Republicans Are Already Planning an Attack

Camelface has suggested that Kerry will somehow break the debate rules. Of course, the Republicans will claim that he broke the rules somehow. The Democrats will likely oppose the Republican accusation. And the fact that the issued was raised regardless of the truth of it will hurt Kerry. Isn’t it sad how these guys work?

Catholics

It’s funny how one group of voters can be pursued to vote for Bush based on the one issue. Some Catholics are vehemently opposed to abortion. So, much so that they are willing to look the other way on other Church issues. For example, one Bishop had claimed that voting for a pro-choice candidate was going against the church. It is sad, but there are many in the Catholic Church that believe when a priest speaks it is like hearing the word passed down from God. So, when a Bishop speaks, they imagine that there are a few people less in the chain from God to him.

Unfortunately, the Bishop isn’t considering all of the relevant issues. The Catholic Church is not only anti-abortion, but it is pro-life. This means that the Catholic Church is against the death penalty. It is also for “just war,” which means that a war is only justified to stop an atrocity that is happening. The Iraq war does not meet the requirement for a just war, because the US invaded Iraq. So, voting for Bush would be going against Catholic Church policy. Also, Catholics are compelled to care for the poor through whatever means they have. The poor would be better served under John Kerry rather than the current administration. So, it is at least 3 for Kerry and 1 for Bush if you are counting issues for Catholics. If you add the strong labor issues for Kerry there isn’t much of a chance that a good Catholic could vote any other way.

Catholics are compelled to build a Christian community through voting. If they look at ALL the issues they should be compelled to vote for John Kerry.

History

Since Newt Gingrich took out his contract on America the Republican Party has ignored the rest of the electorate and set his own agenda. Newt was caught sinning, so he was out with the Fundamentalists and Tom Delay took over. I would suggest that politicians go back to the cooperative government of the pre-Gingrich era. Instead of just pushing the rest of the public around we should be passing compromise legislation that everyone can agree with. Instead the Republicans are inflaming the rest of the country (or at least those that care about fairness.) If the Republicans win again and continue on the path they are on the rest of the country will continue to get angry with the Republicans. The Republicans will continue to pass laws that will make it more and more difficult to change these laws legally and the rest of the country may be forced to protest and break laws to make things right again. Unfortunately the right thinks that they don't need to consider the needs of the middle class or poor.

Of course Iraq was completely the wrong thing to do from the outset. It is the demonstration of Bush's weak leadership skills. He was unwilling to listen to advisors who told him the problems of occupying a Fundamentalist Muslim third world country. Everything that is happening now was predicted by Bush's advisors and the many institutes that study these things. Protesters in the streets tried to draw attention to the problems with invading and occupying a country. Bush ignored everyone. Why? Because he had his own agenda and didn't care about the safety of the America, the soldiers or Americans abroad.

Now that we are there, there is only one thing to do. Increase the number of troops their and quell the violence and institute some kind of government that can control their own country.

Since Education is important to you then you should read the blog I wrote on that topic. I am sure you will be surprised that I agree with much of what you wrote on that topic. Unfortunately the Republicans don't believe in funding education the way in which you propose. I don't think the Democrats are any better, because they have issues with the teachers unions.

Earthquake Observation

I find it interesting that the Parkfield earthquake occurred at a full moon at 10:15am. This implies that the moon and sun were on opposite sides of the earth pulling. Therefore the tidal forces were high. But, the more interesting thing was that there was a subsequent large earthquake the following day and again today a large earthquake occurred when the moon and sun were opposite each other again.

Of course the moon moves about 15 degrees off each day, but it is interesting to see these earthquakes three days in a row.

Brain-washed Republicans

When I refer to the majority of Republicans that are "brain-washed" I am talking about those who listen to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and the likes and don't question what they say. Unfortunately a large group of people have taken to accepting the mocking tone of the political discussion incited by Limbaugh and adopted by our president.

If you add to this the political destruction taken on by Tom Delay and the Republican leadership that is meant to maximize the political power for the right and to marginalize the other 75% of the population the revulsion makes me vomit. (When I say 75% I am including the 50% of the electorate that don’t vote.) There is no way that the Republican leadership wants democracy, instead they want to promote their agenda that gives to the wealthy and takes away from everyone else. Unfortunately the Right has jumped on the Fundamentalist Christian bandwagon in order to draw in more sheep to the fold. They have sold Fundamentalist ideas to the Christians to get the votes required to push the wealthy agenda. Along the way they pass some pro-Fundamentalist laws as long as they don’t cost anything.

The problem is that the majority of the American people would disagree with the Republican leadership if they understood what they are doing. Unfortunately with the talk radio mouthpieces echoing lies and misinformation the American people are blinded. They want the easy way to American politics. They want to be told what to believe and what to do without thinking about it.

It's funny that the majority of Republicans identify themselves with the Fundamentalist Christian movement, because the same mentality is required to believe in that faith. (Memorize the standard passages and answers and don't think about the contradictions.)

I am sorry if you take offence at my generalization of the Republican Party, but to my disgust I have met very few Republicans who discuss the issues. Instead they spout rhetoric and don’t think through what they are saying. It’s like talking to the Fundamentalist Christian who says that you can only be saved through Jesus Christ. And, you ask them “What about the Buddhist who has never been approached by a missionary in the Himalayas, could he be saved if he is a model Buddhist and lives a sinless life?” You can tell how Fundamentalist a person is based on the answer to this question. Republicans are the same way, but the questions are different.

Don't Let It Happen Again!

If Gore were in the White House would we be in the quagmire of Iraq?

No!

Would we have a president who listens to his advisors and understand what they are saying?

Yes!

How many of our young soldiers would be dead in the desert of Iraq?

None!

Would the USA have lost the credibility that we have lost under George W Bush?

No!

Don't Let It Happen Again!

Protecting Our Borders

Bill O’Reilly made one very good point today on his show. Why does the Bush administration refuse to protect our borders? Every major country with long borders protects them with soldiers. The US on the other hand has a border patrol stretched thinly across both the north and the south of our country. When the problem was merely immigrants coming across the border illegally the right looked the other way, because they liked the cheap labor coming into our country. With a black market labor force companies didn’t have to report what they paid to workers. Subsequently they could pay sub-minimum wage wages and the illegals wouldn’t complain to the department of labor in fear of being deported. (There’s the Republican Fear Factor again.)

But in the post 9/11 world we should be more concerned about the security of our borders. The Bush administration has done nothing significant to protect our borders. However, if illegal aliens can come across the border by the millions, why can’t the terrorists use the same methods to cross into our country? Why do people continue to think that George W Bush is protecting our country when he doesn’t even protect our borders? Obviously cheap labor is more important to him than safety.

It's to bad that the Kerry campaign doesn't replay this quote to rebut the Bush attack ads:

Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002) Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

It seems to me that he is quite clear about where he stands on this issue.

California Prop 63

This seems like a simple proposition, but it isn’t. Prop 63 proposes that people who make more than one million dollars should be taxed 1% on the money they make over the first million. The money from this tax should be used to fund mental health services for those who need them. The argument is that Bush cut the taxes for these people, so we should make sure that the state gets this money that would have been paid to the federal government anyway. Then we should take this money and use it to pay for mental health services that hasn’t been able to find funding in the traditional process because mental health patients don’t have a very strong lobby group.

So, what’s wrong with this proposition? My main concern is that it is actually a tax that will grow over time. This is because the tax naively ignores inflation. This means that having 1 million dollars written into the law means that every year more people will be added to pay this tax. In twenty years, because of inflation, a person who earns $300,000.00 per year (in 2004 dollars) will be paying this tax. Then in another 20 years people who earn $100,000.00 per year (in 2004 dollars) will be paying this tax. This means that the amount of money going to mental health care will begin to grow exponentially. This is not the way to raise taxes, in some under the table sneaky way.

When will people learn to index taxes to GDP or cost of living?

Fear

The Bush campaign knows that fear is good for their election. They believe that the more fearful the public is the more people will support them. Of course this is irrational, but people are not rational when it comes to fear. Every time the Bush administration raises the terror alert level Bush’s approval ratings rise. When Bush invoked 9/11 at the Republican Convention his approval rating were raised as well.

So, it should be a surprise that the Bush administration is claiming that al Qada plans to disrupt the US elections. Of course they don’t have any specifics, so mentioning this to the public only acts to raise fear.

Of course Republican philosophy is based on fear. They believe that when employees fear they will loose their job then labor costs come down. If people fear that they may be laid off they will resist going in to their boss to ask for a raise. Reagan used this to great effect during his tenure. Of course Republicans also spread the fear of immigrants coming across the border to steal American jobs. They believe that people should fear the police so they won’t be tempted to break the law. But, it is all rapped up in the belief that people should fear God, so they will follow the rules of the Christian Religion. Fear is the Republican’s friend.

But, this may possibly backfire for the Republicans. If the Bush administration makes people fearful enough the people won’t show up to vote in the election. And, the people that actually believe the Bush administration are Republicans. So, if 10% of the Republicans should stay home because the Bush administration told them to fear the terrorists Kerry could triumph on November 2.

One can only hope.

Bill O’Reilly

Bill O’Reilly claims to be the middle of the political spectrum, but I still see him as at least slightly to the right. He calls himself undecided and he does a good job of not answering questions that would put him on one side or the other. Therefore, it is hard to find quotes that would put him unquestionably on the right. However, when you listen to the entire show you certainly come away with the feeling that he leans to the right. He does this in one clever way, through his sidekick. She is almost always to the right of O’Reilly on every issue. Since she is a woman and she comes down to the right of O’Reilly she gives the impression that most women think like her, and they both insist that they are in the middle of the political spectrum. If he were really “fair and balanced” I would think that O’Reilly would have a sidekick on both sides of the political spectrum. This would put a wider variety of political ideas into the discussion. If you only have a right wing person and a so-called center person discussing things then the legitimacy of the left’s ideas are neglected.

Funniest Thing I Heard Today

I was listening to Bill O’Reilly today on my way into work. He is asking his callers to grade the president on his 3 1/2 years in office. One caller called in and began by grading each individual aspect of his presidency. He came to the issue of bringing the country together. He said, “I’d have to give him (Bush) an A for bringing the country together.” Apparently this guy doesn’t get out much. He somehow imagines that the country is united. I would suggest that anyone who agrees with this statement should look at some video or coverage of the Clinton administration. Sure we had some Clinton haters back then, but there were a lot more people in the middle.

It is certainly weird how some people remember the past.

Bush Says that the Future of Iraq is Brighter than the Future for America

We all know the harsh realities of Iraq. Unfortunately, George Bush has no plan to get us out of Iraq. Now George Bush thinks the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America. He actually said that yesterday, "I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America."

Bush and Cheney Hate Democracy

Bush and Cheney brought Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi here as a campaign stunt. They wanted him to speak to the UN and to Congress in order to bolster their description of the war in Iraq as a roaring success. Unfortunately Allawi spoke with journalists before he read his speech to the UN and to congress. So, he happened to flip flop on the issue of the current situation in Iraq. At first he told the interviewer that terrorists were over running his country. But suddenly three days later he told us that all was on track in Iraq. We all know that the Bush administration wrote the speeches that he gave to the UN and to congress, so it wouldn’t be surprising that there would be contradictions between the Bush policy on what is happening in Iraq and what is actually happening there.

But, when Bush and Cheney criticized Kerry for pointing out the discrepancy every American should cringe. This is because they are undermining the concept of free speech by doing this. They are saying, “a fair person doesn’t criticize a guest in our country.” And, why don’t they do this? They shouldn’t do this because it hurts our re-election campaign? Because Kerry is criticizing the words put into Allawi’s mouth by the Bush administration. He doesn’t doubt that Allawi spoke the truth before Bush had a chance to get to him.

Bush and Cheney must really want to be re-elected badly in order to undercut democracy this way.

An Ideal World

After reading a few blogs on the deportation of the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens. The blogs from the right hold the opinion that if he gave money knowingly or unknowingly and it wound up in the coffers of Hamas he is guilty and deserves to be deported. This prompted me to consider the Ideal Conservative World.

What would it be like to live in a world where conservatives faced no opposition and all of their ideas came to fruition?

First of all abortion would be illegal and everyone would go to church. Taxes would be greatly reduced and social programs would be run through faith based organizations. Since the only acceptable churches would be “real” churches, where real churches would be defined by the majority. So, it would be likely that any church that retained authority over the individual would be considered the real churches. Of course, in order to fund all of the faith based social programs without tax support the churches would demand that the congregation tithe. However, the traditional tithe of ten percent would most likely not be enough to fund the faith based social programs so the wealthy would be pressured to contribute more for the “good of the church.”

Consider one such congregation of the future in which the conservatives run the world. The pastor of the congregation has a big heart. He feels that the homeless unwed mothers are not getting enough support from the faith based programs. Of course this is because the conservatives don’t believe that anyone can be homeless without somehow bringing it upon herself. They certainly shouldn’t have been unwed mothers, because this is a sin against nature and God. Supporting these women only encourages their behavior.

So, when the pastor of the church is approached by an underground organization set up to aid these women he takes some of the weekly tithe and contributes it to this group. However, unknown to the pastor the group not only aids these women by feeding and housing them. They also provide abortions to women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Since these women are homeless they don’t live in protected areas. Many of them, being easy marks, are raped because they belong to an unwanted class of people.

So, after six months of contributing to this organization several large donors to the church find themselves in jail. It turns out that funding abortion is such a serious crime that people can be held without being charged until an investigation is completed. Since the donors have contributed over $10,000.00 to the church over the last six months they are put into the extremely dangerous group and are held without a being able to talk to lawyer. Because, if they were to learn what law they are accused of breaking the conservatives believe that they would devise a lie to get out of the charge.

If this is the kind of world you want to live in vote for George W Bush. He is one step closer to this kind of world.

How can you tell when you win an argument on tblog?

This is a question for your input.

1) I would guess that you win an argument when the party you are arguing with just stops replying to your arguments.
2) I would also guess that you win an argument when the person you are arguing with just says: “You're an idiot.”

Any other suggestions are welcome.

One Way to Alienate Moderate Muslims: Deport Cat

By Mansoor Ijaz

LONDON – Cat Stevens, the pop artist best known for his songs "Wild World" and "Morning Has Broken" in the 1960s and 70s, was detained onboard a flight from London to Washington when US transportation and immigration officials flagged his Muslim name, Yusuf Islam, on a security watch list that tracks known terrorist groups and their followers. He stands accused of associating with one or more of the banned entities on that list, and of providing funds to certain ones (Hamas allegedly among them) known to support terrorism in the Middle East.

As an American-born Muslim of Pakistani heritage and a strong supporter of the Bush administration's essential thesis that it is better to go after the terrorists wherever they hide than to let them migrate to our shores and attack us, I am outraged by the actions of our government in detaining and deporting Mr. Islam. I do not and have never condoned the terrorist activities of Hamas in Israel or anywhere else, nor have I ever supported such groups with a penny of my money.

More: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004...

Rock Against Bush

Those of you who are interested may choose to purchase the Rock against Bush CD. There are over fifty Rock Against Bush songs. Here's the Amazon link, but I bet you can buy it elsewhere:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores /artist/glance/-/281190/r ef=m_art_dp/102-4321788-5 930547" title="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores /artist/glance/-/281190/r ef=m_art_dp/102-4321788-5 930547" target="_blank"http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob...

Bush Doesn’t Always Get What He Wants

I heard that Bush got suckered into doing three debates because he didn’t want to look like a wimp. He had originally wanted to only do two at the most, but he had to keep his image of the stubborn tyrannical invader of Iraq for the good of the world. It’s hard to whine about how many debates you want to participate in and still keep the macho man look. So, they conceded to Kerry’s wish to have three debates.

Bush needs to uphold his Wild West Texan image, and hopefully it will work against him in the debates.

Right to Bear Arms

Isn’t it strange how the Right wing keeps posting blogs about the atrocities in Iraq? They somehow expect the left to say “Hey there are bad guys in Iraq, Good thing we are there.” However, the left knows about the atrocities and says, “Too bad we are over there, because we are angering the Islamists who want their own country back. The Iraqis are only amassing larger groups of people who want to do damage to us.” Somehow, the Right believes that the more force that we use the more friends that we will make in the Middle East. The Right wing should know about occupations, they argue for the right to bear arms saying that need arms to fight evil governments like the Bush administration should they arise. Funny how in Iraq the same thing doesn’t make sense to them. There are Iraqis who want the occupying army out of their country. They are using their right to bear arms to fight them off.

Paranoia

It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you.

Apparently the Bush administration has a bit of paranoia. They think that everyone is out to get them. What other explanation is there for stopping Ted Kennedy at the airport, deporting the singer formally known as Cat Stevens, holding prisoners for more than three years and then releasing them, and holding a guard suspected of spying and then suddenly releasing him. These are civil rights violations in the name of paranoia. How many more innocent people will be put in prison for years and then released because of paranoia? During the cold war the Hawks would say the Soviets restricted freedom and they would sight examples just like these. Is this just another example of right-wing Hypocrisy?

It’s not going to get any better until we have a regime change in Washington.

Who's Next

I am embarrassed to write this, but the experience was so bizarre that I need to write this.

I went to the library today and checked out some CDs. One CD that I found was "Who's Next" by The Who. I like many of the Who's songs, but I had never listened to this album. When I listened to the first song I thought, " Oh, 'Baba O'Rielly', This is a great song, I wonder if there are any other great songs on this CD that I have never heard before." This is because I don't own every CD ever made, and many songs don't get played on the radio even if they are worth listening too. So, when I was at the ninth and final song on the original album I was still saying, "This is another great song." I am embarrassed that I didn't know that this entire album is so great.

But, not only is this CD so great, it is also very relevant for our time. This album sums up much of the social progress that was made during the 1960s. And, we should review our social progress, because the Right would like to turn the clock back to the pre-1960s era.

Anyway, I highly recommend giving this CD a listen if you haven't in a while. Or, like in my case ever listened to the entire album all the way through.

Who’s in Charge in Iraq?

The White House would have you believe that the US has turned over sovereignty to Iraq. But today’s events have made it clear that the US retains control over the minute details of the US occupation of Iraq. The Iraqi government announced today that they would release the female prisoners held in the Iraqi jails. But the US said that they would not be released. Then the Iraqi courts announced that the female prisoners should be released by court order. But once again the US stepped in and wouldn’t allow the release.

Funny how the so-called Sovereign country isn’t allowed to run it’s own affairs. So, what does it mean to be sovereign under the Bush administration’s definition of sovereign?

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3532265" title="http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3532265" target="_blank"http://news.scotsman.com/late...

Republicans Turn Their Back On George W Bush

Some Republicans are not very kind to George W Bush on the Iraq issue. Perhaps they are being honest because it's election time.

Senator Chuck Hagel (NE), a Republican, says: "The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse." [2] "The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq." [3]

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also supports releasing the NIE [4] and says: "We made serious mistakes right after the initial successes by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the looting, by not securing the borders." [3]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), says "he believes the situation in Iraq is going to get worse before it gets better, adding that he believes the administration has done a 'poor job of implementing and adjusting at times.'" and says "We do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people...." [3]

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) says it's "exasperating for anybody look at this from any vantage point." [1]


[1] New York Times: U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future
September 16th, 2004

[2] Washington Post editorial: Mr. Bush and Iraq
September 18th, 2004

[3] Washington Post: Three GOP Senators Urge Refocusing of Iraq Policy
September 19th, 2004

[4] 'FOX News Sunday', September 19th, 2004, transcript

Bush Administration Gone Wild

It’s hard to separate the Republican Party, The Bush Campaign, and The Bush Administration from each other. The reason for this is because there are upper level Republicans that are pulling all the strings. But, if you look at all these groups and what they are doing it should scare the Hell out of the average Freedom Loving American.

For example, Homeland Security, an arm of the Bush administration has denied access to the US of the ex-Pop singer Cat Stevens. Cat Stevens changed his name to an Islam name and he has embraced the positive aspects of the Islamic Religion. One only needs to look at his songs to realize that he is a peaceful person embracing a peaceful religion. But Homeland Security is using the stereotype of an Islamic Extremist and applying it to this peaceful man.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...;jsessionid=3OGH3ZTLJYE52 CRBAEKSFEY?type=topNews&s toryID=6306609

But, it doesn’t stop there. The Republican Party political action committee Texans for a Republican Majority, of TRMPAC, have been indicted for illegal fund-raising activities. Obviously Republicans don’t give a shit about laws. They want to pass laws to use against their political rivals, but they refuse to obey these laws when they apply to them. They get away with as much as they can until they get caught. They funny thing is, that Americans just don’t care about it, because their support doesn’t diminish when they do get caught. Republicans yell and scream about special interest groups when they try to protect the environment or protect workers, but when they try to cheat the political system by raising money illegally they just don't see it as a problem.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6297094" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6297094" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

On top of all that the Republicans continue to make it difficult for those who traditionally vote Democratic to vote be able to register and vote.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6306481" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=6306481" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

And Americans continue to believe the lie that this is a free and legitimate Democracy. Apparently keeping people in the dark, cheating the election laws, and denying civil rights is what a Democracy is all about.

George W Bush's Failure in Iraq

* The war on Iraq was a mistake -- war was unnecessary because the inspections were working: "Today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

* Iraq distracted from the war on terror: "The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight."

* President Bush misled us about the reasons for the war before it occurred: "He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war."

* President Bush is still misleading people about Iraq, painting an optimistic picture directly contradicted by his own intelligence officials: "In June, the president declared, 'The Iraqi people have their country back.' Just last week, he told us: 'This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march.' But the Administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story. According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people."

* Bush went to war for ideological reasons and consistently misjudged the situation on the ground: "This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. In Iraq, this administration has c onsistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself."

Read the whole speech here: http://www.johnkerry.com/pres...

John Kerry's Four Point Plan on Iraq

* John Kerry has a four-point plan to fix our Iraq policy:

o "First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support. The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process."

o "Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers."

o "Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price. Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort."

o "Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years."

Common Sense

In a recent blog one blogger said that rules are good because they are based in common sense. Who's common sense? There is more than one perspective on what makes common sense.

People in the 1930s thought that prohibition was common sense, but it lead to gangsters and crime much worse than before the law was enacted. The majority of the population continued to buy alcohol from the only dealers - the gangsters. This gave so much money to them that the police were no match. The gangsters ran whole cities and killed many people. So, what was the common sense?

Today we have lots of rules that restrict freedoms only because some religion has determined that there should be a law to prevent people from doing something. These laws are not made by common sense, but by what the leaders religions dictate. What if the Hindus ran the government and decided cows should no longer be eaten, because they are sacred? Would this be common sense?

There have always been rules that have been made without reason, and sometimes out of fear. The US Patriot act is a set of laws that take away our freedoms. The law was made out of fear, and many of the provisions could take away your rights if you were suspected of being a terrorist. What does this mean? It means that if you go out and protest an abortion clinic and an abortion friendly administration was in the white house they could claim the protesters were terrorists and you could be put into jail and not allowed to see a lawyer. Never mind the truth of whether you actually were a terrorist, the definition is in the eye of the government.

Before you say that that would never happen, think about the war in Iraq. Many people believed that the US would never invade a sovereign state without being threatened, but it happened.

Puppet or Person?

Do Americans want a puppet or a human leading our country? Recent polls suggest that the puppet is winning. But why is this? The advantage of having a puppet in charge is that they never need to be accountable to what they do. They speak only things they have memorized and they can not speak extemporaneously. It doesn’t matter, because they don’t know what extemporaneously means. A puppet only knows what he is told and he doesn’t ask questions. No need to worry about feeling guilty, worried, or upset. Puppets don’t feel emotion, they only portray them as the puppet master pulls the strings. But this seems to be what the American people want. They want to see the puppet show not the man behind the curtain. If the puppet repeats his lines without a flaw, then the American people applaud and cheer. If the puppet falters, then the audience is told they are being a poor sport and not watching the show with the right attitude.

But what happens when a human is put into the show? One only needs to recall the Muppet Show to see what happens when the human interacts with the puppets. The human is seen to be less than perfect and his faults are magnified. The human thinks and is from time to time unsure about the way things are done in the land of fantasy. The human uses real logic but the puppet isn’t bound to reality because the puppet master knows the out come even if it doesn’t follow reality. Even when the human points out the flaws in the puppets reasoning the human is seen as not playing by the rules.

Americans want a puppet for a leader because the reality is too painful to bear.

To Pull Out Early Would be a Mistake.

George W Bush said this today. But, I don't understand why pulling out early in Afghanistan was a good thing. We are growing a terrorist threat in Afghanistan, because no one is watching the hen house. Where is Osama? I bet he isn't in Iraq. To bad George W Bush doesn't listen to his own advice.

For Bush Haters Only

Make sure you are registered to vote in the election. Some state deadlines are approaching.

It’s the Oil Stupid

Before George W. Bush took office the American people believed that the government would never recklessly spend our blood and money on a needless war. George W. Bush changed all that. He took us to war in Afghanistan to avenge the 9/11/2001 attacks. This was the proper response for those heinous acts. But, instead of tracking down the culprit, Osama bin Laden, and finishing the effort in Afghanistan Bush lead our country into a personal vendetta in Iraq. By using questionable Orwellian rhetoric George W. Bush has been able to disguise the true motives of these operations. The truth is that it’s the Oil and the military bases that the administration has been after all along.

The Case Against George W. Bush

It is quite clear that one third of the American voters support George W. Bush and will do so no matter what he was to do between now and November 2nd. It is also quite clear that there is another third of American voters that support John F. Kerry and they will do so no matter what he were to do between now and November 2nd. However, that still leaves one third of the American voters that may support one candidate or the other at this time, but they are willing to listen to reason and re-adjust their position based on the facts they may not know. I am writing this piece for those people.

My point of view is that of a Libertarian. A Libertarian is a person who supports less government involvement in the individual’s life. This means that a Libertarian would support fewer moral laws, because the morality of society is not the business of the government. Depending on the degree of Libertarian one could argue for slightly more or less morality based laws, but the point is that laws are needed to keep civil order alone and additional regulation is superfluous. Libertarians also believe that the role of the government is to provide a structure for private industry to build an infrastructure. One can argue what is needed in the government infrastructure, but most would agree that the courts and lawmaking is the minimal amount and other pieces may be added.

In the past Libertarians found good cause in supporting the Republican agenda when Republicans argued that the Government was overtaxing the public. Libertarians were willing to overlook the religious moralization of America by the religious right, because the reduction of taxes was the frontline issue being broadcast from the campaign pulpit.

With the election of George W. Bush one must reconsider the Republican rhetoric.

First, the Bush administration George W. Bush introduced faith-based initiatives. From a Libertarian point of view not only does this increase government spending it increases moral control of the government. This means that our tax dollars go to religious organizations that may require people to accept a religion before they get aid. Of course this wasn’t the only objectionable action of the Bush administration. This is the type of program that Liberals are accused of wasting tax dollars on all the time. The only difference this time is the religious element, which makes the plan even more offensive in my mind.

Secondly, the Bush administration made tax cuts that went disproportionately for those with children and the top 1% of the population. Perhaps some Libertarians would suggest that this was one of the few good things that the Bush administration did for the country. However, this project was advertised as an economic stimulus tax cut. And, this was one of the weakest ways to stimulate the economy. As a Libertarian I would suggest that one would want to get as much “bang for your buck” as one could. The tax cuts to those who have children helped a bit but the reduction of the dividend tax had very little effect on the economy. In order to do this the tax cut should have gone to people who were going to spend it, not to those who were going to re-invest it in the stock market. Re-investing the money in the stock market simply bolsters the price of stocks without actually pumping money into the economy.

Third, as a Libertarian we believe that the US military should only be used to defend the country. The illegal invasion of Iraq is both a waste of American tax dollars and American resources. With the tax cuts the problem is compounded. Money is being borrowed to pay for a needless war, therefore the Bush administration places the burden on our children instead of making the current population sacrifice for this war. So, any strength of voting for the more fiscally conservative party is lost. How can one justify borrowing money to pay for something like a war? Everyone knows that borrowing money adds to the overall cost of the purchase. This is not a fiscally justifiable action that any Libertarian could support.

Fourth, consider all of the traditional objections to Republican ideology. Republicans believe that the government should pass laws that determine who should get married, what people should be allowed to say on TV or on the radio. There has already been a chilling effect on many TV and radio stations because of Michael Powell’s influence with the FCC.

Fifth, The Bush administration used the 9/11 attack as an excuse to take away civil rights through the passage of the Patriot Act. Even if the act hasn’t been used to it’s fullest extent it doesn’t mean that it is OK. The potential use of the Patriot Act to arrest protesters could mean the silencing of many legitimate complaints. It could be argued that the only reason that the Bush administration did not use the Patriot Act to quell the war protesters was because he had overwhelming support in the build up to the Iraq War. However, with much lower public support for the next war things could be much different the next time around.

Of course there are only five reasons specified here, but they should be enough for the third of the country that could be persuaded to change their minds. The main point is that not only does George W Bush support the religious moralization of the US by passing moral laws that strip the individual of their civil rights. But, George W. Bush also lacks the fiscal conservative attributes that actually makes the Republican Party desirable Party. However, instead of taxing us now he is passing the cost of his down to our children by borrowing the money needed to pay for it. This would be like charging your clothes on a credit card. It makes you look good now, but you need to pay for that look at some time.

Why Wouldn’t a Pilot Want to Fly?

Doesn’t anyone find it strange that George W Bush entered the Air National Guard and lost interest in flying. The elite of the elite is the pilot corp. People fight for a place in pilot training. There are strict requirements in order to limit potential pilots because the position is sought after with such vigor. Why would someone with an interest in flying just throw that all away? Was it that he had no interest in flying, or was it that he couldn’t fly for some reason? Maybe he had a close call and it scared the shit out of him. If he had no interest in flying, wasn’t it a complete waste of resources for him to be trained? Surely some other candidate could have been found to have a higher desire to fly. If he couldn’t fly for some reason is it a medical problem that the public should be aware of? Could the rumor of his epileptic seizures be true? Or, maybe it was his drinking problem. Either way doesn’t the public have the right to know? Or, maybe he was just a coward. If he was a coward then that would explain why he went hiding the day of 9/11.

The point is that it just ain’t natural for a pilot to give up flying.

Dick Heads at the RNC

Republicans at the RNC apparently like to dress up like Dick-Heads. It must have something to do with the "Dick" they have as vice president.

Another Reason Why Americans Support John Kerry



John Kerry is closer to the Center of the ideological spectrum than any other candidate.

The Vietnam Factor

This is the reason why George W Bush doesn't want to talk about Vietnam.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush-Kerry" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush-Kerry" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...%20Vietnam%20Service.htm

This poll shows that there are about equal numbers that say that Kerry was either more admirable or less admirable than the average Vietnam era vet. However, when the same question is asked about George W Bush, 41% say that he was less admirable than the average Vietnam era vet. Only 8% say that he was more admirable. Obviously the same 8% of the population that does crack.

 

Exploitation of the Public's Emotion

 

Tonight I saw the most disgusting exploitation of the tragedy of 9/11/2001. On PAX TV I saw an advertisement for the Freedom Tower Silver Dollar. A government issued silver dollar that is being sold for $49.99. A silver dollar that is being sold for a 5000% mark-up seems quite obviously playing on people's emotions. Of course there is no mention of profits going to benefit the building of the Freedom Tower, or benefiting the victims of 9/11. If this doesn't seem disgusting enough, there is more. The silver used to plate the silver dollar is claimed to be miraculously recovered from the ground zero site. This disgusting exploitation is not being done with the government's consent. No, the government is doing it. The advertisement claims that the coin is government issued. Is the profit being used to pay for the illegal war in Iraq?  Who is making the profit?

 

Education Redux

Education is in sorry shape, as you describe, for many reasons. The main reason however is because of teachers unions. Yes, liberals run teachers unions. However, the problem is not with liberal teaching ideology. I know that it is difficult for those on the right to comprehend the gray areas, but I'll try to explain the difference.

Liberal teaching ideology requires teaching children to think. Teachers that accept the low paying teachers’ jobs are not always the creme de la students. After all, if you were smart and had a choice of going into a $100,000/year engineering job, or a $30,000/year teaching job, which would you choose?

So, we leave education to the bottom rung of the education ladder. Now, many of these teachers do very well and do succeed. It could be because they would rather teach than make money. This is a liberal quality disliked by the conservatives. Since teachers either don’t make a lot of money because they don’t care about money or because they aren’t paid what they deserve they tend to gravitate to unions who promise to help maintain pay and benefits so the teachers don’t have to fight for pay every year. The effect of unions has been to gradually raise pay and benefits for teachers. This is great for the teachers who really care about teaching and don’t really care about the payment. However, teachers who are in the profession because they can’t do much else are afraid of loosing their jobs. You would be too. So, they use the strength of the union to protect their jobs. This gives a bad name to all teachers, but this is a function of a capitalistic system that doesn’t value education of children. If education were valued higher then better people would be persuaded to become teachers. This would raise the quality of teaching and reward those who invest in teaching with more children who graduate with the ability to think.

Of course education is a complicated subject. There are many teachers who sacrifice financial well being in order to teach, but society shouldn’t assume that 100% of the teachers are saints. In a capitalist society we should be willing to invest in our children, but with the screams for tax cuts education has suffered and so has the quality of our teaching.

Of course the quality of teaching isn’t the only problem. Discipline of the students, materials and parental involvement are all very important factors as well. Putting a star teacher in a room without resources may result in some surprising instruction, but it is far from the idea situation. Likewise students who have uninterested parents don’t fare very well either.

So, in conclusion, if a liberal teaching ideology does not succeed it doesn’t mean that the ideology is flawed, especially when you have teachers that don’t understand it, or don’t have the resources to implement it.

Dubya Goes To Hell

While walking down the street one day, George "Dubya" Bush is shot by a disgruntled NRA member. His soul arrives in heaven and he is met by St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem: We seldom see a Republican around these parts, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in; I'm a believer," says Dubya.

"I'd like to just let you in, but I have orders from the Man Himself: He says you have to spend one day in hell and one day in heaven. Then you must choose where you'll live for eternity."

"But, I've already made up my mind; I want to be in heaven."

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules." And with that, St. Peter escorts! him to an elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a lush golf course; the sun is shining in a cloudless sky, the temperature a perfect 72 degrees. In the distance is a beautiful clubhouse. Standing in front of it his dad and thousands of other Republicans who had helped him out over the years: Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Jerry Falwell. The whole of the "Right" is here, everyone laughing, happy; casually but expensively dressed.

They run to greet him, hug him, and reminisce about the good times they had getting rich at expense of the "suckers and peasants."

They play a friendly game of golf, then dine on lobster and caviar. The devil himself comes up to Bush with a frosty drink and says, "Have a Margarita and relax, Dubya!"

"Uh, I can't drink no more, I took a pledge," says Junior, dejectedly.

"This is Hell, son: you can drink and eat all you want and ! not worry, and it just gets better from here!" says the devil. &nb sp; Dubya takes the drink and finds himself liking the devil, who is a very friendly guy who tells funny jokes and pulls hilarious nasty pranks, kind of like a Yale Skull and Bones brother with real horns. They are having such a great time that, before he realizes it, it's time to go.

Everyone gives him a big hug and waves as Bush steps on the elevator and heads upward.

When the elevator door reopens, he is in heaven again and St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven," the old man says, opening the gate.

So for 24 hours Bush is made to hang out with a bunch of honest, good-natured people who enjoy each other's company, talk about things other than money, and treat each other decently. Not a nasty prank or frat boy joke among them; no fancy country clubs and, while the food tastes great, it's not caviar or lobster. And these people are all poor; he doesn't see anybody he knows, and he isn't even tr! eated like someone special!

Worst of all, to Dubya, Jesus turns out to be some kind of Jewish hippie with his endless 'peace' and 'do unto others' jive.

"Whoa," he says uncomfortably to himself, "Pat Robertson never prepared me for this!"

The day done, St. Peter returns and says, "Well, then, you've spent a day in Hell and a day in Heaven. Now choose where you want to live for eternity."

With the 'Jeopardy' theme playing softly in the background, Dubya reflects for a minute, then answers, "Well, I would never have thought I'd say this -- I mean, heaven has been delightful and all -- but I really think I belong in hell with my friends."

So Saint Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to hell. The doors of the elevator open, and he finds himself in the middle of barren, scorched earth covered with garbage and toxic industrial waste...kind of like Houston. He is horrified! to see all of his friends dressed in rags and chained together, picki ng up the trash and putting it in black bags. They are groaning and moaning in pain, faces and hands black with grime.

The Devil comes over to Dubya and puts an arm around his shoulder.

"I don't understand," stammers a shocked Dubya. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a clubhouse and we ate lobster and caviar and drank booze. We screwed around and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and everybody looks miserable!"

The Devil looks at him, smiles slyly, and purrs, "Yesterday we were campaigning; today you voted for us."

Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars

Bush/Cheney '04: Leave No Billionaire Behind

Bush/Cheney '04: Deja-Voodoo All Over Again!

Bush/Cheney '04: Compassionate Colonialism

Bush/Cheney '04: Because the Truth Just Isn't Good Enough

Bush/Cheney '04: Making the World a Better Place, One Country at a Time

Bush/Cheney '04: Over a Billion Whoppers Served.

Bush/Cheney '04: Putting the "Con" in Conservative

Bush/Cheney '04: Thanks for Not Paying Attention.

Bush/Cheney '04: The Last Vote You'll Ever Have to Cast

Bush/Cheney: Asses of Evil

Bush/Cheney '04: We're Gooder!

Bush/Cheney '04: This Time, Elect Us!

George W. Bush: The Buck Stops Over There

George W. Bush: A Brainwave Away from the Presidency

Don't think. Vote Bush!

The last time somebody listened to a Bush, folks wandered in the desert for 40 years

UNPRESIDENTED!

Don't Blame Me - I voted for Gore... I Think

What popular vote?

More Trees, Less Bush

My parents retired to Florida and all I got was this
lousy President

Disney gave us Mickey, Florida's giving us Dumbo

DON'T THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE...
LET KATHERINE HARRIS DO IT FOR YOU

Who is this Chad guy and why is he pregnant.

Bush trusts the people, but not if it involves
counting.

Now do you understand the importance of user-testing?

One person, one vote (may not apply in certain states)

I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIS DADDY EITHER

IT AIN'T OVER 'TIL YOUR BROTHER COUNTS THE VOTES

Banana Republicans

George W. Bush: The President Quayle We Never Had

It Takes a Village Idiot

One Person, One Vote (*May Not Apply in Certain States)

Bring Back Monica Lewinsky

Mission accomplished my ass!

Not every problem has an American solution.

Somewhere in Texas...a village is missing its idiot.

Make "W" an "W"

"Yee-Ha" is not a Foreign Policy.

Kerry - Edwards / Help is on the way!

Help is on the way! Vote Democrat 2004

John Kerry...bringing complete sentences back to the White House.

Let's Kerry Bush out!

Save The Environment - Plant a Bush back in Texas

Fire the Liar! Vote Democrat 2004

Redneck Democrat

Anyone But Bush! - Vote Democrat 2004

11/02/04...the end of an error.

When in doubt...start a war.

Left has never been so right.

Bush & Cheney - Ready...Aim...FIRE THEM!

The One Dimensional Political Spectrum



The point here is that there a large number of people in the middle of the road, even though the stripe is very small. The other point is that the rather small number of people at the two ends are the loudest, because they are the most different from the rest of the country.

Destruction or Re-Creation Which is Worse?

I guess the Bush mafia was able to destroy the documents CBS had claimed to have been written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, and other memorandums Marian Carr Knox typed for him about Mr. Bush. However, Marian Carr Knox does remember typing similar documents. She believes that someone attempted to re-create them.

So, which is worse the destruction of the documents by Bush and his clan, or the re-creation of them by some mystery person?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/c ampaign/15guard.html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/c ampaign/15guard.html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

Reasoning vs. Memorization

UsefulIdiot’s satire posting on the correlation of IQs to voting preference got me thinking. There is certainly a different understanding of what is important in education between the Left and the Right. The conservative approach to education is to learn the mechanics of learning and to memorize facts. Memorize multiplication tables, spelling words, and history dates. The liberal approach is to teach some of that, but to realize that all those facts can be found in the library or on the web. Instead, understanding the validity of facts, the strength of an argument and how to solve problems is considered more important. This basic overview can be observed in left -- right arguments about education. The right is always arguing that we should go back to basics, and those basics are the rote memorization of phonics, spelling and math facts. On the left we have arguments for essay testing, so we can understand how the student reasons.

Obviously both types of teaching and learning are important in the well rounded individual. But, it is also true that people are going to be naturally better at one of these methods than the other. If you favor one of these methods over the other you will find yourself gravitating toward one political group or the other based on their political arguments.

So, in the long run a group that favors memorization above reasoning will collect among the conservatives as a group that favors reasoning over memorization collects among the liberal group. This isn’t a cut and dry fact, but a 5-10% spread in the different groups wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Now we need a group to go out and measure it.

Might Makes Right – Doesn’t It?

Might makes right is the policy of the Bush administration. If a plan goes wrong, its because we didn’t use enough force. If the Democrats point out your contradictions, then ignore them and spout some lies out louder. This might makes right strategy works for a while. Bush is ahead in the polls because the American people haven’t realized that the Bush attacks on Kerry were lies. It takes a while for the truth to filter through.

But, another place where the Bush administration is in Iraq. The funny thing about using the “might makes right” strategy is that people generally don’t like it used against them. If all the Iraqis were evil, then maybe the use of force would subdue them just like Hitler subdued the Poles and the French. However, George W Bush advertised that we were giving the Iraqis their freedom. Using force to award freedom is a contradiction. Unfortunately the Bush administration never met a contradiction that it didn’t like.

So, when I read this I wasn’t surprised in the least:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&stor yID=6234211" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&stor yID=6234211" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

Daddy, Why Do People Fight Wars?

The standard response to this question is: “To make you safe,” or “To make our country safe,” or “For your freedom.” Unfortunately, the war in Iraq does not measure up to any of these standards.

The war in Iraq has not and will not make us safer. The people in the Bush administration know this, because some of them were also in the Reagan administration. When the Reagan administration fought terror they used force, and it did not reduce the terror. They even used the same tactics that the terrorists themselves used. They exploded a car bomb in Lebanon and kill 247 innocent people, but they missed their target. It didn’t make us safer then, because the people were even more enraged. And, it isn’t going to do anything this time either.

The war in Iraq was not a response to a threat to our country, so it was not for our freedom either. Saddam Hussein may have been a threat to Kuwait in 1990 when they invaded that country, but after the first Gulf War Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and he was no longer a threat to America.

Some wars are justified. The War in Afghanistan was justified. Unfortunately the Bush administration did not finish the war in Afghanistan. The Bush administration must not even care to catch Osama bin Laden, because the resources needed to finish the job were withdrawn from that conflict. Instead the resources needed to finish the Afghan war were diverted to Iraq. The Iraq War which is the unnecessary and unneeded waste of resources accomplishing nothing. To top it off the Bush administration put the Iraq War on credit so that our children will be paying for it until they retire. By the way, who benefits from borrowing money, those who loan it? – The wealthy Republicans!

So, the correct answer to the question “Daddy, Why Do People Fight Wars?” is so the wealthy republicans can make money off you as you pay it off over your lifetime.

Bush’s Smugness

Does it bother anyone else when Bush uses his smugness to imply that Kerry doesn’t know jack shit?

The campaign has turned to High School peer pressure tactics, and no one really cares about the mudslinging. Bush reminds me of the high school cheerleader whose daddy gave her a Miata for her 16th birthday. If this doesn’t annoy you, then you are in the 2% of the wealthy that got 50% of the Bush tax cuts and you probably think its grand that Bush is smug. However, for the rest of us this Bush tactic can’t be good.

Or, are Americans just that stupid?

Polls

It’s interesting that the National Polls show that George W Bush has taken a huge lead over John F Kerry. But, not all the polls show the same thing. Rasmussen has Bush in the lead 47% to 46%. That is quite close considering that Bush has been reported being ahead by 10% – 15% in some recent polls. The margin of error on the Rasmussen poll is 2%, so there must be more to these polls than it is cracked up to be. Most likely the hypothesis which was used to take the sample may have changed. But, what part of the hypothesis could have changed to make such a large change in the polling?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking _Poll.htm" title="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking _Poll.htm" target="_blank"http://www.rasmussenreports.c...

Since Most polls are of “likely voters” it would be interesting to compare the difference of the definition of “likely voters. I would guess that questions like: “Did you vote in 2004?” would not be a very good question to determine who a “likely voter” would be. I would guess that many more people will vote in this election, but no one will know for sure until November.

Cursed to Live in Interesting Times

I took 9 days off of tblog, but I am back and I am refreshed. The main reason I took the time off was because my parents came to visit and I spent time with them. But the other reason I took time off was because I sensed myself getting angrier about the US presidential election. I don’t know if I was angry with Bush or Kerry more. I was unhappy that Kerry didn’t take advantage of the spotlight he had during the Democratic Convention. I was unhappy with the way he was being attacked and his lack of response. However, a response in politics isn’t always the best strategy. Of course I got angrier and angrier with the lies of the Bush campaign and the people fighting with him. I was frustrated, because I know there are people who believe these lies and don’t think about the facts. Even with independent news organizations and factcheck.org out there pointing out the lies people still believe them.

So, I sat back away from the action for a while. I talked to my parents and some of my friends and I tried to understand the “big picture.” Maybe if I could step away for a while I could understand the American Politic in 2004.

Well, my parents are Reagan Democrats who are now Rush Limbaugh Republicans. They were once Democrats because the Democrats stood for the working class and my parents were working class people. Reagan influenced my parents, because he promised them tax cuts. That’s the key, they thought that a Republican in office would put money into their pockets. People always vote out of self-interest, and this was their self-interest.

Well Reagan got into office and they went along with the bait and switch. They got some tax cuts, but Reagan also had some revenue enhancements. He also had a PR team who wouldn’t let him say tax increase even though he raised taxes 5 times and only cut them 3. People are gullible and they bought into his rhetoric. Their self interest used to be the power of the working class against the corporation, but after listening to Rush Limbaugh they suddenly believed that corporate greed was a good thing, because it made people work harder. They now believed that they were being paid a fair wage and they deserved it, because they didn’t want to make the effort to start a business. They had bought into the Rush Limbaugh ideology. Most people are too lazy and they deserve what they can get from employers who are willing to pay them. They don’t deserve anything, and they should consider themselves lucky that they have any job at all.

The company that my dad worked for was a privately held non-union shop. They used punishment and incentives to keep their workers in line. They paid a small wage compared to the union shops, but at the end of the year you could double your pay based on the number of points you earned. Therefore, towing the company line would be worth points and fighting the company could cost you points. Another way to look at this is that half of your pay was being withheld, and if you were good you could have it at the end of the year. This was a great system if the company was fair and there was no reason to complain. But it also amounted to a form of extortion if they weren’t fair and they wanted to take advantage of the workers.

The point of the story is that since my dad was in a non-union shop and he did all right he doesn’t understand the point of unions. Unfortunately he doesn’t see that without the fight of unions earlier in the century people would still be working for a dollar a day, and they would be glad to get it. But since the unions did their job they have lost their necessity and people don’t have the same needs to support unions or the political parties associated with them.

Of course tax cuts brought my parents into the Republican Party but abortion is the issue that keeps them there. When it comes to abortion “brain washing” is the only way to describe it. They even told me that Democrats are murders because they kill 50,000 babies a year. They won’t listen to any other point of view on that one issue, and they cloud the other issues to find a way to support them all because of this issue. They won’t allow the vocabulary to differ from the anti-choice propaganda. So, I am thinking that no matter what Bush did in office they would find a way to reason that supporting him was the only way to go. He could have an incestuous relationship with Jeb and his daughters and they would blame the Left wing media for not getting the story straight even if Jeb confessed on TV.

So, I have come to the conclusion that there are just some people who can’t see the truth and refuse to. These people are other people like my parents and other Rush Limbaugh devotees. Fortunately there are less than 50% of the population who think like this. In fact, it is actually less than 25% of the voting age population. Remember that only 50% of the voting age population actually vote. And, maybe it just doesn’t matter who wins the election in November. If Bush wins again and he carries out any more of his right wing tactics it will only awaken more of the non-voting voting age population. In the long run this is actually good for the country. If he drives the country further to the right then maybe some of the saner non-voters will begin to ask how the country was allowed to be screwed by Bush. Then maybe in 2008 they will decide to awaken and become even more political. This could energize the country for another generation. But, the problem is that people need a physical demonstration before they will actually respond to a destructive government.

The only problem with this strategy is that the government under George W Bush will continue to take away American’s rights. Taking these rights away from the Americans will make them stronger and the rebellion will need to be larger to have an effect. The longer that it takes for the non-voters to wake up against the Religious Fundamentalists the stronger the reaction will need to be. If the government passes laws against protest and assembly then the movement will need illegal responses and the movement will need to be larger. So, if we are to get our country back from these Christian Fundamentalists we will need a large movement if George W Bush is to win the 2004 election.

No matter what, if George W Bush wins we will be cursed to live in interesting times.

FactCheck.Org

I’ve been surfing FactCheck.Org lately and it seems quite obvious that the Bush Campaign is way over the top on the lying. What little FactCheck.Org has accused the Kerry administration of is exaggeration. FactCheck has shown that the SwiftBoat Liars for Bush are just that. There was only one witness who claims wrongdoing by Kerry and many who claim otherwise. Every other SwiftBoat Liar bases their claims on the one witness’s so-called observation.

So, here is another lie from the Bush campaign. This time it’s Zell Miller’s attack in his speech at the Republican Convention. The truth is that Kerry hasn't opposed an annual Pentagon appropriation since 1996. And he's voted for them far more often than against them. If Zell Miller can change his mind and zig into the Republican camp he should recognize that John Kerry has been supporting the military in the recent past as opposed to the aftermath of the Cold War when we certainly needed to cut back on military spending.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=252" title="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=252" target="_blank"http://www.factcheck.org/arti...

OK OK OK Enough Already.

Nothing drives me nuts more than the ridiculous statement that the Republicans continue to spout in the Iraq War argument. Are the Iraqi people better off now that Saddam Hussein is gone? The point is that it doesn’t matter. George W Bush ran on the principle that we (the US) are not the worlds policeman. He was upset (or people on his staff that write his speeches) that Clinton put US troops in Bosnia. Was that a good idea? How many troops went to Bosnia? Now look at the Iraq debacle. How many troops went there?

How did George W Bush sell the Iraq invasion to the American people? He told us that if we didn’t go in there would be mushroom clouds over America. I didn’t think so then and I don’t see how going to Iraq has prevented the so-called problem. North Korea and Israel and South Africa and France and the US have nuclear weapons. Russia and China and India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. If one of those countries thought that the Muslims in America were not being allowed to worship Allah and oppress the Muslim women properly. Would they be justified in setting off a nuclear bomb to make their point? They could say that George W Bush made the point that preemption was a valid choice. I don’t think that this is what we want, but we set the example and we are encouraging them to take preemptive action.

The point is that Americans don’t think that preemption is a valid international strategy unless we know for certain that it is required. In Iraq we were not certain. We were not certain! We went into another country without being certain that they were a threat. We now know that the US intelligence community was not certain. We set a precedent that preemption is a valid strategy. So, when Pakistan invades India we need to be on Pakistan’s side, because preemption is valid! When China invades Taiwan, we need to be on Chinas side, because preemption is a valid strategy. When Ireland invades Northern Ireland we need to be on Ireland’s side, because preemption is a valid strategy. When China invades the US they have every right to do so, because they have every right to make a preemptive strike against a country that certainly harbor weapons of mass destruction, don’t they?

Of course the Republicans are the party of the exception to the rule. Cheney is allowed to favor gay rights, because his daughter is gay. Bush is allowed to invade Iraq, because they threatened his Daddy. Except abortion, no one is allowed to have an abortion, unless they are a man!

Republican Favoritism in Alabama

The filing deadline in Alabama was August 31, but the Republicans hadn’t filed George W Bush’s name, because officially he wasn’t their candidate until Sept. 1. Go figure! But it looks like Alabama is going to break the rule just this once...

You run into all kinds of problems when you delay your convention to get the 9/11 sympathy vote in NYC.

The Terminator Has Lost My Respect

I used to think that Arnie had a good head on his shoulders, but he wasn’t very truthful in his speech yesterday, so I’d like to go over some points.

He said, “As a kid I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left.”

But Austria was never a socialist country. This is an exaggeration at best.

He said, “I finally arrived here in 1968. I had empty pockets, but I was full of dreams.”

But, he was actually here in the US illegally. He had a visa that would let him come to the US, but not work. However, he already had a job that was arranged before he came to the US. His pockets weren’t quite empty.

He said, “If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...then you are a Republican!”

This is strange, seeing that Dick Cheney doesn’t seem to think that it is important to disclose what he was doing meeting with the leaders of Big Energy. He doesn’t even want to disclose who was at that meeting. So, Arnie doesn’t think that Dick is a Republican, I’m guessing.

He said, “If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group... then you are a Republican!”

But, now Arnie is taking contribution from pharmaceutical companies because of a bill on his desk that will allow patients to buy drugs from Canada. Pharmaceutical companies are special interests, aren’t they? Not to mention Dick’s dealing with the Oil companies and Haliburton....

He said, “If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican!”

But Bush only gave half of the money he promised to “No Child Left Behind”

He said,” If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican!”

So, why is George W Bush crawling on his knees to get UN support now?

He said, “There is another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people ... and faith in the U.S. economy.”

So, why did he impose tariffs on the importation of steel in 2002 when he was trying to win seats in congress? This isn’t consistent is it?

I guess that at a convention you can just say what ever you want, because no one is going to ask you to explain what you say.

Consequences of George W Bush Being Re-Elected

I think that it is quite obvious that there are short term and long term effects of everything. If George W Bush is re-elected president, the short term effects will be the increase in the poor and homeless, the further restrictions of our freedoms and the increase in the power of the Fundamentalist Christian Religion. However, the long term effect of this event may actually be a positive one. By having this person in office many non-voters will be asking themselves how could this have happened? They may actually decide to vote in the 2006 or 2008 elections.

Even more important though could be the impetus for a new cultural revolution. With George W Bush in office again many people will feel the need to rebel against the tyranny of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. No one knows in what form this rebellion will take, but it is sure to continue the legacy of previous rebellion movements. When prohibition was the law, the rebellion was the roaring 20s. When the 1950s brought that era of conservatism the rebellion was the civil rights, anti-war, free love protests of the 1960s. So, when conservatism rears its ugly head the long term effect will be a rebellion to counter it.