Republican Convention

I watched some of the first night of the Republican Convention last night, and was I impressed? Meh, not so much. (Not that you are surprised I am sure :) It was pretty standard convention fare, and pretty much exactly what I had expected from the Republicans.

It was all terror, be afraid, we have been attacked and will be again, only Bush can protect us.

That is pretty much it. I watched John McCain speak about the wonder that was Bush taking the war to the terrorists. He simply failed to mention that Iraq had not terrorists. He also spoke about how Saddam was a threat to us, because the world community was on the verge of reducing the pressure on Saddam, and without the invasion, Saddam would have been up to his old tricks any day. Forget the fact that we were told he was an immediate threat, McCain now tells us he might have been a threat some time in the future.

Then I watched three widows of the 9/11 attacks. They had very moving speeches. They asked us to have a moment of prayer and silence for the heroes of 9/11. They had nothing to say that had anything to do with the election.

Then they had Rudi Giuliani. Rudi is a good speaker in a down home kind of way. But once again he was all 9/11 and thank God Bush was president on 9/11, and we are all under threat of attack at any moment so thank God Bush is president. He also mentioned Iraq, and how after 9/11 we put the terrorists on notice by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. What??? How exactly did we put the terrorists on notice by attacking Iraq? He then spent the rest of his speech dwelling on 9/11 and Bush's amazing reaction to it.

There were a couple of other noticeable things. First the crowd was predictably white and middle aged, with a smattering of others. I saw one black lady 4 times by my count, in three speeches. That has to be a record for a non-celebrity. Oh, that was the other thing, no celebrities, at least that I saw. Both of those were large contrasts with the Democratic Convention.

The other thing was that it was noticeable what they didn't speak about. Osama Bin Laden??? Doesn't exist according to the Republican Convention. It was all Taliban, Al Qaida, Saddam Hussein. I would guess they don't want to remind people that we have Saddam (who wasn't a threat) but we don't have Osama (who is a huge threat). We also heard about Iraq, Afghanistan, even Libya, but we heard nothing about Israel and the Palestinians (except in a derogatory statement about Kerry) or North Korea.

We also heard nothing about tax cuts, health care, the economy, jobs, environment, trade, etc etc etc. Pretty much anything other than security and terror. While I am sure that some of these things will have to be mentioned at some point in the convention, the fact that this convention seems to be so far so single minded is pretty amazing, but not really that unpredictable. They have little else to run on, so they have to remind people about the extreme terror they should be living under every day.

So far, I am not very impressed and can't imaging it would sway anyone who is yet undecided. They have days left yet though, so we will have to see how they do!

Incomes Stagnant, Poverty Up

There has been a lot of coverage of the latest census data that shows that over the last two years income has stagnated or gone down, and poverty has increased. Kerry has been saying in his campaign speeches that the average family is now earning $1400 less than they were when Bush took office. This is a disaster.

Why is this happening? Well there are lots of reasons, but the main two are changes in the job market and high unemployment. Unemployment depresses wages, since companies don't need to compete as much to attract and retain workers. Add in outsourcing (both overseas and internal) and you get negative wage pressure for regular families. The job market changes are mostly related to the types of jobs available. High wage, stable manufacturing jobs are disappearing and being replaced by low wage, unstable service industry jobs. So for most they are working for less, and less secure in their employment. Plus, most of the jobs lost included health care benefits, while those that are being created often don't.

Bush's policies have of course encouraged these changes, and exacerbated them. Under the Bush Administration there are real incentives for corporations to outsource. A Bush Administration even said that outsourcing was good for America. Tax policies also support corporations downsizing and outsourcing, since they reward this behavior. Bush's tax policy basically is designed to set up a two tiered society. A group of very wealthy and powerful individuals at the top who pay little in taxes, but reap most of the rewards. At the bottom will be the vast majority of the rest of us, low paid workers who can be utilized as a commodity with no loyalty from the top. They do this because they believe that only when the wealthy are free to use their money in any way they see fit will corporations be able to thrive from their investments, and therefore create jobs. However what they fail to realize is that what is good for corporations is no longer necessarily what is good for the country. International corporations need little from us anymore than for us to supply cheap labor and consumers.

This is really nothing new. The same forces have been at work for years, and are probably an inevitable flaw with our current system. Since the Nixon Administration, the average American family has lost real earning power adjusted for inflation. An American family now earns less in real dollars than they did in 1969. Not only that, but the average family in 1969 had one wage earner. The average family in 2004 has 2. This trend is only exacerbated by Bush's policies. In the same time period, CEO salaries have increased phenomenally, over 100 times.

More Americans are in poverty today than were when Bush took office. More Americans are earning less in real dollars than they were before. Less Americans have health insurance than had it in 2000. The wealthiest Americans are experiencing some of the largest salary increases, along with tax cuts that they have seen in years. The tax burden on the wealthiest has gone down, while the middle class is now paying a higher percentage of the burden.

We need change NOW!

Iraqi Violence Spikes

Yesterday saw a marked increase in what has been a steady growth in the amount of violence in Iraq. Dozens of Iraqis were killed when they were planning a march for Al Sistani in Najaf, when gunmen fired from the crowd at police, and the police returned fire. In Kufa, nearby, a mortar slammed into a mosque, killing 27 Iraqis. In southern Iraq, 20 oil pipelines were destroyed, reducing Iraqi oil output by a third. Another American soldier was killed yesterday, bringing the total U.S. and British deaths to 67 so far in August.

This is Bush's peaceful democratic Iraq?

Bush tells us that things are better in Iraq. He tells us that we are "making progress on the ground". He tells us that Iraqis are far better off today than they were under Saddam. In some ways he is right, however in most of the ways that matter to people in reality, he is dead wrong. In psychology, you learn about Maslow's hierarchy of Needs. The basic premise of this idea is that people have basic needs, and once those needs are met, then they "graduate" to a higher level of needs. The needs hierarchy looks like this, with the basic needs at the bottom:

- Self Actualization. Pursue inner talent, creativity, fulfillment

- Self esteem. Achievement, Mastery, Respect, Recognition.

- Belonging - Love. Friends, family, spouse, lover.

- Safety. Security, stability, freedom from fear.

- Physiological. Food, water, shelter, warmth.

Now I don't want to get into this too much, but basically, the way it works is that people want the bottom needs fulfilled first. Once they are fulfilled then they move up the hierarchy. So unless someone's safety is assured, then they are not going to care so much about needs further up the hierarchy. Someone is not going to be concerned with increasing their self esteem when they are worried that their family could be killed any moment.

In Iraq, the people are at the very bottom of this hierarchy, they have needs in the bottom two categories that are not being met. While we are talking about progress on the ground, thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, those are people with families, connections and neighborhoods. Iraqis have less of their basic necessities (clean water, electricity, social services) than they had under Saddam. Thousands of Iraqis are homeless because of damage from the insurgency and war. Iraqis are terrorized by insurgents, errant U.S. bombs, U.S. raids on homes, lack of security.

When Bush then comes out and says that Iraqis are better off than they were under Saddam, because they now have Democracy and Freedom, they now have the ability to be out from under the yoke of a dictator, this means very little to the people in Iraq. Since their lower level needs are worse off now that they were under Saddam, they don't have time to even think about or appreciate the higher level gains. To them, these higher level needs are unimportant when you are worrying about where to house your family, where your next meal is coming from, and if your sons will come home alive. Until we have achieved security and Iraqi's basic needs are met, we are not going to get anywhere.

So what this means is we have to get things secure on the ground, get people back to work and with reliable basic needs met. Once that is achieved we can start worrying about the higher level needs. Bush will not get credit on the ground when he talks of these lofty ideals while people are dying.

Bush DID NOT condemn the anti Kerry ads by Swift Boat veterans for Truth.

Why do I feel compelled to explain this? Because every news outlet I have seen has been reporting that yesterday President Bush condemned these ads when in fact he didn't.

Here is the backstory.

Swift Boat veterans for Truth, a "527" organization, has been running ads condemning Kerry's war record, and questioning his actions and subsequent recollections about the war. The Kerry campaign has shot back, saying that the ads contain lies and misleading statements, and that the ads should be pulled. So Kerry called on Bush to condemn the ads.

This led to reporters asking Bush repeatedly yesterday if he would condemn the ads by the swift boat veterans. If all you did was read the headlines, then you would think that he did exactly that. Sounds wonderful right?

Well he didn't condemn the ads. He condemned ALL ads by 527 organizations. It is an important distinction. 527 organizations are independent organizations that are not supposed to have any collaboration with the campaigns, and then they can advertise as much as they want. Swift Boat veterans for Truth is an example from the right, MoveOn.org is an example from the left. Unfortunately for Bush, the vast majority of the spending and advertising by 527's is against him. The left is simply more energized this election cycle. So when he condemns ads by all 527 organizations, he is not saying that the ads by the SBVFT were dishonest. He is not saying they should not have been run. He is saying that any ads by organizations outside the campaigns should be banned.

This would of course help him immensely, as MoveOn and the other left leaning organizations would no longer be able to advertise. But he is definitely not condemning the slander in the SBVFT ads. He is simply saying that there is too much free speech, and we need to stop anyone from advertising if they are not part of the official campaigns.

Big difference huh! Well not if you are part of any of the news organizations covering this. They simply let Bush get away with an attack on freedom of speech, while crediting him with a condemnation of libel and slander. Very nice of them.

Kerry now agrees. Invading Iraq was the right thing to do!

What exactly does Kerry think he is doing? On Monday in a campaign stop, he was asked by reporters if, knowing what he did now, he would have still voted for the war in Iraq. He answered that even though no WMD have been found, and even though Iraq was not a threat to the U.S., if he had been president we would have likely invaded Iraq anyway.

WHAT????

He then went on to say that if he had been president, he would have invaded more intelligently. He would have used U.S. power more effectively, and he would have taken our allies with him. He has said, "We did the right thing, and the world is better off for it."

Bush is of course portraying this as another Kerry flip flop, and unfortunately, I am almost inclined to agree with him. Probably the most valid criticism of Kerry is that it is hard to understand exactly where he stands on any issue. Only a few months ago I was sure he was saying that we shouldn't have invaded, but now we are there we have to take care of things. Now he is saying that we should have and we would have under a Kerry presidency. This is such a stupid move. Why?

Well because it removes Iraq from the equation. Now when we continue to have U.S. soldiers deaths (25 in the first 10 days of August) Kerry cannot criticize, because he would have invaded also and the war was the right thing to do. Now when we spend billions of dollars on the war which could have been spent on domestic programs or actual anti terrorist measures, Kerry cannot criticize, because he would have invaded too. When we spend the majority of our manpower and resources fighting in Iraq instead of against Al Qaida, Kerry cannot criticize, because he would have invaded too. When Iraq becomes a quagmire, and we are looking like we will be stuck there for years, Kerry cannot criticize, because he would have invaded too.

Now Kerry and his campaign team will tell you that I am incorrect, they can still use the war as an issue, because under Kerry the war would have been fought correctly, with allies and a strategy to win the peace. Well it may be that the peace plan may have been better, but we would not have had any allies with us. Remember under international law there are only two reasons that it is legal to invade another country; self defense and U.N. authorization. Kerry is saying he would have invaded even if he knew what he knows now, that there were no WMD and no terrorist ties: no threat from Saddam. If we knew that, and we still invaded Iraq, then it would be in violation of international law, and a war crime. Does Kerry truly think allies would have been lining up to invade a country to depose a man no one liked but that was not a threat to anyone??? At least Bush had an excuse, he told the world that Saddam was an immediate threat. Kerry is saying he would have invaded even though Saddam was not a threat. That is even WORSE!!!

Kerry has made a huge mistake that will haunt him for the rest of the election cycle. It will frustrate his base, who are mostly against the war in Iraq. It will also not win him any Republicans who will more likely listen to Bush's characterizations of Kerry's waffling. It was just a dumb thing to say.

What he should be saying is that knowing what we know now, we never should have invaded Iraq. It was not a threat to us and we should have concentrated on Al Qaida. However now that we are there, we have an obligation to make sure that the Iraqi people come out of this situation better off than they were before. Good may come out of the invasion, but only if the path we are currently on changes. That should be the message, not saying that you align yourself with the Neo-cons who support invading every country with an anti-American leader on principle.

Kerry, what were you thinking?????

Here is a link.

I swear allegiance to George W Bush!!!!

This is really just strange. Many of the recent rallies for Bush on his campaign trail have been made up of only supporters. This is not too unexpected, but the really strange thing is that not only are they made up of people who want him re-elected, they are also often made up of people who have been forced to sign a loyalty oath! This oath is designed to keep the crowd clear of anyone who is not a solid Bush supporter. The oath, along with ticket only events, have created a huge contrast between Bush and Kerry rallies.

Kerry rallies often have hecklers, and Bush supporters, making them lively events. Kerry has taken to thanking Bush for sending the "goon squad" to fire up the democratic base. You can simply walk up and attend a Kerry rally. Not so for a Bush one. You will need to be a registered member of the local Republican party, or at least know someone who is, just in order to get a ticket. Then of course you may have to sign that loyalty oath.

This is insane for a number of reasons. The main one is that it just looks bad. Bush, the supposed uniter, won't even speak to Democrats or independents? They are not even allowed to approach within the sound of his voice? What kind of message does this send?

It is also bad because it keeps Bush insulated. If the only people he sees on the campaign trail are those who wholeheartedly agree with him, then he is going to have a severely distorted view of the race. To him he is winning hearts and minds at an unprecedented pace. He is the favorite, and everybody loves him. This can lead to complacency, and in a close race like this one, that can be dangerous.

Third, it is bad because it does little to convince independents or wavering Democrats to support Bush. If you attend a rally, part of the point is to hear the politician speak on their policies, so you can get a grasp on what they stand for and who they are. Hopefully this will help you make a decision on who to vote for. If Bush is only speaking to crowds of people who are already avid supporters, then what is the point? I guess you can fire up the base to get them out on election day, but you have to be pretty fired up already to sign a loyalty oath!

Finally, it simply plays into a negative stereotype that people have of Bush. That is that he is disconnected from reality, that he lives in a bubble of yes men. He already admitted he gets no news from newspapers or the television, getting all of it instead from his advisors. He rarely ever holds press conferences, and he rarely if ever makes any appearance unless it is amongst friends. This campaign is just strengthening this strange perception, and doesn't help him appear to be a strong leader, willing to suffer disagreement or contrary opinions.

Personally I hope he continues with this strange campaign. It is all the better for Kerry, and just makes Bush look worse. He is becoming the Michael Jackson of the political world, living in his own neverland. All so very strange.

A Rambling Post

I have been away on a short (much needed) vacation, and I haven't had time to update the blog, but here are a number of quick items I want to comment on:

(I just can't not comment, it is anathema to my being! :)

• I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and I was pretty impressed. I was a little disappointed by how little new information there was (although for the uninformed there was possibly a lot) but it was especially nice to see it all cogently presented. My biggest problem with Michael Moore is that he is just not that good a spokesman for the left in public. He often seems to have trouble forming a good solid argument on the fly, and he can be very abrasive. In person he is very good at preaching to the choir and not so much at converting the unconverted. However on film he is excellent.
  
• Kerry's acceptance speech. It was great. He nailed it. He was very nervous at the beginning, but by the time he had hit his stride, he was very effective. I LOVED his quote:

  I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.

• The recent terror alert. I have no idea if this was politically motivated or not, and I have no idea if it is a legitimate threat. It may very well be an urgent legitimate threat. However the really sad thing is that the American Public now has so little trust in the Bush Administration, that when they do increase the terror alert, the big question is whether it is politically motivated or real. How sad that is, and what an indictment of the Bush Administration and their continual deceptions.
  
• Real Time with Bill Maher. I watched an episode of this new HBO show over the weekend, and they had Michael Moore, a former Canadian Prime Minister, Ralph Nader, a GOP Governor and a GOP Representative. It was a very interesting show, ending up with the GOP Representative and Ralph Nader walking out before the end of the show. They discussed a lot of things, and Bill Maher and Michael Moore even literally begged Nader to pull out of the race, but the most time was spent on the now famous 7 minutes that Bush spent like a deer in the headlights after he was told the second plane was hit and the nation was under attack.
  

For those not aware of the issue, on the morning of 9/11, Bush was scheduled to have a photo op at a school. He was notified before the appearance that a plane had hit the World Trade Center, but decided to go ahead with the photo op anyway. In his defense, at this point it could easily have been an accident. However in the middle of the photo op, a Bush Aide leaned in and whispered to Bush that another plane had hit the other tower, and that the nation was under attack. The amazing thing is what Bush did next.

What would you do if you were president? Grab advisors and start discussing the issue? Find out how much intelligence there was? Get a grip on what is going on? Start acting Presidential? Well Bush just sat there with a terrified look on his face for 7 minutes. Finally the Aide returned and whispered in his ear that maybe it would be a good time to go.

Well Bill Maher, Michael Moore and the former Canadian PM all ripped into the Republicans over these 7 minutes, trying to get them to justify the reaction. They failed dismally. The main arguments can be placed in these three categories:

1. Anybody might have reacted the way he did, it is a common reaction to such an overwhelming situation. Michael Moore had the best response to this, that this is a good example of the reasons why most of us are not fit to be President. Any normal person might react like this, but a President is supposed to be a leader who can act under pressure and make decisions in grave situations.
   
2. Bush knew that things were being taken care of, so he didn't feel the need to react immediately. Again Micheal Moore; "I guess that shows they knew they didn't need him!"
3. He didn't want to alarm the children. Well as Bill Maher said, it wouldn't have been hard to tell the children "Kids, you are all doing great, but I have some important President business to take care of. Thanks and keep up the good work!"

Anyway, it was very interesting to see that Kerry has even jumped on the bandwagon on this issue. Today he was quoted as saying:

“Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whisper in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to,” Kerry said.

Bottom line is Bush failed dismally in one of the most critical moments of his Presidency. He should have been the center of the response, making decisions about what to do, gathering information. Instead he looked like a deer in headlights. Luckily it looks like his delay did not cost lives, and nothing would have happened differently if he had reacted more quickly. However what if the attack had been ongoing and lives could have been saved. He didn't know at that time, and he should have been finding out. It was unforgivable.