“Obama is better when he uses his wings rather then his feet”! Jessie Jackson offered on one of the political talk shows yesterday. I think that Jackson’s metaphor also says plenty about what Obama must do at this point in the campaign to have any hope of winning the Democratic nomination.
Obama’s predicament is that he only lower himself in stature and perception when he attempts to get down in the dirt and fight the two-headed dragon that Hillary and Bill Clinton represent. Entire libraries of books and commentaries have been written about the especially insidious skill of the Clintons when it comes to destroying their political opponents. This is why right or wrong they are so vilified by the right and mistrusted by those of us who now seek a NEW political paradigm and narrative for America.
I believe that Obama and Hillary Clinton are basically the same when it comes down the major political issues of the day, all the hair splitting by the Clintons and Obama aside. This is why the real choice is really about integrity, character, leadership, vision and who really offers the change everyone is apparently seeking.
If Obama is to have any chance he must continue to take the high road with his idealistic message of hope and change. He must continue to offer the outline for a new coalition of voters made up of Democrats, independents, the young, minorities and disenchanted Republicans.
As Obama often says, “There are no blue states or red states only the United States.”
Obama should take his message to an even higher level of idealistic political discourse that’s far above the run of the mill Clinton message below. The Clintons are not capable of competing at this idealistic political altitude, they just play like they do on TV. They’d rather make Obama respond to the exaggerations and outright fabrications being made against him down in the dirt. When they do this successfully they frame him as just another politician. Which is exactly what the Clintons embody and is the turf on which they can compete and probably eliminate Obama.
If they are successful in bringing Obama and his message down to their level the Clintons will win the nomination.
The Clintons represent the contemporary democratic machine politics at it’s best and Obama is not on a level playing field. Bill and Hillary are a political team par excellence and have been planning their political dynasty in one form or the other since they first met in law school. I think that this is why Hillary appears so upset with Obama.
How dare Obama even challenge her birthright and ascendancy to the office of the president of the United States at this time? Hillary arrogantly emanates the belief that it’s her turn to be president in every facial expression and thing she does. The Clintons are very much joined at the brain when it comes to polities. It certainly should makes one think what that premise represents if Hillary actually becomes president. Who will really be running the show?
What is Obama to do now?
Obama must attack the institutional nuance politics, including the subtle use of race, (re: slum lords, drug use) in which the Clintons and the right often wallow. He must explain in idealistic terms how this damages everyone of us. The Clintons would love to reduce Obama to another Jessie Jackson black candidate. Not the generational and racially transcendent person that he actually represents.
Obama must attack the general acceptance of lying if it’s necessary in the name of getting elected that the Clintons represent and refuse to participate in it himself. He must emphasis and condemn the use of a divisive narrative that the Clinton’s phony patronizing and pandering represents and for which the Clintons are the model.
Obama must admit that really he would agree with Hillary on most issues and is really offering a new alternative movement away from the divisive nature of the Clintonian school of Democratic Party establishment divisive and ineffective political history and discourse.
He must emphasis his ability to think big, differently, outside the acceptable boundaries and political norms. He must put his dreams into words and programs that will make them a set of ideals that America can work to make a new reality. He must continue to clarify his vision of a new broad political coalition for the future.
He must continue to show us the way to the new day and a generational changing of the American political landscape.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
Who Really Is Running For President Bill or Hillary Clinton?
Nobody is surprised that Bill Clinton is campaigning for his wife. But the problem with Bill Clinton is that most of the time what he says about Barak Obama is exaggerated, taken out of context or completely false.
His attacks on Obama demonstrate very clearly the divisive nature of the Clinton long used practice of the Southern style of good old boy political attacks. Where getting elected is the ultimate goal not necessarily telling the truth when attacking your opponent. The attacks are done in a way where Hillary can deny the collusion completely, call it unfortunate, or just claim ignorance.
"Im not making this up" is the tag line that Clinton likes to use to end an attack du jours on Obama. The problem is that he is usually the one making it all up as he goes. Whether it's an out of context attack on Obama because of his observation on Ronald Reagan, the big fuss Bill made about the caucus voter suppression operations by certain labor unions in Nevada, the MLK controversy, teen drug use, (with it's racial stereotyping), electing Obama would be "rolling the dice" or the big fairy tale comment misrepresenting Obama's record on the Iraq war that he made before the New Hampshire primary.
Most of these statements by Bill were made so late in the particular campaign that it was impossible for the Obama camp to refute them before the actual voting took place. After the election when the damage has been done the accusations are discredited in the press.
The other question that should be asked is who are we really voting for Hillary or Bill? I guess if you want Bill to have a third term your not to concerned about it.
Hillary let's her candidacy be demeaned by letting the potential first husband Bill do all the heavy lifting. Is she really up to being the first woman president or is she too weak to do her own political dirty work in defense of her own political positions? It also raises the question about what role Bill will actually play in a Hillary white house. Will she be able to control him or is he really going to be the shadow president?
His attacks on Obama demonstrate very clearly the divisive nature of the Clinton long used practice of the Southern style of good old boy political attacks. Where getting elected is the ultimate goal not necessarily telling the truth when attacking your opponent. The attacks are done in a way where Hillary can deny the collusion completely, call it unfortunate, or just claim ignorance.
"Im not making this up" is the tag line that Clinton likes to use to end an attack du jours on Obama. The problem is that he is usually the one making it all up as he goes. Whether it's an out of context attack on Obama because of his observation on Ronald Reagan, the big fuss Bill made about the caucus voter suppression operations by certain labor unions in Nevada, the MLK controversy, teen drug use, (with it's racial stereotyping), electing Obama would be "rolling the dice" or the big fairy tale comment misrepresenting Obama's record on the Iraq war that he made before the New Hampshire primary.
Most of these statements by Bill were made so late in the particular campaign that it was impossible for the Obama camp to refute them before the actual voting took place. After the election when the damage has been done the accusations are discredited in the press.
The other question that should be asked is who are we really voting for Hillary or Bill? I guess if you want Bill to have a third term your not to concerned about it.
Hillary let's her candidacy be demeaned by letting the potential first husband Bill do all the heavy lifting. Is she really up to being the first woman president or is she too weak to do her own political dirty work in defense of her own political positions? It also raises the question about what role Bill will actually play in a Hillary white house. Will she be able to control him or is he really going to be the shadow president?
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Recording Of Nevada Robo Calls Targeting Obama
The Obama camp just released a recording of the call, and says it has received "numerous" reports of it from recipients. We have not been able to independently confirm the call or its origins. Give it a listen:
via: TPM
via: TPM
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Progressives Intransigent and Hypocritical About Change?
Maybe it’s time we took a long look in the mirror.
When it comes to real political change many progressives are often extremely intransigent. This often makes them appear cynical and hypocritical to independents and moderates and to younger voters. If you asked a progressive or liberal, about this apparent dichotomy they would probably deny it even exist. Liberals tend to consider themselves open-minded, creative, better educated, more intelligent and cutting edge when their core beliefs are compared to those of their conservative brethren.
This is why so many artists and creative types are often more likely to be liberal then conservative, or tend to be more left leaning then right. It a important part of their creative comfort zone.
Change is good then isn't it?
Apparently change is not good with this crowd. Progressives with superior self-images can be easily spotted. The left wing truth squads. Changing voters one bumper sticker at a time. Change is our mantra. Look at the back end of the vehicles they drive. These are cars with all the high-minded morally superior bumper sticker messages. Frankly they often drive me batty. So much for a waste of free speech.
I’m a teacher and I vote. Godless Liberal. I think therefore I am liberal. Keep your theology off my biology. And my personal favorite, Warning: Driving causes air pollution, global warming, road, sprawl, loss of habitat, traffic jams, accidents, malls and is linked to resource wars. Whew! Perhaps nobody really cares what your political positions are during the middle of rush hour.
My case in point about change is Clinton versus Obama. You'd have to admit something old and something brand new.
Hillary represents the party establishment and old school politics. She also represents to a greater extent the political battles of the sixties. The biggies like civil rights, the feminist movement, abortion rights, and the environmental movement. She also represents Bill Clinton’s baggage and it’s divisive style of centrist politics. This is why she remain so controversial with many voters.
Obama represents an attempt to build a new left wing coalition. One made up of the young voters, moderates, minorities, Democrats tired of an ineffective party, independents, and dissatisfied Republicans. Obama offers A NEW DIRECTION FOR LIBERAL AMERICAN POLITICS.
Why are many progressives so opposed to this obvious change for the better? Either you are for change or not or open to trying new ideas or not. As many of us claim to be.
Often you hear so called progressives employing the usual democratic establishment talking points and positions when arguing for Clinton. You also hear the underlying and subtle FEAR of change based on the big bad boogieman out there in the world going to get us in these anti Obama arguments. The argument goes like this. Hillary is more experienced and therefore will be better prepared to deal with terrorists on day one. This is the same argument she is putting out there and then conveniently denies when accused of using fear to get votes. Liberals have quickly blamed the right whenever they used fear to gain political support. Apparently many progressives don’t see that they are letting fear rule them when it comes to their choice of a Democratic standard bearer.
You got to get past the fear folks.
I simply don’t see it as a viable argument when you are trying to compare Obama against Clinton on the issue of who can better provide for our security. Both are equally competent. This is a straw horse argument. As are many others about experience versus change. It should be more about judgment and character.
So we have progressives who talk about being open to change and when it comes down to it are really not for change. We have the same people saying we shouldn’t be ruled by fear and using fear to justify their support for the status quo.
Isn’t it time we started to practice what we preach, embrace real change reject fear, and move the political system forward into a brand new future?
When it comes to real political change many progressives are often extremely intransigent. This often makes them appear cynical and hypocritical to independents and moderates and to younger voters. If you asked a progressive or liberal, about this apparent dichotomy they would probably deny it even exist. Liberals tend to consider themselves open-minded, creative, better educated, more intelligent and cutting edge when their core beliefs are compared to those of their conservative brethren.
This is why so many artists and creative types are often more likely to be liberal then conservative, or tend to be more left leaning then right. It a important part of their creative comfort zone.
Change is good then isn't it?
Apparently change is not good with this crowd. Progressives with superior self-images can be easily spotted. The left wing truth squads. Changing voters one bumper sticker at a time. Change is our mantra. Look at the back end of the vehicles they drive. These are cars with all the high-minded morally superior bumper sticker messages. Frankly they often drive me batty. So much for a waste of free speech.
I’m a teacher and I vote. Godless Liberal. I think therefore I am liberal. Keep your theology off my biology. And my personal favorite, Warning: Driving causes air pollution, global warming, road, sprawl, loss of habitat, traffic jams, accidents, malls and is linked to resource wars. Whew! Perhaps nobody really cares what your political positions are during the middle of rush hour.
My case in point about change is Clinton versus Obama. You'd have to admit something old and something brand new.
Hillary represents the party establishment and old school politics. She also represents to a greater extent the political battles of the sixties. The biggies like civil rights, the feminist movement, abortion rights, and the environmental movement. She also represents Bill Clinton’s baggage and it’s divisive style of centrist politics. This is why she remain so controversial with many voters.
Obama represents an attempt to build a new left wing coalition. One made up of the young voters, moderates, minorities, Democrats tired of an ineffective party, independents, and dissatisfied Republicans. Obama offers A NEW DIRECTION FOR LIBERAL AMERICAN POLITICS.
Why are many progressives so opposed to this obvious change for the better? Either you are for change or not or open to trying new ideas or not. As many of us claim to be.
Often you hear so called progressives employing the usual democratic establishment talking points and positions when arguing for Clinton. You also hear the underlying and subtle FEAR of change based on the big bad boogieman out there in the world going to get us in these anti Obama arguments. The argument goes like this. Hillary is more experienced and therefore will be better prepared to deal with terrorists on day one. This is the same argument she is putting out there and then conveniently denies when accused of using fear to get votes. Liberals have quickly blamed the right whenever they used fear to gain political support. Apparently many progressives don’t see that they are letting fear rule them when it comes to their choice of a Democratic standard bearer.
You got to get past the fear folks.
I simply don’t see it as a viable argument when you are trying to compare Obama against Clinton on the issue of who can better provide for our security. Both are equally competent. This is a straw horse argument. As are many others about experience versus change. It should be more about judgment and character.
So we have progressives who talk about being open to change and when it comes down to it are really not for change. We have the same people saying we shouldn’t be ruled by fear and using fear to justify their support for the status quo.
Isn’t it time we started to practice what we preach, embrace real change reject fear, and move the political system forward into a brand new future?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The World Thinks About The Possibility Of A President Obama
"Disgraced today throughout the four corners of the globe, America would in a single leap resume its lost grace, its capacity to inspire the imagination, that combination of myth and reality that makes it the country of all possibilities – the democracy par excellence that has such power of seduction and likeability, despite all of its gaping flaws."
The complete translation of the article that appeared in Liberation France can be found here at Worldmeet.US.
For Gods Sake Don’t Discuss Real Issues Chris Matthews Hillary Love In Maddow Saves The Day
The Nevada Democratic debate seemed to me to be one of the more intelligent debates held yet between the remaining candidates. Even if Tim Russert main goal was to turn the debate into a political version of the Jerry Springer Show by asking several loaded questions about how the candidates felt about their race and gender.
The initial questioning proved that most of these nitwit so called news commentators are more interested in conflict based personal attack politics and the ratings they think that will bring them then any real debate on the issues.
The debate then proceeded to an impressive discussion of the candidate’s positions on major issues. What immediately became apparent is that the candidates differ little. Whether it be healthcare, Iraq, the economy, national security, veterans, etc..
Their proposed personal style of leadership was what really was on display for me during this debate. As far as winners and losers the outcome appears to comes down to who do you trust to be the best qualified to inspired and lead the country in a new direction. I preferred Obama’s "Sidney Poitier" intelligent higher ground new direction approach to Hillary’s rather status quo establishment ready on day one rhetoric. But that’s my take.
One thing I saw in this debate is that I think Obama is really ready to be the leader we need on day one. I think he showcased his intelligence, spontaneous nature and his outstanding grasp of the issues extremely well. It eliminated most of my fear that he wouldn't be able to hold his own against a tough Republican challenger. This guy is good and I think will get even stronger if he actually wins the nomination.
After the debate per the usual format Chris Matthews and the rest of the regular MSNBC talking heads and experts discussed the debates supposed outcome at nausea. Matthews who has been under a massive attack lately from all angles for his misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton seemed to be offering a make up call for her by going on endlessly about how she looked so regal and presidential and had reestablished herself as the front runner once again. To Matthews she was shrewd and in control. Something I didn’t see. I saw a competent Hillary in the style of the Hillary we all know and love. It’s a wonder that steam doesn’t come out her ears because of the speed you know that brain is going trying to triangulate things.
Later on one of my favorites Keith Olbermann was disappointing when he complained that the debate seemed a bit too “wonky”. Much of the discussion about the debate by the assembled was along the lines that the debate was not very entertaining because the participants had been too civil towards each other and for some unknown reason refused to let the debate degenerate into a race or gender battle royal. How boring! Can your imaging candidates being civil and debating actual issues.
Air America’s Rachel Maddow help damper down Matthews Hillary “love fest and I feel good all over" performance by making a few points about how she thought that Obama and John Edwards had in fact held their ground against Clinton.
Perhaps Obama had even done better than Matthews thought was her observation. Thank god she was there. In another demonstration of how the Republicans would prefer to face Hillary Pat Buchanan started to echo Matthews praise of Clinton’s performance. But Maddow once again countered that she thought Obama had certainly held his own. Next thing Buchanan goes off on a tangent about how anyone of the Republican candidates would “eat Obama for breakfast in the general”. Maddow demanded that Buchanan name one. They quickly went to station break leaving Buchanan in full stammer.
The initial questioning proved that most of these nitwit so called news commentators are more interested in conflict based personal attack politics and the ratings they think that will bring them then any real debate on the issues.
The debate then proceeded to an impressive discussion of the candidate’s positions on major issues. What immediately became apparent is that the candidates differ little. Whether it be healthcare, Iraq, the economy, national security, veterans, etc..
Their proposed personal style of leadership was what really was on display for me during this debate. As far as winners and losers the outcome appears to comes down to who do you trust to be the best qualified to inspired and lead the country in a new direction. I preferred Obama’s "Sidney Poitier" intelligent higher ground new direction approach to Hillary’s rather status quo establishment ready on day one rhetoric. But that’s my take.
One thing I saw in this debate is that I think Obama is really ready to be the leader we need on day one. I think he showcased his intelligence, spontaneous nature and his outstanding grasp of the issues extremely well. It eliminated most of my fear that he wouldn't be able to hold his own against a tough Republican challenger. This guy is good and I think will get even stronger if he actually wins the nomination.
After the debate per the usual format Chris Matthews and the rest of the regular MSNBC talking heads and experts discussed the debates supposed outcome at nausea. Matthews who has been under a massive attack lately from all angles for his misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton seemed to be offering a make up call for her by going on endlessly about how she looked so regal and presidential and had reestablished herself as the front runner once again. To Matthews she was shrewd and in control. Something I didn’t see. I saw a competent Hillary in the style of the Hillary we all know and love. It’s a wonder that steam doesn’t come out her ears because of the speed you know that brain is going trying to triangulate things.
Later on one of my favorites Keith Olbermann was disappointing when he complained that the debate seemed a bit too “wonky”. Much of the discussion about the debate by the assembled was along the lines that the debate was not very entertaining because the participants had been too civil towards each other and for some unknown reason refused to let the debate degenerate into a race or gender battle royal. How boring! Can your imaging candidates being civil and debating actual issues.
Air America’s Rachel Maddow help damper down Matthews Hillary “love fest and I feel good all over" performance by making a few points about how she thought that Obama and John Edwards had in fact held their ground against Clinton.
Perhaps Obama had even done better than Matthews thought was her observation. Thank god she was there. In another demonstration of how the Republicans would prefer to face Hillary Pat Buchanan started to echo Matthews praise of Clinton’s performance. But Maddow once again countered that she thought Obama had certainly held his own. Next thing Buchanan goes off on a tangent about how anyone of the Republican candidates would “eat Obama for breakfast in the general”. Maddow demanded that Buchanan name one. They quickly went to station break leaving Buchanan in full stammer.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Clintons Channel Carl Rove
In his book “The Way To Win” Carl Rove says that Bill Clinton came up to him at the dedication of his Presidential Library and told Rove, "Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did," So in the kindred and warped world of the Southern personal anything goes in order to win dog-whistle attack politics Clinton was in effect acknowledging to his fellow good old boy his admiration of his political genius. At the same time in public Clinton regularly attacked Rove for using this form of politics because of it's divisiveness and personal destruction of your political opponents.
Liars, hypocrites!
In light of the shenanigans of the Clinton Campaign in the last few days I think the above account says worlds about Hillary and Bill today. I think that there is no doubt that they have adopted this style of gutter campaigning and character assassination that is Rove’s trademark, used so effectively to destroy his political opponents.
I acknowledge that politics is a full contact sport. I also realize that there are many in the Democratic Party who actually want the party to co-opt Rove's Republican election tactics if it means wining elections.
But is such a move ethical or would we just be selling our souls to the devil?
Barak Obama has identified as a positive campaign issue the appeal of a candidate who offers a change from this type of divisive political discourse. He has based much of his campaign on the theme of change and breaking from the past. He’s offering a new kind of politics and an end to the era of Bush Clinton Bush Clinton political sickness. He is certainly not without fault, but he offers something promising, bright and above all new.
The most notable Rove tactic was one of planting unsubstantiated accusations, categorizations or smears of the opponent in the press or in the public sector. Often surrogates or political operatives were used, but some were simply started by rumor, or by using some other anonymous source. One of the most well known being the smearing of the Democratic Governor of Texas Ann Richards who opposed George W Bush for re-election. Richards a progressive, who was unmarried, had appointed several gays and lesbians to different state positions. Rove started rumors that Richards was a lesbian. The accusations put her on the defensive much of the time and unfortunately stuck and led to Richards losing enough bigoted independent votes to swing the election to Bush and Rove was crowned the boy genius.
The candidate caught in these Rove style attacks ends up defending themselves or denying the rumors or smears instead of talking about the real issues of the campaign. The rumors are given legitimacy when repeated in the press or otherwise widely reported. Meanwhile the campaign that is behind the smear response is that they know nothing about the source of the rumors or that they find them "unfortunate". They emphasize that they are simply trying to run a issues oriented campaign.
Does this all sound familiar?
In the Rove method of good old boy power politics winning is everything. It transcends party and even the common good. This needs to stop now. This is why this country so badly needs a new political narrative that shouldn’t include anyone named Bush, Clinton or Rove.
Liars, hypocrites!
In light of the shenanigans of the Clinton Campaign in the last few days I think the above account says worlds about Hillary and Bill today. I think that there is no doubt that they have adopted this style of gutter campaigning and character assassination that is Rove’s trademark, used so effectively to destroy his political opponents.
I acknowledge that politics is a full contact sport. I also realize that there are many in the Democratic Party who actually want the party to co-opt Rove's Republican election tactics if it means wining elections.
But is such a move ethical or would we just be selling our souls to the devil?
Barak Obama has identified as a positive campaign issue the appeal of a candidate who offers a change from this type of divisive political discourse. He has based much of his campaign on the theme of change and breaking from the past. He’s offering a new kind of politics and an end to the era of Bush Clinton Bush Clinton political sickness. He is certainly not without fault, but he offers something promising, bright and above all new.
dog-whistle politics n. a concealed, coded, or unstated idea, usually divisive or politically dangerous, nevertheless understood by the intended voters. Also dog whistle issue.
The most notable Rove tactic was one of planting unsubstantiated accusations, categorizations or smears of the opponent in the press or in the public sector. Often surrogates or political operatives were used, but some were simply started by rumor, or by using some other anonymous source. One of the most well known being the smearing of the Democratic Governor of Texas Ann Richards who opposed George W Bush for re-election. Richards a progressive, who was unmarried, had appointed several gays and lesbians to different state positions. Rove started rumors that Richards was a lesbian. The accusations put her on the defensive much of the time and unfortunately stuck and led to Richards losing enough bigoted independent votes to swing the election to Bush and Rove was crowned the boy genius.
"Even Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, seems to agree, effectively vowing to run her operation much as Rove did his two successful national campaigns. "She expresses admiration for the way George W. Bush's campaign team controlled its message, and, given her druthers, would run this race no differently," Michelle Cottle writes in New York magazine. "'We are a very disciplined group, and I am very proud of it,' she says with a defiant edge."
The candidate caught in these Rove style attacks ends up defending themselves or denying the rumors or smears instead of talking about the real issues of the campaign. The rumors are given legitimacy when repeated in the press or otherwise widely reported. Meanwhile the campaign that is behind the smear response is that they know nothing about the source of the rumors or that they find them "unfortunate". They emphasize that they are simply trying to run a issues oriented campaign.
Does this all sound familiar?
In the Rove method of good old boy power politics winning is everything. It transcends party and even the common good. This needs to stop now. This is why this country so badly needs a new political narrative that shouldn’t include anyone named Bush, Clinton or Rove.
Monday, January 14, 2008
What The Muslim World Really Hears When Bush Lectures Them About Democracy
Text of President Bush’s speech in the United Arab Emirates
January 13, 2008
PRESIDENT BUSH: Doctor Aida, thank you very much for the kind introduction. Ministers, members of the diplomatic corps, and distinguished guests: I am honored by the opportunity to stand on Arab soil and speak to the people of this nation and this region.
He speaks prominently about the oligarchy and royal ruling families of the Middle East who hold power over the people through control of their countries military and oil reserves. Woman are subjugated and others beaten and hanged by these tyrants for no more than minor violations of social or religious based laws.
Throughout the sweep of history, the lands that the Arab people call home have played a pivotal role in world affairs. These lands sit at the juncture of three great continents _ Europe and Asia and Africa. These lands have given birth to three of the world’s major religions. These lands have seen the rise and fall of great civilizations. And in the 21st century, these lands are once again playing a central role in the human story.
A great new era is unfolding before us. This new era is founded on the equality of all people before God. This new era is being built with the understanding that power is a trust that must be exercised with the consent of the governed _ and deliver equal justice under the law.
With two of the elections to office of George W Bush legality still very much in question this claim is at best disingenuous. Bush should ask the prisoners held at Guantanamo what they think of America’s equal justice or why he has illegally eased dropped on millions of Americans communications or when he will restore habeas corpus. All these violations directly opposing the rule of law and the country's constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties.
And this new era offers hope for the millions across the Middle East who yearn for a future of peace and progress and opportunity.
Free of American bombs, armies of occupation and plundering of their natural resources.
Here in Abu Dhabi, we see clearly the outlines of this future. Beginning with the revered father of this country _ Sheikh Zayed _ you have succeeded in building a prosperous society out of the desert. You have opened your doors to the world economy. You have encouraged women to contribute to the development of your nation _ and they have occupied some of your highest ministerial posts. You have held historic elections for the Federal National Council. You have shown the world a model of a Muslim state that is tolerant toward people of other faiths. I’m proud to stand in a nation where the people have an opportunity to build a better future for themselves and their families. Thank you for your warm hospitality.
In my country, we speak of these developments as the advance of freedom. Others may call it the advance of justice. Yet whatever term we use, the ideal is the same. In a free and just society, every person is treated with dignity. In a free and just society, leaders are accountable to those they govern. And in a free and just society, individuals can rise as far as their talents and hard work will take them.
Only the most conservative jingoists in the United States would currently speak in such terms. No one believes that freedom has march a inch since Bush’s started his ill-fated preemptive war with Iraq. He has managed to destabilize most of the middle east including Pakistan and through his preoccupation with Iraq he has place progress made in Afghanistan in jeopardy.
For decades, the people of this region saw their desire for liberty and justice denied at home and dismissed abroad in the name of stability. Today your aspirations are threatened by violent extremists who murder the innocent in pursuit of power. These extremists have hijacked the noble religion of Islam, and seek to impose their totalitarian ideology on millions. They hate freedom and they hate democracy _ because it fosters religious tolerance and allows people to chart their own future. They hate your government because it does not share their dark vision. They hate the United States because they know we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions. And everywhere they go, they use murder and fear to foment instability to advance their aims.
Violent extremist like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the neocons who hijacked Iraq by fabricating a reason for war while their real goal was to gain control of the vast deposits of oil to fuel America’s gluttony for petroleum and reward their oil industry friends.
Bush and Cheney used America’s military to bomb and dismember the country of Iraq without any real plan to rebuild it after doing so. In the process they have killed or displaced hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The surviving families of Iraqis who have suffered during the Bush administration debacle will hold America in contempt for generations.
One cause of instability is the extremists supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran is today the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world _ while its own people face repression and economic hardship at home. It undermines Lebanese hopes for peace by arming and aiding the terrorist group Hezbollah. It subverts the hopes for peace in other parts of the region by funding terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. It sends arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan and Shia militants in Iraq. It seeks to intimidate its neighbors with ballistic missiles and bellicose rhetoric. And finally, it defies the United Nations and destabilizes the region by refusing to be open and transparent about its nuclear programs and ambitions. Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. So the United States is strengthening our longstanding security commitments with our friends in the Gulf _ and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.
Cut off and demonized by Bush the Iranians have become more aggressive towards us. Our unfair and unbalanced support of Israel has blocked any just or fair middle east policy concerning the formation of a Palestinian State. This has created a breeding ground for the growth of radical groups like Hezbollah. Al Quaeda in Iraq was a byproduct of Bush's war. The destabilizing of the country creating a political vacuum there which radical and violent groups like al Quaeda were more than happy to fill.
The other major cause of instability is the extremists embodied by al Qaeda and its affiliates. On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda murdered nearly 3,000 people on America’s home soil. Some of the victims that day were innocent Muslims. And since then, al Qaeda and its allies have killed many more Muslims here in the Middle East _ including women and children. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, on Iraq’s Anbar Province, they ruled by intimidation and murder. Their goal is to impose that same dark rule across the Middle East. So they seek to topple your governments, acquire weapons of mass destruction, and drive a wedge between the people of the United States and the people of the Middle East. And they will fail. The United States joins you in your commitment to the freedom and security of this region _ and we will not abandon you to terrorists or extremists.
Bush fails to see, as do most narrow minded Americans, that although al Queda can never be justified for attacking the US, we sowed many of the seeds through our own ill advised foreign entanglements going back for years. These misguided interferences in the internal affairs of other nations eventually manifested itself as blowback in the attacks of 9/11.
How many innocent children has been killed as collateral damage by American forces with our bombs and bullets. If you kill someone by crashing a plane into a building is it any different that dropping a bomb on someone’s home in Bagdad during “shock and awe”? Is it okay for us to blow up innocent civilians numbering in the hundreds of thousands and argue somehow that it is acceptable simply because we are righteous America?. Both sides in the argument are equally to blame for the use of terror as a weapon.
The fight against the forces of extremism is the great ideological struggle of our time. And in this fight, our nations have a weapon more powerful than bombs or bullets. It is the desire for freedom and justice written into our hearts by Almighty God _ and no terrorist or tyrant can take that away. We see this desire in the 12 million Iraqis who dipped their fingers in purple ink as they voted in defiance of al Qaeda. We see the desire in the Palestinians who elected a President committed to peace and reconciliation. We see this desire in the thousands of Lebanese whose protests helped rid their country of a foreign occupier. And we see this desire in the brave dissidents and journalists who speak out against terror and oppression and injustice. We see this desire in the ordinary people across the Middle East, who are sick of violence, who are sick of corruption, sick of empty promises _ and who choose a free future whenever they are given a chance.
Sure Iraqis voted in great numbers but after years of war they have little progress to show for their efforts. Sectarian violence still is a daily issue. A broken government still is the trademark of Bush’s form of American imposed Iraqi democracy. Al Queda only exists in Iraq today because Bush created the conditions for it to thrive with his delusional rightwing Christian driven philosopical war.
This statement is at the heart of the Bush fantasy. If the idea of liberty is more powerful then bombs and bullets why does Bush use only bombs and bullets to force his ideals down the throats of other nations and cultures instead of an America that could be the moral beacon of the world that others look to for moral leadership and as an example to emulate.
God knows that US citizens are especially sick of the widespread corruption and incompetence that has become a metaphor for the US government under the leadership of George Bush and Dick Cheney. How dare he tell other nations how they must live or be governed. Isn't this just more American hypocrisy?
January 13, 2008
PRESIDENT BUSH: Doctor Aida, thank you very much for the kind introduction. Ministers, members of the diplomatic corps, and distinguished guests: I am honored by the opportunity to stand on Arab soil and speak to the people of this nation and this region.
He speaks prominently about the oligarchy and royal ruling families of the Middle East who hold power over the people through control of their countries military and oil reserves. Woman are subjugated and others beaten and hanged by these tyrants for no more than minor violations of social or religious based laws.
Throughout the sweep of history, the lands that the Arab people call home have played a pivotal role in world affairs. These lands sit at the juncture of three great continents _ Europe and Asia and Africa. These lands have given birth to three of the world’s major religions. These lands have seen the rise and fall of great civilizations. And in the 21st century, these lands are once again playing a central role in the human story.
A great new era is unfolding before us. This new era is founded on the equality of all people before God. This new era is being built with the understanding that power is a trust that must be exercised with the consent of the governed _ and deliver equal justice under the law.
With two of the elections to office of George W Bush legality still very much in question this claim is at best disingenuous. Bush should ask the prisoners held at Guantanamo what they think of America’s equal justice or why he has illegally eased dropped on millions of Americans communications or when he will restore habeas corpus. All these violations directly opposing the rule of law and the country's constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties.
And this new era offers hope for the millions across the Middle East who yearn for a future of peace and progress and opportunity.
Free of American bombs, armies of occupation and plundering of their natural resources.
Here in Abu Dhabi, we see clearly the outlines of this future. Beginning with the revered father of this country _ Sheikh Zayed _ you have succeeded in building a prosperous society out of the desert. You have opened your doors to the world economy. You have encouraged women to contribute to the development of your nation _ and they have occupied some of your highest ministerial posts. You have held historic elections for the Federal National Council. You have shown the world a model of a Muslim state that is tolerant toward people of other faiths. I’m proud to stand in a nation where the people have an opportunity to build a better future for themselves and their families. Thank you for your warm hospitality.
In my country, we speak of these developments as the advance of freedom. Others may call it the advance of justice. Yet whatever term we use, the ideal is the same. In a free and just society, every person is treated with dignity. In a free and just society, leaders are accountable to those they govern. And in a free and just society, individuals can rise as far as their talents and hard work will take them.
Only the most conservative jingoists in the United States would currently speak in such terms. No one believes that freedom has march a inch since Bush’s started his ill-fated preemptive war with Iraq. He has managed to destabilize most of the middle east including Pakistan and through his preoccupation with Iraq he has place progress made in Afghanistan in jeopardy.
For decades, the people of this region saw their desire for liberty and justice denied at home and dismissed abroad in the name of stability. Today your aspirations are threatened by violent extremists who murder the innocent in pursuit of power. These extremists have hijacked the noble religion of Islam, and seek to impose their totalitarian ideology on millions. They hate freedom and they hate democracy _ because it fosters religious tolerance and allows people to chart their own future. They hate your government because it does not share their dark vision. They hate the United States because they know we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions. And everywhere they go, they use murder and fear to foment instability to advance their aims.
Violent extremist like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the neocons who hijacked Iraq by fabricating a reason for war while their real goal was to gain control of the vast deposits of oil to fuel America’s gluttony for petroleum and reward their oil industry friends.
Bush and Cheney used America’s military to bomb and dismember the country of Iraq without any real plan to rebuild it after doing so. In the process they have killed or displaced hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The surviving families of Iraqis who have suffered during the Bush administration debacle will hold America in contempt for generations.
One cause of instability is the extremists supported and embodied by the regime that sits in Tehran. Iran is today the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world _ while its own people face repression and economic hardship at home. It undermines Lebanese hopes for peace by arming and aiding the terrorist group Hezbollah. It subverts the hopes for peace in other parts of the region by funding terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. It sends arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan and Shia militants in Iraq. It seeks to intimidate its neighbors with ballistic missiles and bellicose rhetoric. And finally, it defies the United Nations and destabilizes the region by refusing to be open and transparent about its nuclear programs and ambitions. Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. So the United States is strengthening our longstanding security commitments with our friends in the Gulf _ and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.
Cut off and demonized by Bush the Iranians have become more aggressive towards us. Our unfair and unbalanced support of Israel has blocked any just or fair middle east policy concerning the formation of a Palestinian State. This has created a breeding ground for the growth of radical groups like Hezbollah. Al Quaeda in Iraq was a byproduct of Bush's war. The destabilizing of the country creating a political vacuum there which radical and violent groups like al Quaeda were more than happy to fill.
The other major cause of instability is the extremists embodied by al Qaeda and its affiliates. On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda murdered nearly 3,000 people on America’s home soil. Some of the victims that day were innocent Muslims. And since then, al Qaeda and its allies have killed many more Muslims here in the Middle East _ including women and children. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, on Iraq’s Anbar Province, they ruled by intimidation and murder. Their goal is to impose that same dark rule across the Middle East. So they seek to topple your governments, acquire weapons of mass destruction, and drive a wedge between the people of the United States and the people of the Middle East. And they will fail. The United States joins you in your commitment to the freedom and security of this region _ and we will not abandon you to terrorists or extremists.
Bush fails to see, as do most narrow minded Americans, that although al Queda can never be justified for attacking the US, we sowed many of the seeds through our own ill advised foreign entanglements going back for years. These misguided interferences in the internal affairs of other nations eventually manifested itself as blowback in the attacks of 9/11.
How many innocent children has been killed as collateral damage by American forces with our bombs and bullets. If you kill someone by crashing a plane into a building is it any different that dropping a bomb on someone’s home in Bagdad during “shock and awe”? Is it okay for us to blow up innocent civilians numbering in the hundreds of thousands and argue somehow that it is acceptable simply because we are righteous America?. Both sides in the argument are equally to blame for the use of terror as a weapon.
The fight against the forces of extremism is the great ideological struggle of our time. And in this fight, our nations have a weapon more powerful than bombs or bullets. It is the desire for freedom and justice written into our hearts by Almighty God _ and no terrorist or tyrant can take that away. We see this desire in the 12 million Iraqis who dipped their fingers in purple ink as they voted in defiance of al Qaeda. We see the desire in the Palestinians who elected a President committed to peace and reconciliation. We see this desire in the thousands of Lebanese whose protests helped rid their country of a foreign occupier. And we see this desire in the brave dissidents and journalists who speak out against terror and oppression and injustice. We see this desire in the ordinary people across the Middle East, who are sick of violence, who are sick of corruption, sick of empty promises _ and who choose a free future whenever they are given a chance.
Sure Iraqis voted in great numbers but after years of war they have little progress to show for their efforts. Sectarian violence still is a daily issue. A broken government still is the trademark of Bush’s form of American imposed Iraqi democracy. Al Queda only exists in Iraq today because Bush created the conditions for it to thrive with his delusional rightwing Christian driven philosopical war.
This statement is at the heart of the Bush fantasy. If the idea of liberty is more powerful then bombs and bullets why does Bush use only bombs and bullets to force his ideals down the throats of other nations and cultures instead of an America that could be the moral beacon of the world that others look to for moral leadership and as an example to emulate.
God knows that US citizens are especially sick of the widespread corruption and incompetence that has become a metaphor for the US government under the leadership of George Bush and Dick Cheney. How dare he tell other nations how they must live or be governed. Isn't this just more American hypocrisy?
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Clinton Operatives Revert to Republican Tricks With Voter Suppression Effort In Nevada
Don’t Democrats Call This Voter Suppression?
By Joe Gandelman
Isn’t this the kind of thing Democrats (and we’ve done posts on it and decried it) denounce when Republicans do it to keep Democratic voters away from the polls?
Nevada’s state teachers union and six Las Vegas area residents filed a lawsuit late Friday that could make it harder for many members of the state’s huge hotel workers union to vote in the hotly contested Jan. 19 Democratic caucus in Nevada.
This is ANOTHER one of these stories that has a strange coincidence: if you read it, there is a link to supporters of New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Read on:
The 13-page lawsuit in federal district court here comes two days after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Senator Barack Obama, a blow to Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama addressed the Culinary Union at their hall earlier Friday.
The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.
And — here we go again — here’s yet another coincidence. It appears that some of the folks involved support the campaign of New York Senator Hillary Clinton:
The at-large precincts are being established because thousands of hotel workers cannot leave work to participate in the midday caucuses in their home precincts. The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.
“This could shut down those precincts in the casinos and keep culinary members from voting,” said Jon Ralston, a political pundit with The Las Vegas Sun, who broke the story on his blog. Mr. Ralston said it is unclear whether there are ties between the lawsuit and the Clinton campaign but, he predicted, “Even if they’re Hillary supporters, the campaign’s going to say they had nothing to do with it. It is unclear when the court will hear the matter.
FOOTNOTE: I’m an independent voter registered here in CA. I just got my absentee ballot. I can and will vote in the Democratic primary. I want to see elections that are UNFETTERED by coincidences such as:
–The possibility that members of a union that endorsed Obama may not be able to vote or be in any way hampered from voting their choice by a group that has Clinton supporters.
–The unnamed Clinton camp member who suggested to a reporter people who vote for Obama do so because they want a cool black friend but if they vote for Hillary, they’re voting for change. The official should be fired by Ms. Clinton. If a Republican said that to a reporter, he/she would accused of playing the race card.
–Senator Bob Kerrey, saying later he was only trying to compliment Obama, raising repeatedly Obama’s Muslim ties. With friends like these….
–The “shuck and jive” comment later explained as not referring to Obama by New York’s Andrew Cuomo (explained well).
–The attempt to get reporters to write more about Obama’s admitted early drug use. The official resigned, but the story was shoved into the news cycle and even the resignation stories got what the official wanted into the news cycle.
–Comments former President Bill Clinton had to apologize for as he faces a backlash from some blacks. Bill Clinton has an excellent record in terms of the black community. But by raising this and then denying it, the issue of race is again injected into the campaign. Aren’t there enough ISSUES around for Hillary and Barack (and Bill) to discuss? Some wonder if there is an actual racial strategy at play here.
If the Clinton camp was SMART, they will move heaven and earth to ensure that these Nevada voters who want Obama will be allowed to vote.
If not, no matter how it is denied, even if the denial is 100 percent correct, it will be seen by many non-Hillary Democrats as voter suppression. Applying the same standard applied to questions about Republicans, there could be no other conclusion — even if the Clinton camp has proof it is not involved.
All of these events that on the surface smell of old-style, sleazy politics (coincidence or not) are truly a pity. Because Ms. Clinton is coming into her own as a campaigner:
(1) She was on television here in San Diego in a live broadcast from Bonita, about 20 miles from the San Diego-Tijuana border. She truly HAS found her voice. She looks relaxed, telegenic, and now has a way of coming across as someone who is involved in a conversation with voters one-on-one, rather than reading talking points. So her campaign technique and skills are on the scent.
(2) She is winning some admirers, and not just among women. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has praised her, saying some of the things we’ve noted here:
After Clinton’s third-place finish in the Jan. 3 Iowa Democratic caucuses, “it would have been very easy for her to have broken, accepted defeat,” Gingrich said in a weekly podcast e-mailed to supporters.
“Instead, starting on Saturday night, she fought back with greater and greater intensity, and she opened herself up,” Gingrich went on. “She talked as a person, without all the protection, without all the discipline, and she became more and more appealing.”
Gingrich said that shift demonstrated “the courage to learn” and enabled the New York senator to grow “in the space of three or four days to a much more attractive, much more aggressive and much more appealing candidate.”
As a result, he posited, New Hampshire voters who made up their minds at the last minute “were going to Sen. Clinton, were affected by her campaign, by her integrity, by her openness.”
And if you look at the list above, it makes a case for independent voters who truly want to see campaigns waged on the discussion of issues and not peppered with coincidences that on paper seem to fit a pattern decide to cast a vote AGAINST a kind of politics.…rather than a vote FOR or against any particular candidate.
Via: The Moderate Voice
By Joe Gandelman
Isn’t this the kind of thing Democrats (and we’ve done posts on it and decried it) denounce when Republicans do it to keep Democratic voters away from the polls?
Nevada’s state teachers union and six Las Vegas area residents filed a lawsuit late Friday that could make it harder for many members of the state’s huge hotel workers union to vote in the hotly contested Jan. 19 Democratic caucus in Nevada.
This is ANOTHER one of these stories that has a strange coincidence: if you read it, there is a link to supporters of New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Read on:
The 13-page lawsuit in federal district court here comes two days after the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada endorsed Senator Barack Obama, a blow to Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama addressed the Culinary Union at their hall earlier Friday.
The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party’s decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state’s election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.
And — here we go again — here’s yet another coincidence. It appears that some of the folks involved support the campaign of New York Senator Hillary Clinton:
The at-large precincts are being established because thousands of hotel workers cannot leave work to participate in the midday caucuses in their home precincts. The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The association’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, for instance, was a founding member of Senator Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.
“This could shut down those precincts in the casinos and keep culinary members from voting,” said Jon Ralston, a political pundit with The Las Vegas Sun, who broke the story on his blog. Mr. Ralston said it is unclear whether there are ties between the lawsuit and the Clinton campaign but, he predicted, “Even if they’re Hillary supporters, the campaign’s going to say they had nothing to do with it. It is unclear when the court will hear the matter.
FOOTNOTE: I’m an independent voter registered here in CA. I just got my absentee ballot. I can and will vote in the Democratic primary. I want to see elections that are UNFETTERED by coincidences such as:
–The possibility that members of a union that endorsed Obama may not be able to vote or be in any way hampered from voting their choice by a group that has Clinton supporters.
–The unnamed Clinton camp member who suggested to a reporter people who vote for Obama do so because they want a cool black friend but if they vote for Hillary, they’re voting for change. The official should be fired by Ms. Clinton. If a Republican said that to a reporter, he/she would accused of playing the race card.
–Senator Bob Kerrey, saying later he was only trying to compliment Obama, raising repeatedly Obama’s Muslim ties. With friends like these….
–The “shuck and jive” comment later explained as not referring to Obama by New York’s Andrew Cuomo (explained well).
–The attempt to get reporters to write more about Obama’s admitted early drug use. The official resigned, but the story was shoved into the news cycle and even the resignation stories got what the official wanted into the news cycle.
–Comments former President Bill Clinton had to apologize for as he faces a backlash from some blacks. Bill Clinton has an excellent record in terms of the black community. But by raising this and then denying it, the issue of race is again injected into the campaign. Aren’t there enough ISSUES around for Hillary and Barack (and Bill) to discuss? Some wonder if there is an actual racial strategy at play here.
If the Clinton camp was SMART, they will move heaven and earth to ensure that these Nevada voters who want Obama will be allowed to vote.
If not, no matter how it is denied, even if the denial is 100 percent correct, it will be seen by many non-Hillary Democrats as voter suppression. Applying the same standard applied to questions about Republicans, there could be no other conclusion — even if the Clinton camp has proof it is not involved.
All of these events that on the surface smell of old-style, sleazy politics (coincidence or not) are truly a pity. Because Ms. Clinton is coming into her own as a campaigner:
(1) She was on television here in San Diego in a live broadcast from Bonita, about 20 miles from the San Diego-Tijuana border. She truly HAS found her voice. She looks relaxed, telegenic, and now has a way of coming across as someone who is involved in a conversation with voters one-on-one, rather than reading talking points. So her campaign technique and skills are on the scent.
(2) She is winning some admirers, and not just among women. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has praised her, saying some of the things we’ve noted here:
After Clinton’s third-place finish in the Jan. 3 Iowa Democratic caucuses, “it would have been very easy for her to have broken, accepted defeat,” Gingrich said in a weekly podcast e-mailed to supporters.
“Instead, starting on Saturday night, she fought back with greater and greater intensity, and she opened herself up,” Gingrich went on. “She talked as a person, without all the protection, without all the discipline, and she became more and more appealing.”
Gingrich said that shift demonstrated “the courage to learn” and enabled the New York senator to grow “in the space of three or four days to a much more attractive, much more aggressive and much more appealing candidate.”
As a result, he posited, New Hampshire voters who made up their minds at the last minute “were going to Sen. Clinton, were affected by her campaign, by her integrity, by her openness.”
And if you look at the list above, it makes a case for independent voters who truly want to see campaigns waged on the discussion of issues and not peppered with coincidences that on paper seem to fit a pattern decide to cast a vote AGAINST a kind of politics.…rather than a vote FOR or against any particular candidate.
Via: The Moderate Voice
Friday, January 11, 2008
What Europeans Think Of American Race For The Presidency
I talked to a friend in Berlin this morning over the internet. He mentioned that Barak Obama is getting lots of attention in the press along with the American elections in general. Europeans are hopeful that America will be changing for the better in January 2009.
Why Watching A Republican Debate Is Like Being Transported Back to 1860
The Fox News sponsored South Carolina Republican Debate were a real belly laugh. Although it’s becoming increasingly difficult to watch these right wing debates featuring the Neanderthal party, I watched in the spirit of open-mindedness and a love of political theater. Also I'm suffering from Daily Show deprivation.
The Fox News commentators, who are really in love with the sound of their own voices, followed the Fox News modus operandi by offering as many hypothetical softball warmongering wing nut jingoistic questions as possible to the assembled jar heads in the time allowed.
Senator McCain just about blew a carotid artery waiting his turn to answer that last one. Huckabee’s answer ended with a reference to the Iranians last vision being one of the “gates of hell” and Thompson reaction ended with: “I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing.” Both answers were followed by the assembled audience of hillbillies applauding and back slapping and high-fives like they were at a Charlotte Speedway NASCAR infield party.
Ron Paul the court jester of the debate was generally ridiculed by his fellow Republicans. His responses often caused a slack jawed look from his rivals and drew the consternation of Fox’s Bret Hume and the anti Paul supporters in the large audience. The faces of the Fox commentators and the other participants were the highlight of the debate for me running from that of look of extreme constipation to one of someone being goosed whenever Paul responded. Like this answer about the middle East peace process:
The overall impression when watching one of the GOP debates is that these yoyos are stuck in the 1860’s. McCain gets so wound up when talking about why he thinks the surge is working that he sort of does a cartoon character Hulk transformation thing. It would seem to appear to me that McCain
would be the most viable candidate against either Obama or Clinton.
But I also think that if Obama is nominated the contrast between him and McCain will be extremely sharp. Basically Obama's youth, hope and the possibilities versus McCain’s old, curmudgeonly out of date same old shit smoke and mirrors speak . Frankly I don't think that any of the other Republican candidates can beat a Democrat nominee given the steamer trunks of baggage they all seem to carry.
Underlying this of course is the question of whether American voters can overcome their unwarranted and exploited fear of international terrorism and the war in Iraq and be willing to trust a new generation of leaders to protect them with new ideas and approaches to the problem of getting along with other people in the world.
The Fox News commentators, who are really in love with the sound of their own voices, followed the Fox News modus operandi by offering as many hypothetical softball warmongering wing nut jingoistic questions as possible to the assembled jar heads in the time allowed.
“Senator Thompson, the governor (Huckabee) says the 12 million people would be looked at individually. How would you find them? And could you do it faster than he would, sir?”
“Governor Huckabee, did the American commander in the Strait of Hormuz the other day make the right decision by responding passively when approached aggressively by Iranian fast boats believed to be from the Revolutionary Guards? He also received, as you know, a warning that said that the American ships might be about to blow up. Did he make the correct call, sir?”
Senator McCain just about blew a carotid artery waiting his turn to answer that last one. Huckabee’s answer ended with a reference to the Iranians last vision being one of the “gates of hell” and Thompson reaction ended with: “I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing.” Both answers were followed by the assembled audience of hillbillies applauding and back slapping and high-fives like they were at a Charlotte Speedway NASCAR infield party.
Ron Paul the court jester of the debate was generally ridiculed by his fellow Republicans. His responses often caused a slack jawed look from his rivals and drew the consternation of Fox’s Bret Hume and the anti Paul supporters in the large audience. The faces of the Fox commentators and the other participants were the highlight of the debate for me running from that of look of extreme constipation to one of someone being goosed whenever Paul responded. Like this answer about the middle East peace process:
I think if we'd have been out of there a lot sooner, there may well have been a much different settlement after the Kuwait invasion, because Israel was quite capable of working with moderate Arab nations. They tried to. None of the Arab nations wanted Saddam Hussein in Kuwait and I think they could have taken care of Saddam Hussein back then and saved all the mess that we have now, because I think there are so many unintended consequences and way too much blowback.
The overall impression when watching one of the GOP debates is that these yoyos are stuck in the 1860’s. McCain gets so wound up when talking about why he thinks the surge is working that he sort of does a cartoon character Hulk transformation thing. It would seem to appear to me that McCain
would be the most viable candidate against either Obama or Clinton.
But I also think that if Obama is nominated the contrast between him and McCain will be extremely sharp. Basically Obama's youth, hope and the possibilities versus McCain’s old, curmudgeonly out of date same old shit smoke and mirrors speak . Frankly I don't think that any of the other Republican candidates can beat a Democrat nominee given the steamer trunks of baggage they all seem to carry.
Underlying this of course is the question of whether American voters can overcome their unwarranted and exploited fear of international terrorism and the war in Iraq and be willing to trust a new generation of leaders to protect them with new ideas and approaches to the problem of getting along with other people in the world.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Women Fear The Bradley Effect A Good Cry And A Fairy Tale Help Clinton Political Machine Survive Elimination
To hell with all the crap from Hillary about finding Her voice!
Women in New Hampshire apparently finally got the memo that Hillary needed their help if she was to continue her attempt at becoming the first woman president. Girls got to stand together even if they’re supporting a divisive political hack I guess. A vast majority of women apparently help create the upset and come from behind win for her in Tuesday night’s primary. Women in Iowa who ended up voting mostly for Obama didn't do it in New Hampshire. When all seemed lost and most pundits predicting a large Obama victory Clinton was able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and stop the possible extinction of the Clinton political machine for now.
Something I would personally favor because it's time to move on into the future people instead of reliving the past over and over again. Especially since it isn’t working anymore. Move over and let the kids run things. We fucked it up enough. Shouldn't the sixties thing be finished once and for all?
Why were the polls so wrong? Apparently because of something called the Bradley Effect. Named after former LA mayor Tom Bradley. That’s where white people being surveyed apparently lie to the pollsters because they think that they will be perceived to be politically incorrect if they say their not voting for an African American. Weird, shallow and dumb but some professor apparently has dedicated his life to proving it’s real when the worlds align and your also doing a poll before an election where there are black people running for office.
Who knew?
Democrats I’ve talked to like to rail on about all the fear that Bush and his gang use to manipulate their lives. But apparently fear of another attack by terrorists motivated Democrats into voting for Clinton. I suppose because they bought into the Hillary narrative that somehow she’d be tougher than Obama on the terrorist if and when the attack comes.
Hillary had a good cry on Monday too, which got massive play in the mainstream media.
Some accused her of acting. Some say it showed she wasn’t a robot after all and some said she should have been crying every chance she got from the beginning of the campaign. Well it apparently worked. The big cry apparently brought out the needed sympathy vote from women who felt her pain because of their empathetic feelings stemming from experiences having to live with all those dominate males.
Finally there is Bill Clinton’s speech on Monday night about the Obama phenomenon being a fairy tale. In many ways it is a fairy tail, but I thought this would backfire on Clinton because I saw it as a rather positive type of fairy tale. But Bill was of course referring, in a round-about way, to the Clinton talking point that Obama lacked the needed experience to be president immediately and it was risky to buy into the dream that maybe things could really CHANGE for the better if Obama became the nominee. I rather agree with Obama’s position on it when he says that Hillary may have experience but it the wrong kind based on what she’s done with it.
Hillary counts the eight years she was first lady in the white house as foreign affairs experience. I agree with one pundit who said that based on that analogy the pastry chef at the white house during the Clinton years would have as much experience as Hillary. But Bill’s reference to the Obama momentum as a fairy tale was apparently the right metaphor for a fear-ridden electorate of submissive women because they bought into it in sufficient numbers to effect the outcome of the election ever so slightly in Hillary's favor.
Women in New Hampshire apparently finally got the memo that Hillary needed their help if she was to continue her attempt at becoming the first woman president. Girls got to stand together even if they’re supporting a divisive political hack I guess. A vast majority of women apparently help create the upset and come from behind win for her in Tuesday night’s primary. Women in Iowa who ended up voting mostly for Obama didn't do it in New Hampshire. When all seemed lost and most pundits predicting a large Obama victory Clinton was able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and stop the possible extinction of the Clinton political machine for now.
Something I would personally favor because it's time to move on into the future people instead of reliving the past over and over again. Especially since it isn’t working anymore. Move over and let the kids run things. We fucked it up enough. Shouldn't the sixties thing be finished once and for all?
Why were the polls so wrong? Apparently because of something called the Bradley Effect. Named after former LA mayor Tom Bradley. That’s where white people being surveyed apparently lie to the pollsters because they think that they will be perceived to be politically incorrect if they say their not voting for an African American. Weird, shallow and dumb but some professor apparently has dedicated his life to proving it’s real when the worlds align and your also doing a poll before an election where there are black people running for office.
Who knew?
Democrats I’ve talked to like to rail on about all the fear that Bush and his gang use to manipulate their lives. But apparently fear of another attack by terrorists motivated Democrats into voting for Clinton. I suppose because they bought into the Hillary narrative that somehow she’d be tougher than Obama on the terrorist if and when the attack comes.
Hillary had a good cry on Monday too, which got massive play in the mainstream media.
Some accused her of acting. Some say it showed she wasn’t a robot after all and some said she should have been crying every chance she got from the beginning of the campaign. Well it apparently worked. The big cry apparently brought out the needed sympathy vote from women who felt her pain because of their empathetic feelings stemming from experiences having to live with all those dominate males.
Finally there is Bill Clinton’s speech on Monday night about the Obama phenomenon being a fairy tale. In many ways it is a fairy tail, but I thought this would backfire on Clinton because I saw it as a rather positive type of fairy tale. But Bill was of course referring, in a round-about way, to the Clinton talking point that Obama lacked the needed experience to be president immediately and it was risky to buy into the dream that maybe things could really CHANGE for the better if Obama became the nominee. I rather agree with Obama’s position on it when he says that Hillary may have experience but it the wrong kind based on what she’s done with it.
Hillary counts the eight years she was first lady in the white house as foreign affairs experience. I agree with one pundit who said that based on that analogy the pastry chef at the white house during the Clinton years would have as much experience as Hillary. But Bill’s reference to the Obama momentum as a fairy tale was apparently the right metaphor for a fear-ridden electorate of submissive women because they bought into it in sufficient numbers to effect the outcome of the election ever so slightly in Hillary's favor.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Has Overly Partisan Blogoshpere Overlooked Quantum Change In The Minds Of Electorate?
Many blogoshpere pundits missed the boat entirely on the developing phenomenon that is Barak Obama’s Campaign for the presidency. I think it’s because bloggers are often overly partisan, not very independent in their thinking and rendered unable to see the body politic objectively. They are effectively blinded by their own partisan closed mindedness inside a politically correct echo chamber. They often serve the extreme and often mostly petty wings of their parties and have little feeling for the average smocks of the world.
Missing the surge of grassroots support for Obama and especially his appeal to independents and moderate Republicans crossover voters shows that the blogs are often distracted by their own particular predetermined party driven agendas. In many ways the blogs are so partisan they have obviously lost their perspective of what is happening right in front of them in the street outside. Blogs are co-opted so that their roles have been reduced to that of the wonky apparatus of a legislatively ineffective out of touch and stagnating political parties controlled mostly by the special interests, party hacks and limited issue oriented political fringe groups.
Like Hillary Clinton’s campaign the blogosphere has become an aspect of the divisive status quo partisan style of politics that this country has been suffering under for a quarter of a century or more and that the large number of average present day voters, as demonstrated by the recent election results, apparently hold in high disdain. Obama’s and Huckabee’s success in capturing the mantle of outsiders for CHANGE has resonated with the electorate. Especially a change in the tone of politics from that of extreme partisanship to general cooperation to achieve the common good.
Average folks are apparently feed up with party partisanship period. Especially when it blocks progress or does not address the glaring major problems and issues of the day and even threatens our existence as humans. To a certain extent reaching this point of renewal was expedited by Bush, Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Carl Rove and Tom Delay’s style of divide, conquer and destroy Republicanism. Not to mention the general government incompetence exhibited during the last eight years. The Democrats by their inaction, ineffectiveness and inter party bickering, much of it perpetuated by the blogosphere, certainly can claim their share of the blame for fueling the pent-up feeling for change in the country.
Obama and, to a certain extend, Huckabee as outsiders have hit on a mother lode of this pent-up frustration with the status quo, and if the machine doesn’t work don’t fix it mentality in the other Washington. But bloggers must admit they have worked to reinforce the partisan themes and the "it’s us against them mentality".
A large number of political types led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Chuck Hagel met in Oklahoma City this week to address what they see as a dysfunctional government and extreme partisanship. One of the themes that Obama has hit a cord with and that has become a central appeal of his campaign with voters.
Meanwhile lefty bloggers continue to pump out the same old tired partisan crap in a rather mechanical ways. Apparently aware that perhaps something is happening here but not really sure what it is yet. Blogs are rather ill prepared or open-minded enough to see themselves as part of the problem. They see themselves as being above the fray. By their continuing support of partisan political themes they seem unwilling to see that the tide is perhaps turning on them. They are unable to leave their comfort zones even when the train has apparently already left the station.
Missing the surge of grassroots support for Obama and especially his appeal to independents and moderate Republicans crossover voters shows that the blogs are often distracted by their own particular predetermined party driven agendas. In many ways the blogs are so partisan they have obviously lost their perspective of what is happening right in front of them in the street outside. Blogs are co-opted so that their roles have been reduced to that of the wonky apparatus of a legislatively ineffective out of touch and stagnating political parties controlled mostly by the special interests, party hacks and limited issue oriented political fringe groups.
Like Hillary Clinton’s campaign the blogosphere has become an aspect of the divisive status quo partisan style of politics that this country has been suffering under for a quarter of a century or more and that the large number of average present day voters, as demonstrated by the recent election results, apparently hold in high disdain. Obama’s and Huckabee’s success in capturing the mantle of outsiders for CHANGE has resonated with the electorate. Especially a change in the tone of politics from that of extreme partisanship to general cooperation to achieve the common good.
Average folks are apparently feed up with party partisanship period. Especially when it blocks progress or does not address the glaring major problems and issues of the day and even threatens our existence as humans. To a certain extent reaching this point of renewal was expedited by Bush, Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Carl Rove and Tom Delay’s style of divide, conquer and destroy Republicanism. Not to mention the general government incompetence exhibited during the last eight years. The Democrats by their inaction, ineffectiveness and inter party bickering, much of it perpetuated by the blogosphere, certainly can claim their share of the blame for fueling the pent-up feeling for change in the country.
Obama and, to a certain extend, Huckabee as outsiders have hit on a mother lode of this pent-up frustration with the status quo, and if the machine doesn’t work don’t fix it mentality in the other Washington. But bloggers must admit they have worked to reinforce the partisan themes and the "it’s us against them mentality".
A large number of political types led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Chuck Hagel met in Oklahoma City this week to address what they see as a dysfunctional government and extreme partisanship. One of the themes that Obama has hit a cord with and that has become a central appeal of his campaign with voters.
Meanwhile lefty bloggers continue to pump out the same old tired partisan crap in a rather mechanical ways. Apparently aware that perhaps something is happening here but not really sure what it is yet. Blogs are rather ill prepared or open-minded enough to see themselves as part of the problem. They see themselves as being above the fray. By their continuing support of partisan political themes they seem unwilling to see that the tide is perhaps turning on them. They are unable to leave their comfort zones even when the train has apparently already left the station.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Friday, January 04, 2008
Defining Moment for Democratic Party Hacks
Obama's victory in Iowa was not only a defining moment for his campaign of hope and change but a defining moment for the party hacks, functionaries and the party's out of touch intelligencia. Many assumed that Hillary Clinton, the candidate favored and supported by the party establishment, would cake walk to the nomination. Obama's Iowa victory has upended that forgone conclusion.
Certainly it not a done deal but it is a mighty first step towards generational change within the party. If Obama gains additional momentum by winning in New Hampshire and South Carolina the proposition that the Democratic Party is fundamentally changed will become more of a reality. It could not be a day too soon for me. So let us now see how it it plays out. Will Democrats and Independants embrace the new message of change or be ruled by fear of change or playing it safe?
I am in awe listening to the music of this man speaking.
"There something happening here what it is I'm not exactly sure". Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
I am in awe listening to the music of this man speaking.
Monday, December 31, 2007
50 Most Loathsome People in America 2007
The Beast offers a must read list with some outstanding caricatures of the 50 most loathsome people in America 2007. My favor number 9. You!
"Charges: You believe in freedom of speech, until someone says something that offends you. You suddenly give a damn about border integrity, because the automated voice system at your pharmacy asked you to press 9 for Spanish. You cling to every scrap of bullshit you can find to support your ludicrous belief system, and reject all empirical evidence to the contrary. You know the difference between patriotism and nationalism -- it's nationalism when foreigners do it. You hate anyone who seems smarter than you. You care more about zygotes than actual people. You love to blame people for their misfortunes, even if it means screwing yourself over. You still think Republicans favor limited government. Your knowledge of politics and government are dwarfed by your concern for Britney Spears' children. You think buying Chinese goods stimulates our economy. You think you're going to get universal health care. You tolerate the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques." You think the government is actually trying to improve education. You think watching CNN makes you smarter. You think two parties is enough. You can't spell. You think $9 trillion in debt is manageable. You believe in an afterlife for the sole reason that you don't want to die. You think lowering taxes raises revenue. You think the economy's doing well. You're an idiot.Exhibit A: You couldn't get enough Anna Nicole Smith coverage.
Sentence: A gradual decline into abject poverty as you continue to vote against your own self-interest. Death by an easily treated disorder that your health insurance doesn't cover. You deserve it, chump."
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Non-Response to Carnation Murders 911 Call Reflects Lack Of Professionalism Training Within KCSD
A government official friend and I were talking about the grisly murder of six members of a Carnation Family on Christmas Eve. I mentioned that one of the strangest items in the news reports about the murders was the apparent failure of two responding sheriff deputies to make contact with anyone at the scene after getting a 911 hang up dispatched call from the home where it was eventually discovered the murders took place.
He and I both have had long careers in criminal law related fields. He worked in law enforcement and I worked in the court system. We are both familiar with the long established policy of police departments everywhere that says when a 911 hang up call is made officers are required to make contact with someone at the location of the call to verify the safety of citizens at the location and ascertain that no laws have been broken. It’s simply common sense based on the principle of protecting the safety of the caller or others at the location.
Apparently the deputies arrived at the Carnation property a half hour after getting the call but simply left after encountering a locked gate. Even though according to newspaper reports the property was not fence in a way that would of kept the deputies from gaining access by simply walking around the gate and up to the house.
We know now that six murdered individuals were just beyond that gate. Court filings on the case indicate that one of the victims apparently made the 911 hang up call approximately one half hour before the deputies arrived. One of the alleged killers has apparently admitted to investigators that he took the phone from the victim and then commenced to shoot her in the head as she pleaded with him not to do it.
King County Sheriff Sue Rahr has called for an investigation. An investigation that should tell us whether any lives could of possibly been saved had the deputies properly followed department procedure instead of just blowing the 911 call off.
I ask my law enforcement friend what he thought about it. He said he thought it reflected the long running rank and file “arrogance” problem on the part many of the deputies in the KCSD. I live in rural King County and personally know of numerous complaints about response times by officers. "It's sort of a running joke out here". Once the officer arrives they often seem bothered that they actually have to do something that involves actual community law enforcement and meaningful interaction with citizens. I guess they’d rather be writing chippie tickets to everyone speeding 10 miles per hour over the speed limit on the local 2-lane highway and I'll avoid inserting any jokes alluding to the local donut shop here.
According to my friend Deputies don’t respond quickly because they believe they don’t have to respond quickly. Often they invoke their union contract at the slightest disagreement with management on department policy or work rules. Because the Union is strong this often manifest itself in an arrogant attitude and poor or unprofessional work ethic by the rank and file officers in the field. I describe it as “They can’t really fired me” attitude of invincibility. In recent years this systemic problem reflected itself more in corruption scandals that would often pop up within the KCSD.
Much of this culture apparently grew under the theatrical grandstanding style and leadership of former Sheriff Dave Reichert, the current 8th district Republican Congressman. Reichert turned his back on many low level indiscretions by the rank and file in a effort to be one the boys and not alienate the union. It is said by some that Reichert used the department mainly to build his image and reputation as a tough no nonsense cop with an eye on an eventual run for congress. It worked even though many felt he didn't really deserve as much credit as he claimed for the department successes like the arrest of the Green River Killer. That case made Reichert into national figure .
Getting elected to Congress was more important that making sure that the work ethic of the deputies was meeting acceptable standards or standing up to the powerful police union when officers used their union's power to get away with not doing the job professionally at times. This long running attitude problem by deputies perhaps led to the officers ignoring clear cut department policy when they were reponding to the Carnation 911 call. The department investigation should eventually shed light on whether the deputies failure to follow department policy resulted in not preventing any of these murders from happening.
He and I both have had long careers in criminal law related fields. He worked in law enforcement and I worked in the court system. We are both familiar with the long established policy of police departments everywhere that says when a 911 hang up call is made officers are required to make contact with someone at the location of the call to verify the safety of citizens at the location and ascertain that no laws have been broken. It’s simply common sense based on the principle of protecting the safety of the caller or others at the location.
Apparently the deputies arrived at the Carnation property a half hour after getting the call but simply left after encountering a locked gate. Even though according to newspaper reports the property was not fence in a way that would of kept the deputies from gaining access by simply walking around the gate and up to the house.
We know now that six murdered individuals were just beyond that gate. Court filings on the case indicate that one of the victims apparently made the 911 hang up call approximately one half hour before the deputies arrived. One of the alleged killers has apparently admitted to investigators that he took the phone from the victim and then commenced to shoot her in the head as she pleaded with him not to do it.
Sheriff's spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart said the department's policy requires deputies who respond to 911 hang-up calls to make contact with someone at the scene. “Their blood is not on our hands," Urquhart said. "Should we have gone up there? Yes. But there was nothing we could have done to prevent this tragedy.”This matter of the police not contacting someone at the property is being buried somewhat by the gruesome major facts of the case. The sheriff department saying in effect that it would of not made any difference because the murders had already taken place. The murders were not actually learned about until two days later when a friend of one of the victims went to the property after one of the victims did not show up for work at her post office job.
King County Sheriff Sue Rahr has called for an investigation. An investigation that should tell us whether any lives could of possibly been saved had the deputies properly followed department procedure instead of just blowing the 911 call off.
I ask my law enforcement friend what he thought about it. He said he thought it reflected the long running rank and file “arrogance” problem on the part many of the deputies in the KCSD. I live in rural King County and personally know of numerous complaints about response times by officers. "It's sort of a running joke out here". Once the officer arrives they often seem bothered that they actually have to do something that involves actual community law enforcement and meaningful interaction with citizens. I guess they’d rather be writing chippie tickets to everyone speeding 10 miles per hour over the speed limit on the local 2-lane highway and I'll avoid inserting any jokes alluding to the local donut shop here.
According to my friend Deputies don’t respond quickly because they believe they don’t have to respond quickly. Often they invoke their union contract at the slightest disagreement with management on department policy or work rules. Because the Union is strong this often manifest itself in an arrogant attitude and poor or unprofessional work ethic by the rank and file officers in the field. I describe it as “They can’t really fired me” attitude of invincibility. In recent years this systemic problem reflected itself more in corruption scandals that would often pop up within the KCSD.
Much of this culture apparently grew under the theatrical grandstanding style and leadership of former Sheriff Dave Reichert, the current 8th district Republican Congressman. Reichert turned his back on many low level indiscretions by the rank and file in a effort to be one the boys and not alienate the union. It is said by some that Reichert used the department mainly to build his image and reputation as a tough no nonsense cop with an eye on an eventual run for congress. It worked even though many felt he didn't really deserve as much credit as he claimed for the department successes like the arrest of the Green River Killer. That case made Reichert into national figure .
Getting elected to Congress was more important that making sure that the work ethic of the deputies was meeting acceptable standards or standing up to the powerful police union when officers used their union's power to get away with not doing the job professionally at times. This long running attitude problem by deputies perhaps led to the officers ignoring clear cut department policy when they were reponding to the Carnation 911 call. The department investigation should eventually shed light on whether the deputies failure to follow department policy resulted in not preventing any of these murders from happening.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Bush Foreign Policy Succeeds Middle East Now Completely Destabilized
In the run up to the Iraq war there were a number of warnings from nearly every corner that indicated that a US invasion of Iraq would lead to the destabilization of the Middle East. Colin Powell warned the President personally, the military, pentagon experts, the entire rest of the world and even Ron Paul. I don't agree with him on most issues but, it is interesting in retrospect reading this Paul prewar commentary. But deadbeat George Bush and Dick Cheney et al chose to ignore all warnings and as one detractor said at the time "kick the hornets nest".
Looking at the current situation across a wide swath of the Middle East we find a region nearly in complete chaos after nearly eight years of Bush/Cheney/Rice Foreign policy madness. Here's our evidence.
Iraq: Claims that the Iraq surge is working and will bring long term stability inhabit the world of right wing spin or fodder for polititians who continue to support the invasion in spite of the facts.
Turkey: Currently Turkey has declared war and is in the process of bombing Kurdish Rebels in Northern Iraq with US support. Which also maybe killing innocent civilians and third parties who just happen to be there while the protesting elements of he Iraqi government are ignored.
Afghanistan: The Taliban and al-Qaeda working from sanctuaries within the country and tribal regions of Pakistan continue to make significant progress in destabilizing the country and regaining power. Illegal poppy production is feeding a booming drug trade and funneling funds to the Taliban and al-Queda.
Pakistan: Leading opposition leader Benazir Bhutto assassinated and country in turmoil. Al-Qaeda scope of operations is growing in Pakistan with unconfirmed reports that elements of government security forces support Bin Laden. Billions of US aid dollars unaccounted for in war against terrorists. WMD in danger of falling into terrorist hands. Democratic elections in jeopardy.
Iran: Ongoing bad relations with US over nuclear enhancement of uranium and continuing Bush/Cheney saber rattling.
And we haven’t even mentioned the enormous problems with Israel, Palestine or Syria.
Meanwhile the current crop of Presidential Candidates continue to extol the get tough macho bullshit policies that created this enormously disastrous mess in the first place.
Looking at the current situation across a wide swath of the Middle East we find a region nearly in complete chaos after nearly eight years of Bush/Cheney/Rice Foreign policy madness. Here's our evidence.
Iraq: Claims that the Iraq surge is working and will bring long term stability inhabit the world of right wing spin or fodder for polititians who continue to support the invasion in spite of the facts.
Turkey: Currently Turkey has declared war and is in the process of bombing Kurdish Rebels in Northern Iraq with US support. Which also maybe killing innocent civilians and third parties who just happen to be there while the protesting elements of he Iraqi government are ignored.
Afghanistan: The Taliban and al-Qaeda working from sanctuaries within the country and tribal regions of Pakistan continue to make significant progress in destabilizing the country and regaining power. Illegal poppy production is feeding a booming drug trade and funneling funds to the Taliban and al-Queda.
Pakistan: Leading opposition leader Benazir Bhutto assassinated and country in turmoil. Al-Qaeda scope of operations is growing in Pakistan with unconfirmed reports that elements of government security forces support Bin Laden. Billions of US aid dollars unaccounted for in war against terrorists. WMD in danger of falling into terrorist hands. Democratic elections in jeopardy.
Iran: Ongoing bad relations with US over nuclear enhancement of uranium and continuing Bush/Cheney saber rattling.
And we haven’t even mentioned the enormous problems with Israel, Palestine or Syria.
Meanwhile the current crop of Presidential Candidates continue to extol the get tough macho bullshit policies that created this enormously disastrous mess in the first place.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Gun Pandering Huckabee Uses Unsafe Hunting Methods
Why is it every time some Republican goes out hunting it becomes a safety concern. First we had Dick Cheney shoot his hunting partner in the face while bird hunting in Texas and on Wednesday in Iowa we have Mike Huckabee recklessly firing over the head of reporters.
Like the writer of the post at The Swamp I spent some time in rural Eastern Washington as a kid hunting. There were no exceptions for anything other then strict safety practices when we were using firearms.
If these guys are so in love with hunting and guns then they at least should know the basic safety practices when they go out to kill over matched and defenseless wildlife. But, really I think it's all a form of testosterone machismo pandering bullshit and show off for the hunting and NRA crowd.
These phony Republicans aren't really hunters in the true since of the word. Because if they were they'd not be so reckless.
via: The Swamp
Like the writer of the post at The Swamp I spent some time in rural Eastern Washington as a kid hunting. There were no exceptions for anything other then strict safety practices when we were using firearms.
If these guys are so in love with hunting and guns then they at least should know the basic safety practices when they go out to kill over matched and defenseless wildlife. But, really I think it's all a form of testosterone machismo pandering bullshit and show off for the hunting and NRA crowd.
These phony Republicans aren't really hunters in the true since of the word. Because if they were they'd not be so reckless.
via: The Swamp
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
50% Off Sale
Click on image to enlarge
Artist Duane Hanson offers an unpretentious and realistic view of the people with his unique sculptures.via: Internet Weekly Report
2007 Year End Best Of Junk Media Bullshit Content Rankings
If your like me the end of the year tends to put me in that state of mind where I find myself reconnoitering what went right and what went wrong. I think it must be some archetypical pattern of collective consciousness brought on in the human species at the passing of winter solstice and the realization that another year is nearing it’s end. Yeah that's it.
Then again it could be triggered by the bottom feeding collective soul of the inhabitants of this god forsaken republic and the endless practice of year end list compiling by print and electronic media hype mongers that’s being shoves down our collective throats. Bored with real news because it so damn cyclically depressing, apocalyptic and fucking down right scary and trying to feed the ravenous appetite for new content THEY force us at each year’s end to a barrage of newspaper pullouts, TV news shows and compiled laundry lists of total bullshit best of the year useless rankings and the accompanying babble.
If I see that fucking flaming fag “leave Britney alone” video again I’m going to puke up my dinner.
Would most of you agree that Rome is burning? Do any of the metaphors of Orwell's book 1984 come to mind when you look around this country?
One poll apparently names President Bush and Hillary Clinton the most admired male and female of the year. Two questions come to mind immediately. What the fuck pumpkin wagon did the pollster taking this poll fall off of anyhow? Who are these people that are giving the pollster the unadulterated bullshit answers to the survey?
Who really cares about ranking the year’s showbiz scandals? It’s Britney versus Paris versus Lindsey versus Winehouse onward infinitum. The answer is apparently literally hoards of Americans out there in the wasteland leading their inauthentic lives of meaningless nothingness. They need a diversion I guess. In fact they have become so diverted they barely know their ass from a hole in the ground.
The criminally despicable banal water boarding of the mind, body and soul goes on almost unabated on a daily basis. Yet there is no widespread righteous indignation at the acts of the political criminals. Impeachment is not on the table. Three out of eight men running for President of the United States said they don’t believe in evolution. I think my home smoke alarm even when off at that point in that Republican debate. Then we have the dueling I’m so fucking religious bullshitting contests that are the meat and potatoes of this year's Republican candidates primary and let’s go back to living like they did in 1850's olden times monologue manure spreading.
Listen you can hear the educated world laughing at us.
But there’s plenty of airtime and print space to fill with the rankings of the year's best drug abusing alcoholic and indiscreet breast augmented bimbo. Maybe perhaps at a better and more hope filled time in the future. Not!
If one person out there complains about the state of the nation in this presidential election year and in the next breath says that they didn't find the time to vote before or probably won't vote this year then they can just go fuck themselves.
When they don’t vote they make me and other voters into some sort of unwilling patsies of the government in powers narrative and the depressing state of this nation just by abdicating their right to vote and therefore their one paramount responsibility and duty as an American citizen. The criminal no idea politicians, Tim Eymans, Carl Roves and religious fanatics can only admire your continuing non participation.
Earth to all flaky liberals voters out there: America is not a kingdom, it's a democracy. Informed vote casting is a basic requirement.
I personally fear for my country. We need to turn this thing around quickly. We need to jettison the outdated politics of the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton eras. We need new blood and real commitment to change. We need the vitality of the young in a big way. We all need to stop being diverted from what’s truly important in 2008 and beyond. We all need hope that the future will be better.
Then again it could be triggered by the bottom feeding collective soul of the inhabitants of this god forsaken republic and the endless practice of year end list compiling by print and electronic media hype mongers that’s being shoves down our collective throats. Bored with real news because it so damn cyclically depressing, apocalyptic and fucking down right scary and trying to feed the ravenous appetite for new content THEY force us at each year’s end to a barrage of newspaper pullouts, TV news shows and compiled laundry lists of total bullshit best of the year useless rankings and the accompanying babble.
If I see that fucking flaming fag “leave Britney alone” video again I’m going to puke up my dinner.
Would most of you agree that Rome is burning? Do any of the metaphors of Orwell's book 1984 come to mind when you look around this country?
One poll apparently names President Bush and Hillary Clinton the most admired male and female of the year. Two questions come to mind immediately. What the fuck pumpkin wagon did the pollster taking this poll fall off of anyhow? Who are these people that are giving the pollster the unadulterated bullshit answers to the survey?
Who really cares about ranking the year’s showbiz scandals? It’s Britney versus Paris versus Lindsey versus Winehouse onward infinitum. The answer is apparently literally hoards of Americans out there in the wasteland leading their inauthentic lives of meaningless nothingness. They need a diversion I guess. In fact they have become so diverted they barely know their ass from a hole in the ground.
The criminally despicable banal water boarding of the mind, body and soul goes on almost unabated on a daily basis. Yet there is no widespread righteous indignation at the acts of the political criminals. Impeachment is not on the table. Three out of eight men running for President of the United States said they don’t believe in evolution. I think my home smoke alarm even when off at that point in that Republican debate. Then we have the dueling I’m so fucking religious bullshitting contests that are the meat and potatoes of this year's Republican candidates primary and let’s go back to living like they did in 1850's olden times monologue manure spreading.
Listen you can hear the educated world laughing at us.
But there’s plenty of airtime and print space to fill with the rankings of the year's best drug abusing alcoholic and indiscreet breast augmented bimbo. Maybe perhaps at a better and more hope filled time in the future. Not!
If one person out there complains about the state of the nation in this presidential election year and in the next breath says that they didn't find the time to vote before or probably won't vote this year then they can just go fuck themselves.
When they don’t vote they make me and other voters into some sort of unwilling patsies of the government in powers narrative and the depressing state of this nation just by abdicating their right to vote and therefore their one paramount responsibility and duty as an American citizen. The criminal no idea politicians, Tim Eymans, Carl Roves and religious fanatics can only admire your continuing non participation.
Earth to all flaky liberals voters out there: America is not a kingdom, it's a democracy. Informed vote casting is a basic requirement.
I personally fear for my country. We need to turn this thing around quickly. We need to jettison the outdated politics of the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton eras. We need new blood and real commitment to change. We need the vitality of the young in a big way. We all need to stop being diverted from what’s truly important in 2008 and beyond. We all need hope that the future will be better.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Crucified Santa Latest In Seasonal Decorating Protests
The crucifying of Santa has become a new outlet for protest. A Bremerton, WA man says he doing it to protest against commercialism at Christmas. While a Canadian artist, who also is crucifying Santa in his front yard is quoted as saying. "Santa represents frivolous consumption. That's all he is. He shot Jesus right out of the saddle. He's the focus of Christmas."
Art Conrad of Bremerton says he got the idea when he read a story about a Japanese retailer who got the two western metaphors mixed up and ended up unknowingly nailing Santa to the cross for a store display. Which is pretty hilarious if you ask me.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Christmas Baby Jesus More Popular Then Teenage Or Adult Version
Or what dinner time is like for a Huckabee supporter.
via: Talladega Nights
via: Talladega Nights
Can You Be Replace By Robot Of The Year?
Video of Japan's robot of the year. Compare this with I love Lucy show segment where Lucy has a job in the candy factory.
via: geekologie
via: geekologie
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Clinton Pregnant With Huckabee Love Child..... Developing
1. Tabloid prints trash story about presidential candidate, deep inside, not even teased off the cover
2. Elite media pretends to ignore trash story but secretly makes inquiries
3. Local TV news station asks candidate about trash story
4. Later, Elite media's editors tell field reporters it's ok to ask candidate about trash story because he's already been asked about it
5. Elite media asks about trash story
6. Candidate answers
7. Elite media runs the story on the pretext that the denial has made the story legitimate
8. Elite media looks for different angles to justify running the story
9. Conservative blog runs headline linking to original tabloid trashy story after candidate pulls ahead in Iowa polls
10. Blogosphere picks up on story
11. Tabloid prints same trashy story but this time on front page
12. Process repeats itself continuing negative rumors and speculation about candidate
13. Voters begin to have doubts about supporting candidate even though original story claims unsubstantiated
14. Candidate drops out of lead in polls and doesn't do well in primary
15. Candidate pulls out of race
16. Somewhere Carl Rove is laughing
variation on original blog post at atlantic.com
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Swedish Self Cleaning Toilet New Tool In War Against Super Model Drug Use
Video of Swedish ad of self-cleaning toilet thats also good at bogarting all your coke. Maybe we can get one of these for Amy Winehouse.
Is John Edwards The Opponent The Republicans Fear The Most?
John Edwards has a bulldog approach to the problems facing this country which apparently appeals to Democrats and independents who are tired of the mealy-mouthed centrist approach of other Democratic candidates. Edwards is the NO MORE MR. NICE GUY when it comes to health care and dealing with the unbridled power that's been granted to corporations under Bush's presidency. He's ready to fight for the poor, fight for the middle class, and fight for the environment. In fact the friends of the earth have given him their endorsement.
Polls show that Edwards is the most electable when put up against any of the probable Republican presidential nominees. Republicans apparently recognize that Edwards would be the strongest opponent. Some argue that Carl Rove is using reverse psychology when he attacks Hillary Clinton while at the same time indicating she is the strongest among the Democratic challengers. Campaign manager Joe Trippi says so:
Polls show that Edwards is the most electable when put up against any of the probable Republican presidential nominees. Republicans apparently recognize that Edwards would be the strongest opponent. Some argue that Carl Rove is using reverse psychology when he attacks Hillary Clinton while at the same time indicating she is the strongest among the Democratic challengers. Campaign manager Joe Trippi says so:
"John Edwards is Karl Rove's worst nightmare—the candidate with the boldest ideas for changing America—the candidate who can take on the special interests in Washington, D.C. and win—and the candidate who consistently beats all of the Republican candidates in head-to-head match-ups in battleground states—and by the widest margins."Edwards hopes for a late surge in Iowa that will catapult him to a win there. The strategy for success for the Edwards campaign has always been based on winning in Iowa and gaining momentum that will carry him to subsequent primary victories and the nomination. Here's his new hope filled movie trailer style ad.
Ronald Reagan Speaks From Beyond The Grave
Reagan Diaries: Ronald Reagan on George W. Bush. Supposedly this is a recently released direct quote from Ronald Reagan about George W. Bush entered into his diary. The entry is dated May 17, 1986.
via metadish
"A moment I’ve been dreading. George brought his ne’re-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I’ll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they’ll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."
via metadish
Monday, December 17, 2007
Backbone Campaign Needs Your Measly $10 Contribution Now!
Help the Backbone Campaign win a $50,000 prize by signing up the largest number of contributors before January 31.. The winning organization is determined by the number of contributors not the total amount given. Give as little as $10 by clicking here.
Also it maybe time for you to learn more about the Backbone Campaign. The video offers a look inside the origins and work of this unique Vashon Island based creative progressive political organization with a sense of humor.
Also it maybe time for you to learn more about the Backbone Campaign. The video offers a look inside the origins and work of this unique Vashon Island based creative progressive political organization with a sense of humor.
An Open Letter To Senator Reid
Dear Senator Reid,
I think you have demonstrated a dangerous lack of leadership as Senate Majority Leader and that you continue by your actions to put the Democratic Party at risk of losing the hard fought gains we made in the 2006 elections. Also you have by your tacit collusion with the opposition allowed the continuation of Republican and Presidential policies that do harm to this country and it’s citizens everyday. Your actions also put in jeopardy the hope of Democrats that we can elect even more Democratic Congressman and Senators in the coming elections.
As you know the favorable ratings of the Democratic led Congress are lower then that of our President, who favorable ratings are at historic lows. I believe that this is because you and other Democratic leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives have failed to take the difficult stands on historic legislation that has come before you for consideration. I think your continuing complain that you do not have a sixty-vote majority in the Senate to overcome any perceived Republican filibuster has become tiresome and disingenuous in the eyes of Americans.
It is time that you allowed the cards to fall where they may when it comes to votes on bills that come before the Senate. If the Republicans are forced to filibuster, then let it be. If the President must use his veto then let him do that. But as the Democratic leader it should be your duty to force the minority party to participate in an up or down votes on any matter that comes before the Senate no matter what it may be. If you claim to be the majority party then you should begin to act like it by beginning to enforce and demonstrate party discipline on legislation that comes before you.
My reasoning is based on my belief that the Democratic Party must begin immediately to demonstrate that it stands for SOMETHING rather then acquiescing it’s position to the President and the Republicans every time a contentious bill comes up for a vote.
This is crucial because we as Democrats must begin to show the citizens of this nation that there are ideals, policies and programs upon which we are clear and united. It should not matter what arguments, political maneuvering and attacks we are subjected to by the Republican Party. When we do not draw a line in the sand on these issues then the line becomes blurred in the eyes of the voters. Your actions to gut legislation of anything that is not wanted by the Republicans or just give in without a fight only adds to the feeling that the Democratic party is weak and really stands for nothing, believe in nothing, and is not fit to lead.
I ask you, what does our party stands for when held up for comparison to Republicans? It has become more difficult to differentiate between the political parties when we only act in collusion with Republicans and leave the impression that we in the end are really no different from them.
I further propose that if you cannot in good conscience continue to lead a Democratic Party that is willing to take a tough stand when necessary then you should step down and allow for new leadership that will.
Sincerely,
Daniel O’Brien, Vashon, WA
I think you have demonstrated a dangerous lack of leadership as Senate Majority Leader and that you continue by your actions to put the Democratic Party at risk of losing the hard fought gains we made in the 2006 elections. Also you have by your tacit collusion with the opposition allowed the continuation of Republican and Presidential policies that do harm to this country and it’s citizens everyday. Your actions also put in jeopardy the hope of Democrats that we can elect even more Democratic Congressman and Senators in the coming elections.
As you know the favorable ratings of the Democratic led Congress are lower then that of our President, who favorable ratings are at historic lows. I believe that this is because you and other Democratic leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives have failed to take the difficult stands on historic legislation that has come before you for consideration. I think your continuing complain that you do not have a sixty-vote majority in the Senate to overcome any perceived Republican filibuster has become tiresome and disingenuous in the eyes of Americans.
It is time that you allowed the cards to fall where they may when it comes to votes on bills that come before the Senate. If the Republicans are forced to filibuster, then let it be. If the President must use his veto then let him do that. But as the Democratic leader it should be your duty to force the minority party to participate in an up or down votes on any matter that comes before the Senate no matter what it may be. If you claim to be the majority party then you should begin to act like it by beginning to enforce and demonstrate party discipline on legislation that comes before you.
My reasoning is based on my belief that the Democratic Party must begin immediately to demonstrate that it stands for SOMETHING rather then acquiescing it’s position to the President and the Republicans every time a contentious bill comes up for a vote.
This is crucial because we as Democrats must begin to show the citizens of this nation that there are ideals, policies and programs upon which we are clear and united. It should not matter what arguments, political maneuvering and attacks we are subjected to by the Republican Party. When we do not draw a line in the sand on these issues then the line becomes blurred in the eyes of the voters. Your actions to gut legislation of anything that is not wanted by the Republicans or just give in without a fight only adds to the feeling that the Democratic party is weak and really stands for nothing, believe in nothing, and is not fit to lead.
I ask you, what does our party stands for when held up for comparison to Republicans? It has become more difficult to differentiate between the political parties when we only act in collusion with Republicans and leave the impression that we in the end are really no different from them.
I further propose that if you cannot in good conscience continue to lead a Democratic Party that is willing to take a tough stand when necessary then you should step down and allow for new leadership that will.
Sincerely,
Daniel O’Brien, Vashon, WA
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Video Of Bill Gates Getting Panhandled While Downing Dick's Deluxe On Sixty Minutes
Bill Gates gets panhandled during filming of 60 minutes segment with Charlie Rose. Bill and Charlie stopped at Dick's Queen Anne. Of course, Bill was talking about how smart he was in school when one of our Queen Anne bums who probably lost everything when the .com bubble burst ask if Bill can spare any change? Ha.... Wonder how he did on the healthy living and nutrition test when he was in school?
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Reid Pelosi Officially Become Bush's Bitches
Hey Harry get a pair! Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is apparently on the verge of letting the telecoms off the hook in spite of their massive illegal invasion of your privacy. This follows the Senate cave on Iraq war funding and most other bills wanted by President frat boy. The Reid strategy apparently involves giving Bush whatever he wants in exchange for as much pork as possible now while waiting to actually change things after the 2008 elections. But is such a strategy acceptable if you give away constitutional rights and continue to support an unconscionable war in Iraq.
When will Reid actually demonstrate some leadership by making the Republicans really have to filibuster a bill or make this President actually use a veto? Hopefully it may not be to late to stop telecom immunity by contacting your senator. Tell Harry and your representative to show some leadership instead of just selling out.
In some as yet unexplained and confusing democratic strategy which allows Bush to have his way on every bill that is thrown in the hopper. Reid and his counterpart in the House Nancy Pelosi continue to whine endlessly about their lack of votes instead of demonstrating the guts, guile and leadership needed to stop the backward Republican political agenda.
No wonder the congress's approval ratings is actually lower then the President's. At this rate it may be difficult to maintain or gain the seats needed in the next congressional elections to stop the lack of votes excuse making. People are growing sick of the same old status quo cave jobs from Reid and Pelosi and should demand more backbone from their representatives.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Wexler Ask For Your Support To Impeach Cheney
Three members of House Judiciary Committee turned to the web for support after mainstream media blocks story. They are calling on you to support the impeachment of Cheney at their website. Watch video and sign on here.
Did Juiced Yankees Steal 2000 ALCS from Mariners?
The Mitchell Report outlining the dark period of baseball history now and forever after to be known as “the steroid era” leads any right minded baseball fan to ask themselves whether the Seattle Mariners were on a level playing field (pun intended) when they lost to the Yankees in the 2000 American League Championship Series.
Apparently five steroid using Yankees players played a major role in the defeat of the Mariners in that series which lasted six games. The Mitchell report names starting New York Pitchers Roger Clements, Andy Pettitte, Jason Grimsley and Denny Neagle and three position players David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch and Glenallen Hill.
One Mariner, third Baseman David Bell is named in the report and played for the Mariners in the 2000 series. If Bell was using steroids at the time it did not appear to help him because he only hit .222 in 15 plate appearances with 0 RBI.
But, much of the alleged steroid use by named players outlined in the Mitchell report swirls around the 2000 season and the Yankees. Pitchers Clements, Pettitte, Grimsley and Neagel along with Justice, Knoblauch and Hill are named. Apparently former Yankee and Clement's personal trainer Brian McNamee provided much of the evidence about the players in question to Mitchell. Here a excerpt from the report:
Position player David Justice led the Yankees with 8 RBI in the series. He had a .538 slugging percentage. If I remember correctly he had several key hits. Chuck Knoblauch scored 3 runs and had 6 hits and 2 RBI in 23 at bats.
The Mitchell Report is apparently only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the allegations of steroid use in baseball. Much of the report is based on hearsay evidence. So I guess we will never really know what the true extend of the problem was and still is with baseball and steroids. But the report certainly will make true baseball and Mariner fans wonder about who really was the better team in the 2000 ALCS. It also will forever taint the outcome of that series and the personal records of the players involved.
Apparently five steroid using Yankees players played a major role in the defeat of the Mariners in that series which lasted six games. The Mitchell report names starting New York Pitchers Roger Clements, Andy Pettitte, Jason Grimsley and Denny Neagle and three position players David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch and Glenallen Hill.
One Mariner, third Baseman David Bell is named in the report and played for the Mariners in the 2000 series. If Bell was using steroids at the time it did not appear to help him because he only hit .222 in 15 plate appearances with 0 RBI.
But, much of the alleged steroid use by named players outlined in the Mitchell report swirls around the 2000 season and the Yankees. Pitchers Clements, Pettitte, Grimsley and Neagel along with Justice, Knoblauch and Hill are named. Apparently former Yankee and Clement's personal trainer Brian McNamee provided much of the evidence about the players in question to Mitchell. Here a excerpt from the report:
“Clemens hired McNamee to train him during portions of several weeks in the off-season. McNamee also trained Clemens personally for one to two weeks during spring training and a few times during the season. McNamee served as the Yankees’ assistant strength and conditioning coach through the 2001 season.388 McNamee first learned about Kirk Radomski through David Segui during the 2000 season. Also that season, McNamee obtained Radomski’s telephone number from Jason Grimsley. McNamee wanted to buy a Lexus, and Radomski had a connection with a Lexus dealer. Radomski recalled that Grimsley was a frequent customer for performance enhancing substances, and he produced nine checks written by Grimsley to Radomski during 2001 and 2002 and fourteen checks in total.Clements, Neagle, Pettitte, and Grimsley pitched a total of 26.7 innings combined in the 2000 ALCS series of 53 possible innings that could have been pitched. Pettitte won game 3 and Clements won a pivotal game 5 in Seattle. Roger the Rocket tossed a complete game 1 hit 15 strikeouts performance in game 4. Definitely a sign that he was “on” that day. Pettitte’s one win consisted of a 6.7 inning 4 hit outing and 2 strikeouts. Neagle pitched 2 games of 10 total innings and lost both. Grimsley had one scoreless inning of relief.
According to McNamee, during the middle of the 2000 season Clemens made it clear that he was ready to use steroids again. During the latter part of the regular season, McNamee injected Clemens in the buttocks four to six times with testosterone from a bottle labeled either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin that McNamee had obtained from Radomski. McNamee stated that during this same time period he also injected Clemens four to six times with human growth hormone he received from Radomski, after explaining to Clemens the potential benefits and risks of use. McNamee believed that it was probably his idea that Clemens try human growth hormone. Radomski instructed McNamee how to inject human growth hormone. On each occasion, McNamee administered the injections at Clemens’s apartment in New York City. “
Position player David Justice led the Yankees with 8 RBI in the series. He had a .538 slugging percentage. If I remember correctly he had several key hits. Chuck Knoblauch scored 3 runs and had 6 hits and 2 RBI in 23 at bats.
The Mitchell Report is apparently only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the allegations of steroid use in baseball. Much of the report is based on hearsay evidence. So I guess we will never really know what the true extend of the problem was and still is with baseball and steroids. But the report certainly will make true baseball and Mariner fans wonder about who really was the better team in the 2000 ALCS. It also will forever taint the outcome of that series and the personal records of the players involved.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Make No Law Respecting An Establishment Of Religion Comics
What the Republican presidential candidates are really thinking comics?
Click on image to enlarge
Monday, December 10, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Cure For BCBCS Finally Found
Your begining to wake up from a very long dream that's theme has been that your country has been taken over by a bunch of BANAL political robots in spite of your best efforts to stop it.
Sure it's probably more true then it's not that a corporate oligarchy has really been running this country sense the end of the last century. It just seems like a more benevolent oligarchy with the left is in charge. Left leaning governments seem to checkmate some of the corporate power during their time in office. But they certainly don't stop it.
Only Dennis Kucinich would possibility bring a stop to it if he somehow became President. But let's be realists.
Some friends and I sat around pondering the tremendous waste of time the entire Bush presidency has been. Time wasted that could of been used to address global warming, our environment, alternative energy sources, health care and real world peace, free of religious extremist bullshit litmus tests and religious fanatics Christian, Muslim or otherwise.
Haven't we had enough of this religious and corporate driven endless war making in the name of oil, god, greed, nationalist ego or bloody profit making? Tired of nitwit poll watching political leaders with no backbone?
We are also living in an era of pandering centrist public opinion poll driven politics invented by Bill and Hillary which certainly added fuel to the Republican revolution or recent years which has been characterized by anti government divisiveness, inaction and the do nothing corporate controlled Gingrich, Delay or anemic lefty led congresses.
Well your suffering from BCBCS or Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Sickness. The cure is to choose a fundamental change in political leadership.
"Well it's time to wake the fuck up people! I truely believe that the Republic as we know it is at stake here and now. No more excuses that I don't understand politics or I can find the time to vote. We are on the verge of losing what maybe left of anything that's been good and righteous about this living breathing great American experiment."
Sure it's probably more true then it's not that a corporate oligarchy has really been running this country sense the end of the last century. It just seems like a more benevolent oligarchy with the left is in charge. Left leaning governments seem to checkmate some of the corporate power during their time in office. But they certainly don't stop it.
Only Dennis Kucinich would possibility bring a stop to it if he somehow became President. But let's be realists.
Some friends and I sat around pondering the tremendous waste of time the entire Bush presidency has been. Time wasted that could of been used to address global warming, our environment, alternative energy sources, health care and real world peace, free of religious extremist bullshit litmus tests and religious fanatics Christian, Muslim or otherwise.
Haven't we had enough of this religious and corporate driven endless war making in the name of oil, god, greed, nationalist ego or bloody profit making? Tired of nitwit poll watching political leaders with no backbone?
We are also living in an era of pandering centrist public opinion poll driven politics invented by Bill and Hillary which certainly added fuel to the Republican revolution or recent years which has been characterized by anti government divisiveness, inaction and the do nothing corporate controlled Gingrich, Delay or anemic lefty led congresses.
Well your suffering from BCBCS or Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Sickness. The cure is to choose a fundamental change in political leadership.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
When Will These Gutless Politicians Impeach This Criminal
This lying disaster of a president today once again made a complete ass of himself in front of the country and the world. It's World War III talk one month and after being told there is no weapons program in Iran he continues the saber rattling retorical bullshit .
What the fuck will it take to remove this incompetent criminal from office? Is this not a nation of laws? Fuck the people who say it not good for the country. They are a bunch of gutless pussy whipped house husbands and no better then this moronic so called president!
What the fuck will it take to remove this incompetent criminal from office? Is this not a nation of laws? Fuck the people who say it not good for the country. They are a bunch of gutless pussy whipped house husbands and no better then this moronic so called president!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)