The Obnoxious Odor of Mendacity

Senator Jon Kyl-Convicted Child Molester*

2012-01-07T09:52:00.000-08:00

It's amazing after all these years that the child molestation conviction of Jon Kyl, against his own children,* have never been an issue of his serving in the Senate.

It's time to bring these charges to light immediately.

* Not meant to be a factual statement

Class Warfare? FUCK YOU!

2011-09-20T20:50:00.000-07:00

It's incredibly unseemly to watch a bunch of rich white men talk about class warfare.

How about the class warfare being waged by the GOP on behalf of the rich and corporations against ordinary working Americans who pay more than their fair share in taxes? A GOP that threatens to take away any safety net they can, including union representation and social security.

If the GOP wants class warfare—much like the race war they are waging against minorities in country—bring it on.

GOP Plans to Help Christian Talibanists Take Over America

2011-09-03T11:00:00.001-07:00

Back in the 1960 election, presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy had to prove to voters that he would not be beholden to the Pope.

Yet today, a GOP candidate has secretly pledged to follow the agenda of Christian Talibanists in taking over the U.S.

So much for the separation of church and state.

How the GOP found Jesus....

2011-08-07T12:49:00.000-07:00

If there's any proof that fiscal responsibility is based not on ideology but rather political expediency and being in charge of the purse strings, here it is (from the Washington Monthly)...

1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget

1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.

1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.

1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.

2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.

2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.

2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.

2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.

2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.

2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.

September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.

October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.

November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.

December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.

March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.

July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.

August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.

America to Joe Walsh: Quit lying!

2011-07-29T21:10:00.000-07:00

I wonder how Joe Walsh can moralize about fiscal responsibility when his own house isn't even in order. It's clear that he'd rather pay himself and enjoy the lavish perks of a Congressional lifestyle than support his own family.

Quick Question...

2011-03-03T19:38:00.000-08:00

What do former deputy attorney general Jeff Cox and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi have in common?

Apparently, a belief in their authority to arbitrarily open fire on the constituents they are supposed to serve.

Conservatives are Pussies

2011-02-21T20:09:00.000-08:00

With popular uprisings spreading across the Middle East, believe it or not, far right conservatives have actually been split about the change, with voices like chicken little Glenn Beck and draft-dodging Dick Cheney showcasing their usual chicken-shit fear that regime change automatically means radical Islam states will rise in their wake.

As they have shown in their domestic demogaguery, democracy is only convenient when it advances your own ideology.

As I said in my previous post, radical Islam was clearly blindsided by these uprisings—indeed, as many have noted, the street-level-inspired uprisings are Al Quaeda's worst nightmare, rendering it irrelevant. The storyline given by simpletons like Beck and Cheney simply serve to underscore their ignorance of seeing Islam as an either/or proposition.

Of course, the possibility exists that should these nascent movements falter due to a lack of unity or organization, extremists may find a way to move into power. But I say in view of the alternative where we allow dictators to stay in power and continue oppressing its people which only stokes further resentment (particularly against the West), I say let change play out—the results cannot be any worse than what we have now. Even if extremists were to somehow gain total control over the state, they would no longer be working in the shadows and would be easier to fight. They also would need to govern and need to be more accountable both to their own people and the world community. At worst, they will simply remain the fringe, anarchic elements they already are today.

But, as usual, the GOP uses fear to stir the masses—whether it's the result of cynicism or a real fear of the world outside our borders, I can't tell.

In many ways, the very definition of conservativism means a fear of change. Rather, we should see hope and opportunity in this change. Only those who fear the future would begrudge the chance for others to pursue freedom by whatever means necessary.

Too Little Too Late

2011-02-17T20:13:00.000-08:00

Evidence of Al Quaeda's pathetic attempt to catch up to history, as current events threaten to pass them by and render them irrelevant.

Al Qaeda in Iraq calls Egypt protesters to wage jihad

You Can Run But You Can't Hide

2011-02-16T20:07:00.000-08:00

As protests and, in some countries, regime change sweep the Middle East, these events demonstrate the real desire that exists among common, everyday people in developing countries for a true democratic society that is transparent and provides opportunity and freedom.

Even the religious extremists who for decades have aspired to power and strived to capture the minds and hearts of the people have been blindsided by the scope, force and success of this spontaneous grass roots movement — so much so that they have prudently stayed low and out of the way.

In the meantime, many of the regimes now under fire have resorted to their usual tactics of blaming foreign elements for the agitation. But it's clear that this is a true "people power" movement, almost having nothing to do with politics or ideology.

Rather, the events that are unfolding appear to be an expression of pent up frustration of people who, through modern technology, know how other people live and have more freedom. It also is very much a youth movement—countries like Egypt and Iran skew incredibly young and this generation—many of them quite urbane and well traveled—see nothing but hopelessness if the present systems are allowed to continue.

Technology has played an important role in these revolutions. Social media allows large groups of demonstrators to mobilize quickly; and instantaneous news outlets broadcast in real time means the eyes of the world are on the regimes, with any approach taken to counteract these changes under scrutiny.

Uncertainty remains on how these reforms and new freedoms will play out. But they are long overdue, and it appears that the ordinary people on the street are taking a stronger hand in determining how they are governed. More power to them.

North Koreans are Pussies

2011-01-22T07:26:00.000-08:00

Take that North Korea!

Aside from sinking ships without provocation by stealthily sneaking up behind them or shooting unarmed tourists, when's the last time you successfully saw any action

North Korea makes a lot of noise about attacking but never does anything — because it knows it's ass would be kicked by the South if they tried anything. (With or without the U.S.'s help.)

1 Down, 19 to Go

2011-01-11T22:08:00.000-08:00

Typically—despite the fact that a fellow legislator and a 9-year old bystander was murdered in the recent rampage in Tuscon, Arizon—rather than engage in any leadership or healing, Sarah Palin and the GOP have resorted to fingerpointing and defensiveness to go out of their way to say they had nothing to do with ordering the assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

The fact that they have gotten so defensive and tried to deflect blame in my eyes shows that they recognize their culpability in the event.

Palin delights in showing that she is a straight shooter and a card-carrying member of the NRA. She knew what she was doing when she put targets on those people's names. So she should be proud to have played a role in this political assassination attempt.

While they may have not explicitly asked for their deaths, the demonization and level of hatred that they have stirred in pursuit of their political ideology shows that, like Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, the assassin who recently killed Pakistani official Salman Taseer, they share a predeliction for using murder as a tool to achieve their religious and ideological ends when they feel they cannot do so through appropriate due process.

Isnt' there a law against targeting sitting legislators for murder?

Tucker Carlson says Michael Vick should be Lynched

2010-12-29T09:11:00.000-08:00

Wow.

The Real Threat from Within

2010-09-28T10:20:00.000-07:00

This recent Tom Tomorrow succinctly says what I've been saying for years about where the real threat to American democracy comes from in this country (click on the image or here for the full cartoon)....

Arizona Wants Race War

2010-05-01T09:52:00.000-07:00

To assist with their new anti-illegal immigration laws, Arizona should consider creating a special putting insignia on legal immigrants to ensure they can identify the "good" immigrants from the "bad" immigrants...

Perhaps the police can also adopt new uniforms that would reflect their new powers. Brown or black shirts with special armbands might be appropriate....

GOP Defends Fleecing of Average Joe

2010-04-26T21:18:00.000-07:00

One only needs to look at the GOP's questioning of the SEC's "timing" of its investigation of Goldman Sachs for evidence that the GOP has never cared for the interests of Main Street and is always willing to defend the interests of Wall Street.

Why the GOP Hates America...

2009-08-04T23:54:00.001-07:00

...because like the Taliban and Al Quaeda, they'd rather fight for the nihilation of this country and American society than have anyone who does not agree with their ideology succeed.

A Cancer on the Republican Party

2009-07-01T23:44:00.000-07:00

The unseemly admission of an extramarital affair by Mark Sanford is the latest stain on the GOP, following a similar admission by Republican Senator John Ensign, attempted glory hole sex by Republican Senator Larry Craig, the bastard grandchild of Repubican Governor Sarah Palin, and the boy-chasing of Republican Congressman Mark Foley.

I personally don't believe such personal lapses affect anyone's ability to govern, lead or do their job—unless, of course, you insist on holding others accountable to this standard and claim you are the party of family values and preach moral purity.

The GOP has painted itself into this corner and are now exposed for the hypocrites they are— both Sanford and Craig, for example, strongly called for Bill Clinton's ouster and impeachment as President when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, insisting he was not morally equipped to hold office.

As for the latest scandal, the main reason the Mark Sanford story continues to have legs is because Sanford continues to talk about it obsessively. He sounds like a pathetic, developmentally-arrested adolescent. If this woman is his "soul mate," then he should divorce his wife; how is his wife supposed to feel as he continues to insisthe is still emotionally obsessed with this other woman? He is admitting his marriage is a failure.

I believe Sanford genuinely believes his infidelity is somehow more "honorable" because this is about "true love," not raw sex—as if that will absolve him of cheating on his wife, breaking his religious and marriage vows, and of his hypocrisy as yet another politician who was unable to live up to the moral values he insists on imposing on others.

The ongoing hypocrisy of the GOP is a cancer on the Republican Party. If they continue to insist on holier-than-thou politics, they will only see their moral credibility continue to decline and become more marginalized.

Something's Gotta Give

2009-06-16T19:26:00.000-07:00

Unless something truly dramatic happens, it's likely that the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ultimately will be upheld, even if the ruling authority has to make some symbolic concessions.

Nevertheless, the protests in Iran clearly show how much pent up frustration there is in the country under clerical, repressive rule. It no doubt is a wake up call to the powers that be both in Iran and the other regimes in the region who have exerted control and power that their populations are beginning to bristle under their paternalistic, oppressive authority, and that their sway over the nation is not as strong as they thought.

The response to the election results also exposes Ahmadinejad's unpopularity. Even by the standards of the Middle East, Ahmadinejad's grandstanding and posturing—bordering on the inane and buffoonish—has not only been a source of embarrassment, but led to the growing isolation of the country. Relative to its neighbors, Iran is a relatively cosmopolitan people, and Ahmadinejad's boorishness must no doubt be a source of serious consternation to many in the country.

As I have mentioned in the past, these regimes have often distracted their people from the their own failings by blaming their lot on the West and Israel. One must wonder how long they can sustain this lie before it begins to crumble under the desire for more freedom and opportunities.

Photo credit: From the New York Daily News.

I'll have a coffee please

2009-04-17T21:38:00.000-07:00

If the GOP is so moral, why are they promoting tea bagging?

GOP's Worst Nightmare

2009-04-15T20:11:00.000-07:00

After years of portraying themselves as the party of the alpha male and the Dems as effete, whimpy wonks, the GOP clearly feels stymied.

For what they now face in the White House is a youthful, vigorous and energetic black male, who is not only smart but incredibly athletic as well, with street cred who is comfortable in basketball pickup games.

Driving the point home is the swift, decisive action that brought a close to the Somali pirate hostage situation. Regardless of whether the President deserves "credit" for the outcome, for now he is inexorably tied to the daring action of the Navy SEALS and U.S. military who took their action with his executive decision and under his watch.

And as the usual whiny, crybaby reaction of many in the GOP show, they can't even show class in the happy outcome and are positively flummoxed on how to deal with this president.

The New Face of the Republican Party

2009-03-20T08:06:00.000-07:00

You know things are in a bad way for the Republican Party when they're taking advice from a horny plumber.

Though his 15 minutes ended several hours ago, several articles (see here and here) indicate that Joe the Plumber continues to capitalize on his behavior and apparently has been "talking strategy with conservative groups."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but given how out of touch and out of step the GOP has become, it doesn't seem that going to a white beer-drinking male for advice is going to help them modernize the party.

Nuff Said

2009-01-19T20:57:00.000-08:00

Far be it from me to kick a man when he's down—or out of office and now a private citizen—but I thought I'd make this final comment of our newest former President.

While George W. Bush is notoriously averse to any regret or second-guessing, he was uncharacteristically wistful his last few weeks of office. (And also defensive.)

One recurring theme has been that he never moved past emergency response mode. The President said in his final press conference, "As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11, but I never did."

To me, these words provide a subtle but significant key to what went awry in his presidency. Bush felt that 9/11—and, by extension, the adventure in Iraq,—was his defining moment, indeed the destiny God had put him in office for. Yet, as the above quote suggests, he never moved beyond that, creating a "bunker mentality" that is reminiscent of Jimmy Carter who in similar fashion famously barricaded himself in the White House awaiting the release of the hostages in Iran. In this way, Carter's presidency was taken hostage by the Iran crisis.

Emotionally, it's clear that Bush too was taken hostage by 9/11 and Iraq, never able to attend to other crises that included Katrina and the looming financial meltdown

Nuff said.

The Consequences of Building a Team of Rivals

2008-11-23T16:50:00.000-08:00

By now, President-Elect Barack Obama’s plan to model his Cabinet and senior staff team after the “Team of Rivals” approach used by President Lincoln has been well documented. This strategy was the focus of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s celebrated book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, which describes how Lincoln persuaded many of his political rivals to join his Cabinet believing the country needed to benefit from the brightest minds of his generation. Lincoln’s enduring legacy as one of the nation’s greatest presidents is a testament to the success of this strategy. Goodwin’s book not only shows how Lincoln successfully managed the varied egos and opinions of his Cabinet, but ultimately also gained the respect of men who initially dismissed him as an experienced backwoodsman.

Obama's desire to adopt such a leadership style says much about the confidence and self-possession of the President-Elect. Such a strategy ultimately requires a strong leader at the helm who is able to get everyone to work from the same page and accept his lead as chief executive.

The Team of Rivals approach may also have some additional side political benefits. Bringing in rivals from the opposition party into his inner circle—particularly those considered more moderate—also allows him to broaden his political base and reach across the aisle, while simultaneously pushing to the fringes the more extreme conservative wing of the opposition.

More Monday Morning Quarterbacking

2008-11-21T20:10:00.000-08:00

Here's an eerie coincidence: The “Permanent Majority” envisioned by the GOP (as strategized by Karl Rove, President Bush and minions) lasted exactly as long as the 1000 Year Third Reich: 12 years.

With all the recriminations and soul-searching going on within the GOP, here is an objective outsider’s view of where the GOP has gone wrong:

One of the cornerstones of classic conservativism is small, limited government. It’s ironic then that this Administration, with the support of a Republican-controlled Congress, squandered a record surplus left to them by the previous Democratic administration, produced record deficits, and turned out to be the highest-spending administration of all time.

What happened?

As the minority party, it’s easy to say you are against spending. But once you are in power and have greater control of the purse strings, it takes great discipline and self-control to put your money where your mouth is. Obviously, the GOP failed to live up to its own principles and fell prey to the temptations of power, showing that they too could be profligate spenders when given the keys to the coffers.

In addition, the Republicans have been taken hostage by a minority fringe that is too far right and out of step with the rest of the country. Admittedly, this minority fringe exercises power by voting in high numbers, making noise on the issues that are important to them and contributing money. Ultimately, however, as a voting block, they are not sufficient enough in size by themselves to put national candidates over the top and can only succeed by creating coalitions with other groups, often using fear, hate and divisiveness to carve up the opposition.

As issues more important to the rest of the electorate emerged during this election cycle (such as the economy), these coalitions collapsed and exposed the rhetoric of the far right as devoid of positive ideas and thinking, and full of nothing but negativity. There exists in the far right a seething anger and resentment (evident even when they are in power) that really showed its teeth during the election through its nasty race-tinged smears of the opposition, and which showed a true contempt for the rest of America. While they give lip service to “Country first!”, it’s clear they mean “Ideology/Christian values first.” Which is ironic and unseemly given the intolerance and hate that emanates from this fringe wing of the party.

Amazingly, the response of much of the right has been that they failed because didn’t veer rightward enough! Talk about out of touch! On the one hand, I would love to egg them on knowing that such a scorched-earth policy approach will only serve to push them further to the fringes. On the other, I find it disconcerting knowing that they will work to field even more far right candidates. I truly believe such candidates—as epitomized by the woefully ignorant, superficial and callow Sarah Palin—represent a real danger to the security and future of this country, and don't want them anywhere near a stone's throw of real positions of power.

Predictably, rather than working on new ideas, the far right is counting on the new President and his Democratic-controlled Congress to “overreach” by going too far to the left.

Fortunately, I think the President-Elect, who is a student of history, a pragmatist, and a consensus builder, will avoid that. Even the Democrats (including Speaker of the House and liberal stalwart Nancy Pelosi), who remember the humiliating losses of 1994, seem to understand that moving to the far left immediately out of the gate would be playing into the GOP’s hands.

I’m a pragmatist myself, not an ideologue. Hopefully, the Democrats will be disciplined and patient, and look at ensuring Obama’s chances for re-election in 2012. As any student of presidential history knows, it’s the second term when Presidents have more leeway to pursue bigger issues that require harder decisions since they no longer have to worry about re-election.

Your Fifteen Minutes are Up

2008-11-16T17:01:00.000-08:00

The main reason Sarah Palin created so much excitement among her Right Wing Christian Talibanist GOP base was because they were desperate for their own “rock star” to counteract the clear charisma of the rival ticket. Palin was physically attractive and sassy, yes, but other than that she was a blank slate on which a disheartened fringe electorate could pin their hopes on. Their disappointment with the ticket they were stuck with was exposed in the “Palin/McCain” bumper stickers that cropped up which flipped the ticket, reflecting the preference of the Christian Talibanists.

As Palin became better known to the rest of the country, however, her appeal and poll numbers plummeted. It seems agreed now that Palin's selection was a disaster for the ticket, piling on top of the campaign's poor decisions and execution, as well as plain bad luck.

In deference to her popularity among the right wing faithful, Palin was a keynote speaker at a recent GOP meeting of governors. The invitation, however, appears to have been a bit pro forma and simply a nod to one wing of the party—her speech does not appear to have been very well received by her fellow governors or consistent, and some of her colleagues grumbled about the attention she received, whisking her away from her press conference after less than 5 minutes.

It's clear that Palin is ambitious—I presume she would not have reached the governorship of Alaska without some intelligence. (She certainly has the political shrewdness). Still, we're talking about Alaska here, which despite what the Governor says, apparently engages in the very socialist ideal of distributing oil wealth to its citizens.

To give Palin the benefit of the doubt, one explanation for her poor performance during the election was that until she had been plucked from the tundra to run as vice president, running for office at the national level was not yet on her radar and she hadn't had the years of preparation and education many candidates undertake when running for national office. Frankly, asking anyone to make the leap from governor of one of the least populated states in the union to vice presidential candidate is a huge one, and not something a few weeks of coaching would necessarily solve.

If Palin is serious about running for office in the lower 48 that would raise her national profile, I would suggest she prove herself as governor and develop some substance. Until then, she is doing nothing but wearing out her welcome and showing herself to be the empty suit she was during the presidential election.

Sarah, please go back to Alaska!

What Makes Us Great

2008-11-04T22:56:00.000-08:00

Plenty will be written about the magnificent campaign Barack Obama ran to reach the White House, and of his soaring, inspirational election night speech.

But for now I'd like to give props to John McCain for exiting on a high note and delivering a concession speech that was gracious, healing and unifying. I am astounded McCain chose to run such a nasty campaign and did so to the bitter end despite the polls, partly because it was so contrary to what he seemed to stand for in the past. Nevertheless, at the very end he deserves credit for moving quickly to step aside for the new President-Elect in order to unify the nation behind their new leader.

While it's all part of the theater of American politics, to me it nevertheless underscores what makes the United States so great and unique among modern nations—that even after a bruising political battle, opponents can come together, shake hands, and re-affirm their mutual dedication to protecting and advancing the best interests of our great country.

God Bless America

2008-11-03T06:09:00.000-08:00

The Anti-America Parts of the Country

2008-10-28T23:02:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin’s recent claim that parts of the country are “anti-America” —which was followed by Michele Bachmann’s call for investigations into alleged anti-American elements of Congress—ironically exposes the hate and contempt that Palin and her fellow conservative Talibanists have for the rest of the country and the principles it was founded on.

For as much as the extreme right wing likes to mindlessly crow “Country first,” it’s anything but—rather, it’s ideology first and their Christian God first, with no regard or respect for the views or opinions of others.

And nowhere is that more evident in their choice of Sarah Palin, a dangerous, ignorant and unthinking rabble-rouser who borders on demagoguery. By embracing a candidate so obviously unready for the Oval Office, and so unfit to lead the nation especially in this time of crisis and uncertainty, they have shown the rest of America that they are less interested in the future and security of the country than they are in turning it into a Christian Talibanist state.

See here for more about Sarah and Todd Palin’s anti-American secessionist activities.

I Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself….

2008-10-27T20:27:00.000-07:00

Amid all the sturm and drang of this election campaign, here are a few noteworthy and eloquent endorsements for Barack Obama, some of which are significant given their sources:

The New Yorker
Endorsement from National Review columnist Christopher Buckley, son of the late leading conservative William F. Buckley, Jr. (Buckley was forced to resign from the magazine afterwards)
A follow up piece from Buckley discussing the epic failures of the Bush Administration and GOP
A piece from conservative founder Barry Goldwater’s granddaughter
An endorsement from Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hutchins
Endorsement from Republican and former Massachusetts Governor William Weld
Endorsement from Reagan appointee and former McCain Adviser Charles Fried

And from Sarah Palin’s home state of Alaska, an endorsement for Barack Obama from the Anchorage Daily News.

As of October 27, the total number of newspaper endorsements received by Obama is 180, versus 75 for McCain. These include at least 35 papers that endorsed George Bush in 2004.

The Politics of Hate

2008-10-22T20:59:00.000-07:00

While I’m not sure whether the Rovian/Bush approach to winning elections by cynically using hate speech to divide the country rather than running on anything inspirational or unifying will truly be completely buried and discredited with the current presidential campaign (depending on the outcome of course), it certainly so far has not gained serious traction. With fear in the air about the economy and the overall future of the country, it’s clear the electorate are looking for leadership and hope, and want nothing to do with the kind of toxic innuendo and hate that has been emanating from the GOP.

Surprisingly—and perhaps as a reflection of the desperation of the McCain campaign—McCain has done little to change his playbook. Indeed, if anything, the attacks have become even more shrill and ridiculous, with members of the GOP now recklessly claiming that some parts of the country are not “pro-American” and Minnesota Congressional Representative Michele Bachmann calling for McCarthy-like investigations of whether her fellow members of Congress are anti-American (which has spectacularly backfired as noted here and here). The GOP has puzzlingly continued this scorched earth policy despite most polls showing that voters are not only turned off by it (which admittedly they always say) but also that this strategy has made little dent to date in the numbers.

Of course, the GOP and McCain—who has embraced the right to the disappointment of those who once admired the Senator’s willingness to break at times with his party during the days of the “Straight Talk Express”—likely recognizes it now has little choice but to play the politics of fear, given that they cannot run on the economy, nor on their record, or on being agents of change. But at the same time, the shrillness and shameless mudslinging of innuendo and guilt of association has not only exposed the level of panic and hysteria in the GOP but also shown it truly is a party of hate, bereft of new ideas.

Colin Powell summed it up best when speaking about his endorsement of Barack Obama. He took the time of his endorsement as an opportunity to also express concern about the direction both of the campaign and the GOP in its strategy of using fear and hate to divide the country and to claim some people for being un-American. It’s a strategy, I trust, that history will eventually condemn as a dark time in American politics.

End Teen Pregnancy Now

2008-10-10T20:34:00.000-07:00

For further proof of the hypocrisy and whining of the GOP and their Christian Talibanist supporters, one need to look no further than their response to Sarah Palin’s unwed, underage pregnant daughter.

The right have been up in arms that this is a private “family matter” that the media has no right focusing on.

Generally, I agree. But by the same token, it is this party that extols “family values,” decries the decline in morality in society, and believes that morality should be legislated. If the GOP and Christian Talibanists are serious about their belief that morality is not a private matter but deserving of public and community judgment, then certainly shouldn’t their own be held to the same standard?

Angry Grandpa!

2008-10-08T21:16:00.000-07:00

There's still a lot of time yet until election day, but for now neither the trends nor the momentum are in McCain's favor.

While McCain and the GOP predictably have moved into attack mode, given people's worries about the economy, his attempts to avoid the elephant in the room (i.e., the economy) and instead engage in mudslinging and character attacks further reinforces many people's belief that McCain is out of touch and doesn't understand the concerns of middle class Americans. Plus it smacks of desperation.

McCain, of course, didn't help himself in the recent debate. While McCain pushed for the town hall format, he came off as stiff and uncomfortable. McCain conveniently forgot that the town hall meetings he has participated in and finds so invigorating consist of audiences who are selected to be enthusiastic and support him. True, the format used for the debate was hardly a true "town hall" meeting, and instead was clinical, controlled and cold. But Obama adapted easily while McCain, perhaps showing his age, did not.

McCain has partly painted himself in this corner. In instant responses and polls, viewers reacted negatively when McCain went on the offensive, which only served to underscore his unlikability and reputation for being a hothead. So McCain must tread a delicate balance to avoid looking too unhinged. (One commentator likened McCain as coming off as an "angry grandpa" when he referred to Obama as "That one.") By contrast, Obama's ratings went UP when he went on the offensive.

McCain also has the disadvantage of being closely tied to this Administration and the GOP. As much as he tries to run away from it and portray himself as a "maverick," McCain nonetheless is part of the status quo and the Washington beltway, who supported deregulation with his Congressional colleagues and has been an especially vocal proponent of going to war, whether it be Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or North Korea.

Though some have expressed amazement that there still remain a significant group of "undecideds" as we approach election day, my take on it is that many of these people simply are trying to get comfortable with the idea of Obama as president. Obama's cool, measured performances in his debates have served him well and made him look more presidential.

One month left to go!

Mission Accomplished

2008-10-02T23:50:00.000-07:00

What does it say about the viability of Sarah Palin's candidacy when her main goal in her vice presidential debate was to prove she isn't a complete drooling idiot—well all I can say is, "Mission Accomplished!"

While some hoped to see Palin meltdown onstage, all indications from Palin's background and experience demonstrated that so long as she prepared, she would do fine. After all, given all her other missteps, one would hope that at least being able to not hurt the ticket further by not embarrassing herself in the debate would be a minimum load she could handle.

At best, Palin did not personally embarrass herself as she has already done numerous times. However, this hardly qualifies her for the vice presidency of the United States. Nor does it help McCain much other than to somewhat stanch the damage she already has done to the ticket. Nevertheless, while many seemed to credit her for at least showing up and standing her ground, in terms of substance and presence, she nevertheless fell far short, as early polls from CNN and CBS seem to suggest. Palin continued to Palinize by skirting around questions and answering with vague message points that were long on platitudes and cheerleading, and short on substance or specific plans of action.

Palin’s answers do not lack confidence, they lack coherence. —Bob Schneider, CNN

Research Shows Conservatives are Genetically Cowardly

2008-09-26T19:47:00.000-07:00

Explaining the root cause of the Bush Doctrine, a recent study showed that "people with strongly conservative views were three times more fearful than staunch liberals."

That sure explains a lot—and why, I think, John McCain initially asked to cancel this Friday's presidential debate, and why they are trying to cancel the vice presidential debate.

Burn, Baby, Burn

2008-09-25T21:39:00.000-07:00

I understand the desire for the proposed $700 million bailout of financial institutions as a necessary safety net for the overall health of the national economy. However, I’ve changed my mind about this bailout for the following reasons:

This crisis is the result of an Administration and an ideology that believes that government should stay out of the way of business, that “government is the problem and not the solution,” and that the market should be allowed to take care of itself.

As such, I do not see why these financial institutions merit being saved when the crisis they are experiencing is the result of their own bad judgment and greed. It seems rather hypocritical to ask the government to stay out of business, then to turn to them for help when they get into trouble. Isn’t such weeding out simply an example of market forces at work?

While I somewhat agreed with the general argument that many homeowners who got themselves into mortgage trouble by overextending themselves and by making bad decisions did not deserve to be bailed out, it follows that the financial institutions who enabled those homeowners and were as much part of the problem deserve no assistance or sympathy as well.

This is cronyism at its worst. These financial institutions have always resented government intrusion into their business and many of the people in this field have resented government intervention programs for the disadvantaged. I say it is time to let these institutions burn down to the ground and let new more prudent ones take their place with the lessons learned.

And if such a bailout is to occur, I would expect the senior CEOs and managers of these institutions either to be fired or, at the least, expect them to be subject to a drastic reduction in compensation, and a loss of property and income. Given the obscene wealth and arrogance these people have demonstrated over the years, it is time for Wall Street to experience the same tangible pain as their victims on Main Street if they expect to beg the American people for their hard earned money to rescue them from their own greed and fiscal mismanagement.

Fit for the Presidency?

2008-09-24T21:30:00.000-07:00

In my view, the issue isn’t so much whether GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, is qualified to be president in the event that McCain, as president, would for some reason be unable to serve—but rather what Palin’s selection says about the judgment of McCain.

All indications state that McCain’s choice was made on the cuff and impulsively, with little vetting or consideration. Cynical reasons aside, while McCain is known for being his own man and often shooting from the hip, one must wonder whether such recklessness—particularly given the past 8 years—is what this country needs in this moment in history.

Even leading, thoughtful conservatives have questioned McCain’s suitability for the job….

God Has Spoken

2008-08-30T23:45:00.000-07:00

So James Dobson prays for rain during Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech, and instead God brings Hurricane Gustav down on the GOP convention.

If ever there was a sign of God, I believe this was it.

We hear you God!

'Nuff said.

Bring It On

2008-08-28T21:38:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama has just brought the fight to John McCain.

After weeks of McCain baiting Obama, Obama used his youth and vigor and defied McCain to come at him.

By the very fact that he came out strong, willing to stand up and go toe-to-toe against an opponent who has positioned himself as the tougher fighter, Obama proved he is ready for the Oval Office.

The McCain campaign's pathetic response shows they were caught flat-footed. Reports say that McCain's campaign will try to resist the bait, which only affirms that they have been cowed by what they witnessed tonight.

Bring it on.

Florida: Shithole of a State

2008-08-26T21:47:00.000-07:00

The NRA has attacked Disney for not allowing it's employees to bring weapons into work.

I always suspected Florida was a shithole, and this confirms it if citizens don't have access to basic law enforcement protection and need to be armed against the crazed gunmen running rampant throughout the state.

Florida's real estate market is one of the worst hit in the country due to the recent mortgate loan meltdown—I guess no one wants to live there but criminals.

Let's hope Florida passes an ordnance requiring ALL citizens to pack heat so that we can watch the mutual genocide of the whole state.

A Lesson from the Redeem Team

2008-08-24T23:08:00.000-07:00

One of the most remarkable stories to come out of the Olympics has been the turnaround of the U.S. men's basketball team, the "Redeem Team."

The goal of the team wasn't just to bring gold back to U.S. basketball, which had become vulnerable to opposing international teams. Rather, it was also to rehabilitate its image.

As many outlets have noted, including a recent L.A. Times article, the arrogance of the team had alienated opposing teams and players, and earned it little respect. In many ways, it confirmed the worst stereotypes about Americans.

In contrast, this team made it a point to not only step up its game, but also to raise its image. And by all accounts, this team of star players from the top down—including Kobe Bryant, who seems to have been genuinely moved and re-energized by the experience—have bought into the importance of being good ambassadors both for the sport and for the U.S.

As the team's managing director noted, in order for Team America to be successful, it didn't just need to come out on top, "We have to show respect for our country, show respect for our team, show respect for our opponents. And anything less than that’s not going to fly.’ ”

Sounds like a lesson our present (and any future) Administration should take to heart.

The Naivete of George W. Bush (the Appeaser not the Decider)

2008-08-21T23:35:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the President's toothless response to Russia's invasion of Georgia serves as yet another painful reminder of the impotency of both George Dubya and the United States under his leadership (as if they could sink any lower). As much as G.W. pays lip service to defending democracy around the world, like a deer caught in the headlights (in fact, similar to his immediate response to 9/11 when he froze in wide-eyed fear) he stood around and did nothing early on while Russia moved into Georgia and consolidated its land-grab. In response, Bush simply said nations shouldn't act like bullies.

The fallout? The Russians likely will say entrenched in the contested territory as this lame duck President sells out a nascent democracy and cowers in fear of upsetting an upstart power that this President desperately needs as an ally for reasons related to oil, Iran and Iraq.

This latest fiasco is yet further proof of this President's incompetency, naivete, and downright poor judgment. As noted in an a recent L.A. Times article regarding this latest failure of U.S. foreign policy under this Administration, "early in his term, Bush famously said that he got a 'sense of his soul'" after a meeting with then Russian President Vladimir Putin, adding, "I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy."

Putin clearly seized upon Bush's naivete and Christianity to play him for a fool.

Peace in our time

2008-08-15T17:53:00.000-07:00

Given all the noise this administration likes to make about the dangers of appeasement, the rather pathetic response it has made about Russia's invasion of Poland, er, I mean, Georgia, speaks volumes. At first essentially turning a blind eye to the conflict hoping it would go away, the President finally felt compelled to speak out against Russia's brazen invasion a week later.

If anything, the President's appeasement of Russia and reluctance to initially rock the boat underscores the U.S.'s decline in power under this administration and its desperation to stay on Russia's good side.

If this President wishes to be consistent in his policies and is sincere about protecting democracy around the world, he should be prepared to rattle his saber a little louder and threaten Russia militarily. Aren't we the world's policeman?

But we all know this President is a pussy who only pays lip service to the idea of protecting democracy, willing to invade for a personal grudge rather than to protect innocent lives.

At left: It's not Hitler we should be comparing the President to. It's appeaser/coward Neville Chamberlain.

Where's the Love?

2008-07-28T22:20:00.000-07:00

What's with all the fucking whining about the media coverage Barack Obama has been receiving?

One would think such coverage only fitting to balance out the Pravda-worthy lovefest that the GOP and George W. Bush have enjoyed the past eight years from party flacks like Fox News and Fat Fuck Drug Addict Rush Limbaugh the last eight years. It must be bad when even they're abandoning you though.

Why They Hate Us, Part II

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

While recently watching the Schoolhouse Rock series on DVD with my children, I was taken aback by one of the shorts from the collection, "Tax Man Max," which I've posted below.

It's obviously a fascinating artifact given the "no tax" mantra that pervades modern-day American politics and discourse, a knee-jerk position I've blogged about previously here.

Were it to air today, I could very well imagine many people being enraged by it. For some, it might well qualify as propaganda—and, worse, propaganda focused on indoctrinating our children!

I have little doubt it was made with genuine sincerity and all good intentions. It is a reflection of a time when there was a stronger sense of civic responsibility and even "sacrifice" in the American citizenry. The animated short effectively makes the very point I tried to make in my earlier post—that taxes play an important role in providing services and creating a sense of community in a society. As I said earlier, it amazes me that people expect our government to wage war, take care of our service men and women, improve schools, and build better roads, yet feel they shouldn't need to pay a dime for it.

Journalism RIP

2008-07-16T23:04:00.000-07:00

In another example of the continued gradual decline of the American newspaper and the field of journalism in general, the Los Angeles Times recently announced that it was planning to cut 250 jobs, including 150 news staff.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I do feel newspapers are an essential part of a functional democracy. Aside from providing a check on the three branches of government for the citizenry as the "fourth branch of government," I appreciate that newspapers provide a depth of coverage that most new media news outlets do not. In contrast, online "journalism" can be far from impartial, and it's often difficult to differentiate responsible reportage from unintended or willful misinformation (if it's online, it must be true, right?), let alone outright demagoguery.

On the other hand, however, I also have little sympathy or patience anymore for modern journalism, which have abdicated the basic values of great American journalism.

Modern journalism is now simply part of the "establishment," owned by media conglomerates that are more interested in protecting the status quo and their access to the corridors of power than truly acting as a responsible watchdog for the average American.

One only needs to watch classic films like the Front Page, His Girl Friday, and even the relatively recent All the President's Men to see that journalism in its heyday had a rough seedy edge to it, made up of rough-and-tumble outsiders who were skeptical of anyone in power. Perhaps that cynicism still exists, but now that these people are part of the moneyed establishment, they have happily ceded that role and primarily are more interested in "gotcha" politics and making even the most minor inconsistency a major issue—all at the expense of their role to keep the citizenry informed and educated. (Mixed in with all the eulogies that followed the passing of journalist Tim Russert, I must admit I was encouraged to see some contrarian comments. While his passing was certainly sad, I did feel he embodied in many ways what was wrong with American journalism, happily wielding a bullying power and influence that I don't think necessarily served the American public, nor was healthy either for journalism or political discourse.) In this sense, ironically it may be the blogosphere that will adopt this role, though given the inherent fragmented nature of the Web, one must wonder how effectively.

RIP to print journalism? As much as I would miss it, perhaps we should also say, "Good riddance!"

Why They Hate Us, Part I

2008-07-11T23:09:00.000-07:00

Below is a number entitled "Cool Conservative Men" from the musical 1776 that perfectly captures the central goal of the GOP/conservative position—to protect the place and power of the privileged in society.

While some may argue that the song has no relevance today and that it simply reflects the views of the Tories who wished to remain loyal to the crown (and, by extension, protect their interests as landed gentry), it's worth noting that Jack Warner, who was the Warner Bros. studio head at the time this hit musical was adapted for the screen, cut the number from the film at Richard Nixon's request before its release.

(Note: The scene was restored to the recent DVD release of the film, but an online link to it did not appear to be available, hence this link to this stage production.)

We Let This Man be President?

2008-06-20T22:36:00.000-07:00

If there's anything that best underscores the poor judgment of the idiot we elected president, it surely is this fag quote from the Decider-in-Chief after meeting the Vlad:

"I looked the man in the eye.... I was able to get a sense of his soul."

My God, lead this fucking country, don't go fucking trying to read men's minds--especially when you're obviously so fucking bad at it.

With Friends Like These... (Part 2)

2008-06-19T21:00:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I know it's been awhile since I last posted. While the usual intrusions of real life have contributed to the lack of posts, part of it was general fatigue and disinterest in this longer-than-usual primary season. Anyway, I hope to get back on a roll and post on issues!

First up is this article from the Los Angeles Times that confirms what I have been thinking and blogging about recently: with new powers on the rise like China and India (as I have discussed here), the U.S. can no longer arrogantly depend on its preeminence as the leading economic power to get all the oil it needs affordably.

Nor, apparently, can we depend on our friends. Even the well-documented cozy relationship that the Bush family has enjoyed with the house of Saud over several generations has not helped this Administration ease surging oil prices in the U.S. Despite the spectacle of an American president going hat-in-hand again to beg for help from Saudi Arabia (as I noted here the first time it happened) , the Saudis have all but told Bush and the U.S. to take a hike—now that they've got the Chinese to kiss up to.

If this in itself isn't enough to find new alternative sources of energy, then I don't know what is. The American people are now paying the price of our cronyism with and unwavering support of slimy oil regimes. It's time to stop letting backward Third World fiefdoms from running our lives.

America: Love It or Leave It!

2008-02-04T17:09:00.001-08:00

One of the things that irks me most about the conservative agenda is their constant pandering for lower taxes and their railing about government being Evil.

I don’t like paying taxes any more than the next person, but in a time when people are being asked to support the country, our troops, and the war on terrorism without a war draft and without making any attendant sacrifice, I feel that the most minimum way to show civic duty and responsibility is to pay taxes to support what we want our government to do. And this from a party that not only squandered a $559 billion surplus left to them by a liberal president (Clinton), but became the highest-spending federal legislature of all time. How’s that for hypocrisy?

Today people are so spoiled by the harping of “No New Taxes,” everyone seems to expect new roads, better schools, and national security without having to pay for it.

If conservatives believe the U.S. government is so evil, they should leave. The American government was the first government “for the people, by the people.” No, it’s not perfect, and it has its bureaucratic waste. But if not for government (and, I might add, a Democratic president), this country during the Depression would have sunk into despair and do-nothingness. Instead, the Federal government put together the New Deal which has been the safety net for hundreds of thousands if not millions of disadvantaged Americans and restored trust and hope in the power of government to effect change.

I find it amusing with the housing market now bust and the threat of a recession upon us, conservatives have suddenly found government to be a politically expedient tool. If they are true to their principles, they should simply let “the market” work things out themselves shouldn’t they?

State of the State of the Union

2008-01-31T10:19:00.001-08:00

Too little too late.

And at least it's his last one.

With Friends Like These....

2008-01-16T14:58:00.000-08:00

Has it come to this? The leader of (ostensibly) the world’s preeminent nation appearing before the Saudi royal family with hat in hand begging the Saudis and OPEC to lower oil prices?

Surely, if there is any image that underscores the declining prestige of the United States in the world, this is it. We are supposedly a nation that believes in the free market, unless of course, it is contrary to our own economic well being.

I’m sure the President believes that his “special relationship” (read cronies) with the Saudis gives him the latitude to go on his knees before the royal family on the subject.

In response, a Saudi oil minister stated at a press conference after the event, “We will raise production when the market justifies it.”

So much for the President’s special relationship.

Meanwhile, in a region where Bush has called for a "forward strategy of freedom" to promote democracy throughout the Middle East, he conspicuously said little on the subject during his whirlwind tour, and instead strove to shore up his relationships with well known non-democratic states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Additionally, after nearly 8 years of allowing the Israeli-Palestinean conflict to fester, he made a desperate, obvious attempt to salvage what little left is of his legacy with a Hail Mary attempt at a peace accord before he leaves office.

Given the distrust and dislike for Mr. Bush in the region, it’s unlikely any such accord will be looked at favorably until there is a new administration in place that will offer a fresh face and clean slate to move forward—assuming that the issue hasn’t been irrevocably damaged beyond repair.

The State of the Male 2008

2008-01-11T16:51:00.000-08:00

The latest ploy by the anti-abortion crowd is to bring in the men who now claim to have experienced the trauma of abortion, as reported here in the L.A. Times.

Jason Baier talks often to the little boy he calls Jamie. He imagines this boy -- his son -- with blond hair and green eyes, chubby cheeks, a sweet smile.

But he'll never know for sure.

His fiancee's sister told him about the abortion after it was over. Baier remembers that he cried. The next weeks and months go black. He knows he drank far too much. He and his fiancee fought until they broke up. "I hated the world," he said.

My God, what pussies. If these are the kind of whipped men we’re raising in the United States, it’s no wonder we’re losing the war in Iraq and the respect of the world.

Y’know, gentlemen, if you really were concerned, perhaps if you had taken some personal responsibility and practiced some abstinence and kept your dick in your pants—or at the very least wore a condom—maybe your life wouldn’t have been ruined. I think it’s just as well your DNA be removed from the gene pool and the memory of this world.

Enjoy hell child killers!

Opium of the Masses

2007-12-31T19:01:00.000-08:00

Extremist Christian Talibinists aside, today’s true opium of the masses is the Industrial Entertainment Complex. This encompasses Hollywood films, television, videogames, and sports.

Believe me, I’m as much a child of pop culture and a consumer of entertainment as the next person. But when one considers the amount of money made and spent on these industries, and the amount of time devoted to such pursuits by consumers, it certainly calls into question American priorities and values.

I am writing this the day of the New England Patriots – New York Giants football game, as the Pats attempt to go 16–0. Although I’m interested in the outcome, I was amazed by the amount of exhaustive coverage the game has been receiving, similar to the kind of all-day coverage of the SuperBowl and the Academy Awards.

I went through a phase several seasons ago where I followed pro football. I always was content to simply watch the games and track what was going on through the sports section. But I always thought that the coverage the games received on gameday was ridiculous, obvious, and overkills, with subscriber-only channels and services for the truly sports-obsessed.

I similarly stopped watching the Oscars for the same reasons. In view of the SAG Awards, the Director’s Guild Awardes, the Golden Globes, etc ., there has been for me a saturation of award shows±basically a place for Hollywood to self-promote and to pat themselves on the back.

It’s a larger reflection of the fact that we’re a celebrity-obsessed culture. Athletes and top tier entertainers get paid way more than what they do merits—but as much as people complain about it, these out-of-kilter paydays are the result of a society that constantly craves to be diverted and entertained. I’m sure that’s to the relief of an Administration that prefers a disengaged public that doesn’t ask questions and wants to be able to fight terror and wage wars without being asked to pay new taxes or make any inconvenient sacrifices.

The China Century

2007-12-12T14:22:00.001-08:00

U.S. policy has become obsessed with terrorist threats and the so-called Axis of Evil. While terrorist threats certainly need to be taken seriously, the Administration’s shrill approach and flat-out incompetency—and its use of the fear card—have played into terrorists’ hands by giving what is a rather fragmented, disorganized movement more credence and attention than it deserves. Designing virtually our entire foreign policy and its attendant resources around the fear of a terrorist attack seems to be a case of the tail wagging the dog, which in turn has seriously affected American prestige and its international standing.

Given somewhat less attention has been the quiet ascendancy of China, which probably poses the only true “threat” to American hegemony. In anticipation of this, many people have already dubbed this century “The China Century.”

China has made no secret of its desire to advance itself among the community of nations. To its credit, after surveying the international landscape and recognizing that the primary source of global power today is economic strength, the Chinese have for the most part eschewed a classic geopolitical, colonial and militaristic approach and instead identified economic, educational, and technological mastery as the key to prosperity and respect. While it certainly remains a Communist state, its met with great success in developing a market-style economy and has shown little interest in developing a geopolitical sphere of influence (unlike, say, the newly assertive, petro-dollar-driven Russia).

China is well on its way to achieving its goals. Although many of its political, social and legal institutions lag behind and remain the main threat to fully achieving its goals, it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Its hunger for resources already has made it one of the largest donor nations in Africa and South America (and unlike the West, China provides funding with no strings attached, whereas Western nations tie human rights issues to funding). The Chinese have benefited greatly from sending its students and scientists abroad for legitimate study and training (primarily in the U.S.), and have a growing professional, middle class that is educated and increasingly proud of its country’s recent strides. Its middle class is projected to become the largest in the world by around 2025, and most ordinary Chinese feel a renewed sense of national pride and are understandably optimistic about the future.

Recognizing the importance of Sino-U.S. relations and trade, the U.S. has generally tried to play nice with China. At the same time, it has rightly raised serious concerns about its environmental records, its economic policies that often are at the expense of the U.S., and its human rights and political institution.

By the same token, it seems a bit disingenuous and hypocritical, however, to fault China for acting out of economic self-interest or to hold it to some higher standard. The U.S.’s growth to international prominence in the 19th and 20th century is marked by plenty of disregard for workers’ rights and the environment, and benefited a definite robber baron class. It’s arguable that the U.S might not even have become an economic powerhouse without these abuses; fortunately, the work of unions, anti-trust policies, and other such activities “corrected” these abuses in the long term. In view of this, one must wonder whether it’s just to hold another country to the same high standard while it makes the leap from an agrarian and basic industrial economy to a 21st century high tech one.

Obviously, the U.S. needs to act out of its own best interests as well, which understandably includes protecting its own place as the world’s premier superpower. However, we also need to wake up to the fact that, given China’s booming economy, its growing middle class, and its clear ambitions, it’s very possible that China may become the economic and technological engine for the world, the world’s tastemakers, and the largest consumer class that drives everything else. How this will benefit, or hurt, the U.S., remains to be seen; and, as a reporter for National Public Radio recently reported after a visit to China, there certainly are people who don’t wish the Chinese well, I suspect both for xenophobic and chauvinistic reasons. But it will be difficult to hold China back. And relative to the other threats that exist in the world, it would be prudent for the U.S. to develop a good partnership with an ascendant fellow economic superpower that is relatively benign compared to the kind of very real geophysical and national security threats that pose serious problems the U.S. around the world.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

2007-12-09T16:53:00.000-08:00

I’ve been meaning for awhile to post about the latest brand of despots who’ve emerged in recent years, chief among them Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez. (North Korea’s Kim Jung Il is defiantly old school and in a kooky class by himself.) Like many of the tyrants who’ve emerged over the centuries (particularly the 20th), they’ve used the guise of nationalism to consolidate power. And like many of their predecessors, they initially rise to power under legitimate means, usually by election.

In some ways, my feeling is that these countries get what they deserve--while I recognize that there usually isn’t often much choice, and it may be a matter of voting for the devil you know, by the same token, it’s hard for me to be sympathetic to an electorate that votes wholly for nationalistic or tribal reasons. While I certainly can’t pretend to understand the thinking of your average Third World citizen, given the lessons of history, I can’t believe these electorates actually don’t know what their voting for.

Chavez, in particular, appears to be the most transparent and a real live cannon. Emboldened by petro dollars (like Putin), he likes to throw his weight around and so obviously craves personal power.

So I must say it was quite a delight to watch Chavez get slapped down by the Valenzuelan people in the recent elections which would have, among other things, extended the President’s term of office and done away with term limits, essentially making him president for life.

It appears the honeymoon is over. Even many of Chavez’s supporters saw through transparent attempts to consolidate control and make the state more authoritarian. More importantly, however, the emptiness of Chavez’s rhetoric is beginning to show through. Despite the nation’s oil wealth and the largesse he has shown throughout the region to buy friends, little of that appears to have trickled down. While Chavez does provide handouts to the poorest in the country who constitute his largest supporters, he has done nothing to create opportunities or economic growth that would truly lift the masses and the country. And, apparently, crime in the country remains rampant, partly it is reported because Chavez is reluctant to move on those areas from where his strongest support comes. And, of course, his family and cronies have benefited greatly from his presidency.

Mark my words, like all good lunatic dictators, Chavez will pursue some other extra-constitutional way to achieve his authoritarian goals. Whether the Venezuelan people have the will and the unity to stand up to him when that day comes remains to be seen. But at least Chavez is now weakened and the opposition has been emboldened.

Support Your Local Union!

2007-11-19T16:39:00.000-08:00

It’s been encouraging to see that the WGA strike generally has strong public support. While I think most mainstream Americans generally are ambivalent about Hollywood and Hollywood types (despite the fact that we are a celebrity- and entertainment-obsessed society), it’s clear that there’s not much to sympathize with when it comes to the movie and television studios and media conglomerates. The industry’s rush to maximize their presence and content on the Web only undermines their argument that there’s “no money to be made in new media.” As many people have pointed out, writers are only requesting a percentage of profits—so if no money is made, how would it actually hurt the industry to agree to give a tiny percentage of revenues to the artists who actually create the content?

Yet, as a recent L.A. Times article pointed out, it’s not clear exactly how this public support translates into anything really tangible for the writers. Offering such support is simply symbolic and requires no sacrifice—frankly, it’s just lip service. If people want to really hurt the studios, they would need to boycott going to films, watching TV, etc. And I don’t see that happening, nor have I seen as yet the union suggest people do that.

So while such public support certainly is heartening to the cause, I don’t see it as pressuring the studios to end the strike fast, so long as people keep watching their shows and whatever they choose to put on the air when new content runs out.

Spidey Sense Tingling!

2007-09-05T10:30:00.000-07:00

The Dishonorable Larry Craig
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1203

Dear Sister:

I never heard of you until your recent lewd conduct arrest, but the minute I heard your high-pitched lilting voice, my “gay-dar” went on full-Spidey tingling alert.

I don’t know about you, but in my part of the world, anonymously sucking a guy’s cock in a public restroom usually is considered fag behavior. But maybe not in Idaho.

Perhaps it’s time you start admitting it to yourself--it sure is obvious to the rest of the world. And probably to your sons. Hopefully, you did not molest them when they were children.

By the way, perhaps you wouldn’t be deserving of contempt if not for your hypocrisy, particularly in voting for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for a sexual indiscretion. But, again, I guess you were particularly disgusted since his peccadillo was with a woman.

I saw that you were quoted on Tim Russert’s show as referring to President Clinton as “a bad boy, a naughty boy.” OMG, what a giveaway.

A straight U.S. Citizen

P.S. BTW, I do hope you do decide to stay in office to underscore how completely hypocritical and morally bankrupt the GOP is during the upcoming elections.

Blame America First!

2007-08-06T23:31:00.000-07:00

The most recent issue of Time magazine has reaffirmed my decision to discontinue my subscription when it expires later this year. The ridiculous “lifestyle” Mcarticles dominating the magazine in recent years and the need to kowtow to the conservative right with new columnists were annoying enough. But the idiotic commentary from Michael Kinsley in the August 13 issue was the final nail in the coffin.

In a new low even for war apologists looking desperately for a scapegoat, Kinsley uses the high poll numbers at the start of the war to blame the American people for the conflict, rather than the Administration that prosecuted it and got us into the ill-advised conflict in the first place by misleading the country with outright lies and fear mongering; nor, do I notice, does he place any blame on the journalists who willingly lapped up and presented to the public as fact this misinformation without any questioning or investigation in what surely is one of the most stunning failures in the annals of American journalism. And they say it's liberals who like to blame America first!

I’m proud to say that I personally was against the war at the very start, even when it wasn’t "cool" to be against it.

Yes, as Kinsey says, the American people “now apparently regret those opinions” of having supported the war. At least the American people can recognize a policy failure when they see it. If only the present Administration had the same wisdom.

Low Expectations

2007-07-17T23:41:00.000-07:00

Recent news stories have reported that the U.S. failed to meet the benchmarks established by the Bush Administration for progress in Iraq.Of course, in keeping with the Administration’s penchant for constantly moving the goal line, the White House has been downplaying the news.

It does cause one to wonder just how badly things are going in Iraq when even the Administration’s own goals--which no doubt set the bar as low as possible to ensure some progress could be shown--have fallen short!!

Bush to Nation: Fuck You

2007-07-05T21:39:00.000-07:00

By intervening in the sentencing of Scooty Libby, George W. Bush has finally demonstrated the deep contempt he holds for the American people, the Constitution, and the Judicial system.

This decision was made not in the interest of justice but out of self-interest to protect a corrupt administration, a failed presidency, and a fading legacy.

Bush essentially has told the American people that he and his friends are above the law. And that he doesn't serve the American people, but rather his own friends and cronies. Does Bush intend to review all sentences and reverse any that he deems harsh?

Bush similarly showed contempt for the country, its people, and its laws when he supported Dick Cheney's ludicrous claim that the Vice President is not a part of the Executive Branch.

This man's poor judgment and leadership already have led this country into an ill-advised quagmire in Iraq that was based on personal animosity, false pretenses and misleading information given to the American people. His actions have led to instability in the Middle East, the emboldenment of Iran, and inflamed anti-Americanism and terrorist activity around the world, not to mention the deaths of thousands of American service people.

Assuming we survive this man has done, there already is consensus that George W. Bush will go down as the worst president in American history. When he ends his presidency, he'll leave a country in worse peril than when he arrived. He does not even have the decency to make any substantive attempt clean up the mess; rather, he obviously has chosen to play out the clock so that whoever follows him will be left holding the bag to clean up the mess created by his incompetency and mismanagement.

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Wouldn't You?

2007-06-26T22:48:00.000-07:00

Now that the prosecution in the trial charging Phil Spector for the murder of actress Lana Clarkson has just about rested, the Spector Defense Dream Team has begun its work.

The defense team has made no secret of the fact that their defense strategy of the diminutive music industry legend will center on their contention that Clarkson committed suicide. They will make this claim despite the testimony of four women (among many others over the decades) who testified that the pigmy producer had a history of waving loaded guns in their faces when they refused to spend the night with him, and the unshakable testimony by Spector's driver that after he heard the shooting, the midget music god told him that he thought that he "killed someone."

The defense will claim that Clarkson committed suicide because she was despondent over her failed acting career.

The defense clearly has missed the boat here. Rather than focus on her failed career as the motive for taking a bullet in the mouth, I think a much stronger defense would be that Clarkson clearly chose suicide over going to bed with the shrimp producer. I mean take a look at that picture! Wouldn't you?

The good soldier

2007-04-25T23:09:00.000-07:00

Awestruck by the steady stream of reports coming out of the White House that serve to underscore both the Administration’s incompetence and its outright arrogance, I guess I’ve just been too overwhelmed of late to post recently. I mean where to start?

Scooter Libby? Let’s face it, this was a tempest in a teapot that only Beltway insiders cared about. Libby played the good soldier and threw himself on the grenade to protect the people in the regime who really matter in the party machinery. Otherwise, all the trial did was give expose the cynical game the Washington establishment and the media play with each other. Libby goes to jail and the American public is supposed to feel justice was done. No doubt Libby will be given a presidential pardon by December 31, 2008, and will have a cushy job waiting for him at Halliburton—assuming, of course, he and his family are willing to move to Dubai.

A recent cover story in Time magazine recently asked, “How the Right Went Wrong.” The answer to that, my friends, is as old as time itself (no pun intended): Hubris. Pure hubris (which incidentally, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Why do those Christian talibanists often fail to remember that one mortal sin?)

Well, having spun the Wheel of Woes, I have decided to weigh in on the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys that appears to be leading into the White House.

Like the Libby case, it looks like the “cover up” may be worse than the actual “crime,” with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales poised to be the next scapegoat who’ll be taking take one for the team, as the Justice Department scrambles to come up with a consistent story about the firings.

This latest controversy brings to mind the infamous 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre,” when then-President Richard Nixon—at the height of the Watergate scandal—ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire the independent special prosecutor assigned to the case, Archibald Cox. Refusing to compromise the integrity of his personal reputation as well as that of the Justice Department, Richardson resigned. As did the Deputy Attorney General, William Ruckelshaus, when he was given the same order. (Solicitor General Robert Bork was subsequently named acting head of the Justice Department, who then fired Cox.)

While a dark time in American history, the episode was a unique moment when the Constitution, personal and institutional integrity, and the federal government’s checks and balances were tested to their limits and, perhaps in a rather torturous manner, affirmed.

Clearly, Mr. Gonzales does not seem to recognize his responsibilities as the highest law enforcement official of the nation. Instead, he feels being subservient and beholden to political patronage is more important than upholding the integrity of the Justice Department’s reputation and integrity. And that without having the trust of Congress or the nation, it will be impossible to for him to fulfill his responsibilities as Attorney General.

Who would have thought it possible that a presidential administration could come along that could make one pine for the moral certitude of the Nixon era?

Gayest President Ever?

2007-03-12T00:04:00.000-07:00

In yet another wonderful example of war apologists being on the defensive while raising the quality of debate in the nation, one well known conservative sectarian recently caused waves by calling Democratic candidate John Edwards a "faggot."

Well, I wonder what they make of the following photos....

If ever a photo underscored how much in bed this Administration and the Bush family are with oil interests, this certainly is it. I mean, they're actually FUCKING HOLDING HANDS!

Who do you think is on top? (Considering the price of gas, I would surmise it's the President getting it up the ass.)

Here Bush hugs Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after a news conference in Brazil.

I guess with so many few friends left around the world, o Decider no Chefe (that's Portuguese for "Decider in Chief") is understandably desperately in need for some man-love.

Here Bush and his loverboy are at it again, at yet another event, after a quick change out of sweat-stained clothes.

Geez louise, we get it already--get a hotel room already!

My God, who'd've thought it possible, but McCain actually even looks gayer than the President. If Bush wasn't a draft dodger and so scared of combat, I'm sure he wouldn't've minded spending some quality time in the Hanoi Hilton with all those big manly pilots (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

They are, after all, two men with daddy issues.

If any Conservative whore decides to shoot her mouth off about faggot-loving politicians, they should first look in their own backyard at their own closeted Decider in Chief.

--or perhaps at Dick Cheney's bull dyke daughter who (oh, God, this is too good to be true) is preparing to give birth with her partner in an act of "selfish hedonism."

Though, apparently, according to the Vice President, it's not okay to attack people's sexual orientation if it's true and involves members of your own family.

Win Win (or everything I know about the Middle East I learned from “Lawrence of Arabia”)

2007-03-06T00:07:00.000-08:00

Anyone who thinks I’m a “Blame America First” kind of guy should read the following...

At the end of the great David Lean film, Lawrence of Arabia, a pan-Arab Council—a nascent attempt at nationalism and self-rule—collapses in Damascus when the various tribes and sects can find no common ground and are unable to restore the city’s infrastructure and other basic services. Waiting strategically in the wings, the British swoop in to restore stability and thus create colonial control in the Middle East. I often think of this scene when I hear descriptions of Iraq’s parliament fraying due to sectarian conflict.

Today, many of those same conflicts inform Iraq and the Middle East. A recent cover story in Time magazine looks into the historical roots of the schism between the Sunnis and Shi’ites in Iraq and asks “whether anything can be done to stop it.”

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect and engaging for a moment in realpolitik, is this necessarily a bad thing? Yes, the U.S. brought down a regime that to some extent had subdued (if only superficially) differences between two sects of Islam that go back to the 7^th century—differences that the U.S. presence has fanned into open civil war. But ultimately the bloodletting is of their own choosing. In the Time article, someone from one sect is quoted as saying that if he saw a child from a rival sect about to drown he would not reach out his hand to save him. I ask you, is that a society worth salvaging or worth more American lives? In a time when the U.S. is looking for a way out of the quagmire, it seems to me that this is the perfect opening for us: that we did our part and now it’s up to the Iraqis and their neighbors to decide if they want peace and stability.

And before moral relativists go on to argue that such a view is insensitive or intolerant of another religion’s beliefs, I’d like to hear cases where Muslims are institutionally defending the right of Christians (let alone Jews) to practice their faith within their own borders, in the same way Western countries have bent over backwards to ensure that Muslims are able to observe their customs in the West. Anyone? Anyone?

As many scholars and observers have noted, Islam has not reconciled itself or adapted to the modern world. Over the centuries and continuing into the present day, Christianity began losing absolute control over their respective communities as new thinking and philosophies gradually gave way to individual self-determinism, where the individual exercises greater control over their actions, beliefs and destiny. Such changes had a broad impact on society and politics (arguably reaching its apex with the founding of the United States), and were made possible through literacy and broad-based education. As a result, over time, Christianity lost its preeminence as an all-powerful, patriarchical political institution and has evolved back into being a religious and moral institution.

By contrast, in much of the modern age, Islam countries became colonies of imperial nations. In addition, its rulers—first the colonizers and then later the native people put in power by the departing imperial nations—found it in their best interests to keep the local populations uneducated and ignorant.

Ignorance of the masses is perhaps the most effective way to keep a populace in thrall, and nowhere is that more evident than in Islamic nations where democracy not only is absent, but their rulers blame the twin “Great Satans” of the United States and Israel for their people’s poverty as a convenient way to divert attention from their own failings and to justify continued absolute authority and power. As this suggests, in many of these nations, it is their own religious and political leaders who are the real oppressors, by giving them little education, political or religious freedom, or the opportunity to be prosperous, successful or to think for themselves.

Until that changes, and these nations choose to become modern nation-states that respect the right to individual self-determination as well as international law and conventions, the following denunciation will remain true, as mouthed by the title character in Lawrence which remains surprisingly and sadly prescient today: “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people—greedy, barbarous, and cruel.”

Coloradans too lazy to work

2007-03-01T23:44:00.000-08:00

According to the L.A. Times, Colorado is considering using convicts as farmworkers. Apparently, as a result of passing some of the strictest anti-illegal immigration laws in the country, farms are experiencing a severe labor shortage and crops are rotting in the fields.

Hey, didn’t Colorado pass these laws to ensure that illegal immigrants weren't taking jobs away from hard working Americans? I presume Colorado’s unemployment rate is not zero, so now that illegal immigrants have been forced to look outside the state for work, why aren’t the Coloradans who had lost these jobs to migrant workers rushing to fill the void? Rather than hire convicts, shouldn’t the state find some way to bus in workers from outlying areas around the state and have them stay in the same housing where the illegal immigrants stayed? This is good, honest work that can put food on the table.

One can only conclude that Coloradans--particularly its youth and unemployed--are lazy layabouts. I mean how hard can it be to spend 8 to 10 hours a day picking vegetables from the ground?

Once a cokehead...

2007-02-25T23:14:00.000-08:00

I recently read a report about how the conservatives are sharpening their knives, ready to go after Hillary Clinton (and, no doubt, anyone else who they oppose) by attacking her as a “flip-flopper.”

I always find such charges to be rather transparent and ridiculous. Outright hypocrisy, of course, should always be fair game. Last September’s Mark Foley scandal comes to mind, for example, where a sitting Florida congressman was found to be sexually harassing and pursuing House of Representative pages while simultaneously sponsoring sexual predator legislation. (A Republican, mind you!)

Otherwise, who holds the same exact views throughout their lives? Is no one allowed to change their minds, esp. with age, education and experience? Conservatives, of course, consider such unchanged constancy to be a virtue, particularly given their views on moral absolutism and their disdain for moral relativism of any kind.

Strangely, the Decider-in-Chief is often held up as the poster boy for “staying the course.” Doesn’t anyone find this ironic given the fact that Bush is an admitted coke fiend and alcoholic? If conservatives believe a coke-sniffing party boy could make such a radical reversal, shouldn’t the same courtesy be extended to others, particularly in more nuanced circumstances? All I know is that if I ever was accused of being a flip flopper, I’d certainly use George Bush’s about-face from being a cokehead as proof #1 that change is, after all, possible.

[Pictured above: Mug shot of President Bush's niece, arrested for possession of crack cocaine. No doubt expect to see the President's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, pictured here soon, or perhaps checking into "rehab."]

Signs of Intelligent Life in Kansas

2007-02-18T18:03:00.000-08:00

One of the most ludicrous yet disturbing debates in the cultural wars is the argument over evolution. It’s amazing to think that we are still having this discussion in this day and age—in the 21st century mind you. Were it not for the threat to our nation posed by the Christian sectarians who wish to Talibanize the U.S. by turning us into a theocracy, it would be easy to dismiss the people who wish to insert this bunk into the classroom as a bunch of lunatics. It is this kind of dangerous fringe thinking where the extremes of the right come around to meet the extremes represented by terrorist organizations like Al Quaeda. Like the Taliban and religious extremism seen throughout the world, Christian extremists arrogantly believe their view of the world trumps empirical knowledge and accepted science (not to mention common sense), and they seek to impose their view of the world on all Americans and punish and exterminate those who disagree.

(I feel no need to apologize for the strong tone of this accusation, esp. at a time when conservatives find it very easy to engage in similar rhetoric by labeling liberals as “traitors.” It needs to be recognized that those who wish to turn the U.S. into a haven for Christian extremists on a par with the Islamic republics are the ones whose actions threaten to destroy the spirit of our Founding Fathers and the foundation of U.S. freedom and democracy.)

While my thoughts on this matter have been simmering for awhile, what triggered these comments now are recent reports on the Kansas’ Board of Education’s quiet decision last week to repeal guidelines that had been put in place in 2005 to inject creationism (under the misleading, faux-scientific name of “intelligent design”) into the public school curriculum while casting doubt on evolution. The creationism curriculum had been put in place by a previous board that had been emboldened by the election of several Christian sectarians, which deservedly drew the ridicule of the nation and anyone with half a brain.

It’s worth noting that shortly after this decision, most if not all of the board’s members who supported this change lost their seats when they ran for re-election. Creationists suffered another significant setback at the end of 2005 when in an unrelated case, a Federal judge—appointed by a Republican with otherwise solid conservative credentials—struck down a similar attempt by a Pennsylvania school district to introduce creationism in its schools.

As the judge's unambiguously wrote in his decision,

The breathtaking inanity of the board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

It’s important to note that evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. If anything, evolution in itself may be seen as proof that there is a higher “intelligent design” at work. But science inquiry by its nature must be limited to what can be researched and qualitatively measured. By contrast, religion and belief in God are based in faith.

In fact, I would argue that when Christian extremists seek to have their beliefs legitimized by science, they are engaging in heresy because, like the disciple Thomas (the "Doubting Thomas" of the scriptures), faith is not enough to validate their beliefs.

Born and raised a Catholic, I do occasionally ponder the existence of God. However, I know that I do not need to have society at large validate my beliefs; and that the rightful place for my child to learn about God is in a church or other religious institution, not the school, which is supposed to teach empirical thought and knowledge, not faith-based beliefs.

Such attacks on common sense and the very principles of our nation don’t lead me to doubt God, but they definitely reinforce my feeling that religion sectarianism and extremism of any stripe pose a real danger to society, and are the cause of much of the world’s ignorance, tribalism, and misery.

Amateur Hour

2007-02-16T16:15:00.000-08:00

In a scene from one of my favorite films, The Remains of the Day, a U.S. senator played by Christopher Reeve graciously but sternly chastises a gathering of European noblemen rushing headlong towards the appeasement of Nazi Germany on the eve of World War II for being a bunch of “amateurs.” What he meant was that they were idealistic ivory tower types, disconnected to the real world and how it operates.

The mess in Iraq is a perfect example of the danger of letting the ideologues, with no sense of consequences or the real world, run the show.

While the U.S. always has cloaked and “sold” its policies and actions in moral terms, self-interest and pragmatism often have played important roles as well. Thus, conflict with the Soviet Union was fought indirectly by a Cold War (not a “hot” one), based on containment and checks and balances.

The reasons for going into Afghanistan—as a safe haven for terrorist camps and the people responsible for 9/11—seemed rather straightforward. However, the justification for invading Iraq, using tenuous connections to 9/11, were markedly less so. In fact, the primary reasons for going after Saddam simply seemed personal. To the neocons, Saddam remaining in power just stuck in their craw, esp. since they felt the success in Kuwait had washed away the ghosts of Vietnam and made America pre-eminent once again. And Bush the Younger seemed anxious to play out some Greek tragedy psychodrama, and to to atone for the sins of his father, as if the decision to not “finish the job” in the aftermath of Persian Gulf War I was a sign of failure, at least among the neocons, and was the reason he only served one term. (Bush the Elder was seen by the neocons as an internationalist who was not a true believe and someone they never considered their own.)

Now let’s review, instead, what has been achieved:

Within a year, the administration completely squandered all of the good will, sympathy, and moral capital in the international community, and made the U.S. look like a rogue state to many.

By destabilizing Iraq without a clear plan in mind, it now has destabilized the whole region and, in fact, empowered Iran which has become an emerging dominant power in the region, esp. as the U.S. has shown itself to be less than invulnerable and overextended and exposed (Iraq actually was the one power in the region that effectively served as a counter to Iran—the old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach to realpolitik.)

The level of incompetency by this Administration, esp. when viewed in the context of past administrations, truly is astounding.

Amateur hour indeed.

No Do-Overs Allowed

2007-02-14T23:08:00.000-08:00

Let me say up front that I opposed the war in Iraq at the outset. (And mind you, this was before it was cool to be against it.) The connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda seemed flimsy (if not non-existent) at best, and the fact that the justification for war later became a moving target certainly confirmed my worst suspicions. The search for terrorists eventually morphed into a search for WMDs and, after that, the goal was to bring democracy to Iraq. Anyway, the real reasons for the whole enterprise all seemed obvious and transparent to me, so during the headlong rush to war, it made me wonder whether I was missing something. Or did I just have the good fortune not to drink the Koolaid that day?

(In case anyone doubts my hawkish credentials, let me say however that, by contrast, I all was for going into Afghanistan after 9/11 to root out the Taliban and their terrorist links. There, the justification and goals seemed crystal clear.)

Well, now with everything going to hell-in-a-hand basket, and after several years of staying the course and flailing around with no clear direction, the present administration wants to escalate the war.

To state the obvious (and, as you can see, I have a good track record on this), the President's primary goal at this stage of the game is no longer to help Iraq. Instead, his aim is to save tattered legacy--saving Iraq is only gravy. By increasing the number of troops in Iraq, he gets to ensure that he is not the President who technically exited Iraq and left it in shambles (I guess simply destabilizing the region will be enough.)

Instead, he lets the next President--and of course the American people--get left holding the bag. It’s nice to know that he’s willing to spill more American blood simply to save his ass and what’s left of his reputation.

What this country now needs is not just a fresh strategy but fresh leadership. Other people and nations know that this is a person who is flexible and open to new ideas. I believe that everyone--including allies and enemies alike--are simply biding their time to see whether the next president will be someone they can deal with and start with a clean slate.

Bush 43 has operated under the conviction that “staying the course” and being unchanging was a strength. Americans now recognize that it’s a liability. After all, as a friend once noted, the only problem with having the strength of your convictions is what if you’re wrong all the time?