am not adverse to you blogrolling me.

Bush, Republicans, activist judges, marriage, gay, amendment, red state, blue state

Insights into the killings of Haditha

2006-06-03T15:35:00.000-07:00

Have you ever watched Combat Diary: The Marines of Lima Company on A & E television? It is a most compelling documentary of soldiers lives in Iraq. After the death, or deaths of their fellow soldiers the marines of Lima Company wanted to exact retribution for their fallen comrades. If you are able to watch the program, you will be able to listen to them in their own words express such desires. As I watched and (just as importantly) listened to the program it became clear just how easy the killings, or "alleged killings" by US soldiers occured in Haditha.

While I do not condone the killings, I have decided to differ to the all to frequently ignored words spoken by Jack Murtha when he said,

And now I understand the investigation shows that in fact there was no firefight, there was no explosion that killed the civilians in a bus. There was no bus. There was no shrapnel. There was only bullet holes inside the house where the Marines had gone in.

So it's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they're out in combat.

He goes on to reinterate that the killings are part of a larger problem that stems from the poor planning and judgements that led to the current conditions in Iraq.

I feel that the tremendous pressure and the redeployment over and over again is a big part of this. These guys are under tremendous strain, more strain than I can conceive of. And this strain has caused them to crack in situations like this.

This is going to be a very bad thing for the United States. But the point is, it's not caused only by the troops, it's caused by the fact there's so few of them, and they go out every day, and 42 percent of them don't understand what the mission is.

I mean, I don't make excuses for them, I'm just understanding what their problem is.

Of course, in the sycophants for Bush universe, it is far better to pronounce the guilt of the accuser and innocence of alleged rapists from a well known university, than to cast a critical eye upon the actions of US soldiers in Iraq.

Haditha, John Murtha, Marines, civilians, sycophants for Bush

The 'Negotiation Process'

2006-06-01T21:55:00.000-07:00

Negotiation Process

Well, it looks like the Bush administration got an agreement in Vienna. Now comes the real fun, getting a resolution passed in the UN Security Council. Of course, attacking Iran, while stupid would take the focus of Iraq. In fact, attacking Iran would provide the Bush adminstration with a justification for the withdrawl of US troops from Iraq.

Yeah, I know, such wild speculation on my part. But just for the hell of it, why don't you check out the following exchange between Neil Cavuto of Fox News (gee what a suprise) and Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. (Think Progress has the video.)

BOLTON: And I think when the President says it’s unacceptable, I think what he means by that is that it’s unacceptable. So it’s important…

CAVUTO: But unacceptable means that if it keeps going on you’re going to do something about it…

BOLTON: That no option is taken off the table. And Secretary…

CAVUTO: Military as well?

BOLTON: Exactly. Secretary Rice…

CAVUTO: Unilateral military action?

BOLTON: Secretary Rice made that point again today. But that’s why I think…

CAVUTO: That we would, I’m sorry Ambassador, that we would act alone if we had to?

BOLTON: That’s why he says no option is taken off the table. But it’s also why he has, the President, has reached out President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, “We’re making a significant step here,” that will be criticized by many of the president’s staunchest supporters here at home. But he’s taking this step to show strength and American leadership and to say he’s willing to do something that may be unpopular even with some of his supporters, to remove all excuses from Iran and its supporters to say, “We went the extra mile. We gave Iran really, this last chance to show that they are serious when they say they don’t want nuclear weapons.” This is put or shut up time for Iran.

Bush, Iran, Security Council, Fox News, Neil Cavuto, John Bolton