Jolard's Spot

2008-04-25T09:24:00.000-07:00

Just to make sure I am clear, I was an excited Democrat when it looked like it was down to Obama and Clinton. Man, we were going to make history, I preferred Obama, but would have been happy with Clinton.

But Clinton has now gone so far.

Yesterday she was coming out with new numbers saying that after the election in Pennsylvania she was now ahead in the popular vote. She of course was saying that what we really need to do is look at the popular vote when determining who to nominate. The agreed upon process of electing delegates was not the way to do it. What? I was surprised, so I looked into it a little more deeply.

Well to get the number that shows she is ahead, she included the votes in Florida and Michigan. She said that it was unfair to disenfranchise those voters, since we needed them in the general election, and it was simply undemocratic to ignore them. This on its head is ridiculous, since she herself agreed to the sanctions on Florida and Michigan back when she was sure she was going to win. Also, no-one campaigned in those two states, and Obama wasn’t even an option on the Michigan ballot!. But all that aside, maybe she is sincere in wanting to enfranchise voters?

No!!

This same bogus process that comes up with her lead in the popular vote also ignores any state that used a caucus process to elect its delegates, including Washington. Since they use a caucus, they don’t track every individual vote, the only tracking done is delegates that are elected because that is SUPPOSED to be the process by which we nominate our candidate. In other words there is no count of how many people voted for each candidate in the caucus states. So her numbers simply ignore all the caucus states (which Obama won all but one) altogether. Got that? She is disenfranchising every voter in those caucus states (where both campaigned and were on the ballot and followed the rules) while at the same time calling for enfranchisement of voters in two states which she agreed should not be counted, no-one campaigned, and Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in one of them.

The cynical hypocrisy is driving me crazy!!!

2008-01-11T08:52:00.001-08:00

So Primary Season.

I want to first say that I am very happy with our Democratic Party candidates. Any one of them would make a great president, and we are very lucky to have such a field. We could be like the Republicans, having to hold their noses and pick the best of the bad lot.

I am an Obama supporter. There are a lot of reasons, and I will be totally honest, a lot of them are hard to articulate. I don't support him because I love his policies, honestly they are similar except in details to all the major Democratic candidates. I mostly support him because he inspires me.

I was won over by Obama the first time I heard him speak, back July 28th, 2004 when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention. I blogged about it then (you can search for the word Obama and you will find it on my blog) and I was stunned and won over by his sense of optimism, and his articulation of all the reasons why I am a Democrat. Hearing him subsequently in many speeches (and once live) I have never been disappointed, and my support for him just grows. I want that man to be our leader.

I think the main reason is that he reminds me of what it is that the Democratic party stands for. It is more than just doing whatever it takes to get power, it is about standing for fairness, for those who are less fortunate, for ensuring that every child has equal opportunities and can fulfil their potential. It is about each of us realizing we are our brother's keeper, and we, as a society, have a responsibility to help each other out. That is why I am a Democrat.

That is also why I have a hard time with Hillary Clinton. She doesn't differ greatly on her policies from Obama, and she would make a good President, but I worry that she is too entrenched with the special interests, too tied up in the political morass that is Washington, and I think she often forgets why we are Democrats. She simply doesn't inspire me.

Other than the inspiration effect, Obama also has some other incredible intangibles he will bring to the Presidency. We need to heal our relationship with the world, and I think he can do that. What better way to calm moderate Muslims than to show that the American people have elected as their leader a black man whose father was a Muslim! I think he will be able to do a lot of good.

That leaves John Edwards as the last of the major Democratic candidates. I like him, and he too would make an excellent candidate. Back in 2004 I was a delegate for him, he was my first choice, and he still would be if Obama hadn't burst on the scene. He is a man who will stand for equality and fairness, and I think he would do a great job. He is not my first choice, mostly because I don't think he has the personal magnetism and charisma of Obama. A President needs that, as it greases the wheels of his job, just look at how far Bush has gone with nothing but charm and "charisma".

As for the Republicans, all of them have major flaws in my book. Guiliani just has fallen into self parody. How can you mock the man anymore, when he can't stop himself from mentioning 9/11 in every sentence. He would make an awful President, he would be authoritarian, he would ignore the law, and he would invade any country that looked at him twice.

Romney is someone who is roundly criticised for changing his positions to fit the political need. Funnily enough, that is why I wouldn't be too horrified if he won the Presidency. He was a reasonably liberal Governor, and I think he would probably be a similar President. I get the feeling all this current posturing and conservatism is mostly what he feels is needed to get elected. I don't believe that is who he really is.

McCain drives me crazy. I actually have respected him a lot in the past. Is work on campaign finance reform has been flawed but well intentioned, and his willingness to do what he believes is right even if his party doesn't agree has endeared me to him in the past. However he has morphed into the strange war monger that he is today, positioning himself as probably the staunchest supporter of Bush's war on terror of any of the candidates except for maybe Guiliani. Basically he disappointed me, and went from maybe the only GOP candidate I might have considered voting for, to one I wouldn't vote for if you paid me.

Huckabee would scare me to death if he was elected, however I don't think he will do well in the general election. My biggest fear with him is that he genuinely makes decisions primarily based on prayer and inspiration for guidance. I want someone who takes a really good hard look at the facts before they turn to prayer. That and the fact that I suspect that he believes the primary role of the next President will be to ignite the flames of Armageddon so that the Savior can return makes me a little nervous.

On a non religious vein, his tax proposal (the only policy proposal I have heard from him) is disastrous, and would mean another major move of the tax burden from the rich to the poor. I will have to discuss that some other time.

So there you have it, my 5 minute analysis of the candidate pool. It is going to be a fun year, and I am looking forward to November. Unless the "September" surprise terrorist attack occurs like some have predicted, Edwards, Obama or Clinton will be our next President, and I couldn't be happier.

2008-01-11T08:13:00.000-08:00

Well it has been a long break, but I am back, at least temporarily.

Why did I stop posting? Honestly it was the mood of the country. When the country was mostly behind Bush, I felt like I had to do everything I could to keep people focused on the absurdity and danger of his presidency. However once Americans turned against him in most part, it just felt like piling on and not as necessary.

We are now well into the madness that is the Primary season now, so I am back at least for a few observations, and hopefully through the election.

2006-09-19T08:28:00.000-07:00

Two Important Stories Today

There are two important stories being reported today, and they are both related. The first is Colin Powell and his continued opposition to the President's torture policy proposals. Ever since the Bush Administration was caught torturing suspects in the war on terror, and the courts rejected his right to do so, he has been pushing for "clarification" in the form of a bill he is trying to push through Congress. However Powell (as well as McCain and others) has strongly opposed the bill, which would allow for many actions that the international community would define as torture.

Powell was dismissed by the Bush Administration as being out of touch, so Powell came back to explain his position. He claims that this is not just a policy issue, but a moral issue. I agree 100%. Powell also has argued that our own troops will be in danger if we don't uphold the Geneva Conventions. I also 100% agree.

What we seem to forget is that our troops get captured by the enemy as well, and part of what protects them is the very conventions the Bush Administration is flouting. How will we ensure they are not tortured, and how will we hold accountable those who torture our troops, if we don't uphold those standards ourselves? One of these days one of our troops will be tortured (maybe even using the "clarifications" the Bush Administration wants) and we will not have a leg to stand on. This is about protecting our troops, and people forget that.

The other problem with torturing captives is that it simply is not effective. People will say anything under torture, and we may have no real way of determining the validity of what they say. Personally I know that I would pretty much confess to anything if I was tortured enough.

A great example of this is the second important story today. Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who became a victim of the post 9/11 intelligence fiascos. He was suspected of being a terrorist sympathizer, and he was arrested in the United States while changing planes. Now in any normal country with a moral compass and a rule of law, he would have been charged with something and explained his rights, and been able to contact a lawyer. But we don't live in a country that follows the rule of law or has a moral compass. So instead he was flown to Jordan, and then driven to Syria for interrogation.

Now my first question is this... Why Syria? Are their interrogators much more skillful than ours? Do they do a better job? Why are Syrian interrogators better than American interrogators? Well the answer of course is simple, they are good at torturing suspects, and we still feel better having someone else do it for us. So Arar was tortured in a Syrian prison in our name until he confessed to training in Afghanistan, and being a terrorist. He was then locked away in a small cell for 10 months without any charges and without access to legal advice.

Let me state this clearly, he was a regular Canadian citizen, and he was given NO rights at all.

So what happened? Well it turned out he was innocent, never had been to Afghanistan, and is not a terrorist. We the American people stole a year of his life, put him through hell, all because we suspected he might be a terrorist. Personally I am deeply ashamed and horrified that this is being done in my name.

We should not torture because it is the moral thing to do. We should not torture because we don't want our own troops to be tortured. We should not torture because it is ineffective and gives bad information. We should not torture because it ruins lives. We should not torture because we become less as a people when we allow this to be done in our name.

2006-09-11T09:52:00.000-07:00

Cheney admits he and Bush are fine being War Criminals.

Hear me out.

Everyone understands that there are times where you can kill someone legally, and times when you can't. For example, someone is in the process of killing your wife and you kill him. No-one would fault you, and in fact you would likely be praised. However you can't just kill the guy for looking at your wife in a bad way.

Ok, so say you killed the guy and told everyone he was in the process of killing your wife. However over time the information comes out that he simply leered at your wife, and what you thought was him killing your wife was actually just an impolite look. A reporter asks you about this new information and asks you if you are still glad you killed the guy. Your response is that you would have killed him even if he was just leering at your wife, because it was the right thing to do.

Would this be acceptable to anyone?

What does this have to do with Cheney and Bush? Well they have basically done the same thing. Cheney (on Meet the Press - Reported here) claimed that even though it appears that all of the evidence linking Saddam with WMD was wrong, it would have still been the right thing to do to invade Iraq. He would do it again, even with evidence from the CIA that showed Saddam didn't have WMD. What!!!!

One thing that everyone in America seems to have forgotten, is that you have to have a valid reason under International Law to invade another country. In fact it is pretty clear, there are only two legal reasons. One is if you have U.N. authorization for your invasion (i.e. the world agrees it needs to be done) or you are acting in self defense. That is it. Any other invasion of a sovereign nation is a war crime.

Now we never received authorization from the U.N., so our justification for invasion was that we were acting in self defense. Why? Because Saddam had connections to Al Qaida, and he had WMD that he would give to the terrorists. So we had to act in Self Defense, and therefore we had our legal justification.

Well as we all know, there were no WMD, and Al Qaida and Saddam had no connections. The amazing thing now though is that Cheney is saying that even if they had known this at the time, they still would have ordered the invasion because it was the "right thing to do."

I am sorry Mr Cheney, but that would have been a war crime, and you are now admitting that you are willing to be a war criminal. Even without your flimsy claim of "self defense" you would have still invaded! They try people for this all the time. Remember Nuremberg? How about the International War Crimes Tribunal?

I cannot believe that we live under such leadership. These men would have invaded a sovereign state that was no threat to us in any real sense of the word, based on no evidence whatsoever, killing thousands of innocent civilians, even though it would have been a war crime. I am disgusted.

2006-06-30T13:06:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama, Faith and Politics

I haven't posted for a while, and honestly it has mostly been because I just wanted to avoid "I told you so" kinds of posts. Bush is at the lowest approval ratings of his Presidency, and Iraq is going badly, and it just seems like everything I would say is simply self evident.

However today I listened to the latest podcast from Barack Obama, and it was a recording of his keynote address at a "Call to Renewal" conference. I simply have to say, I want this man to run for President. I have said it before, and I will say it again. He is simply the most articulate and most surprisingly moving progressive we have today in the Democratic party.

The best thing about this speech is that it is a call to people of faith to express themselves. It explains how he feels as a man of faith, and how he is motivated to do good through that faith. He also talks about the place of faith in a progressive political arena. It is remarkably good, and I hope you simply read it (or even better listen to it) for yourself.

As a man of faith myself, and someone who is progressive largely because of my faith, not in spite of it as many conservative Christians would have you believe, this is a wonderful thing to hear from one of our leaders.

Here is a link to the speech in audio form, and the page also includes a transcript so you can read it if you prefer.

2006-05-23T15:48:00.000-07:00

Keeping things in perspective.

According to Wikipedia, the United States suffers from around 42,000 deaths from car accidents a year. This is a lot of deaths. We could probably save a lot of these lives by doing a few simple things. We could increase the penalty for speeding to a felony. We could raise the driving age to 21, and we could not allow anyone over 65 to drive. We could place sensors in every car that could track your driving style and forwards the data to the department of transportation for review. All of these things are possible, and would save lives, however we don't do them. Why? Because people accept the current level of traffic laws as intrusive enough, and are prepared to accept 42,000 deaths a year in order to not have to lose some of their freedom.

Another example. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, we lost 696,947 people to heart disease in 2002. That is a HUGE number of people. Not all of these deaths are preventable, but a lot of them could be avoided. We could make exercise mandatory, monitored by a chip implanted in our chest. We could make it illegal to eat high fat foods. We could force every American to submit themselves to a battery of tests each year, and then data mine that information to find who needs immediate preventative care. We could reduce these deaths dramatically, but we don't do these things. Why? The same reason as above, we do not feel that the loss of personal freedom is worth the lowered risk of dying from heart disease.

These two examples are obviously to illustrate a point. We are willing to give up our freedom, and allow external control and oversight of our lives up to a certain point. Most of us are happy to accept seat belt laws, but we would balk at having our driving records monitored and forwarded to the government. We are willing to accept a certain loss of privacy for our own good, but only to a certain extent.

If we lose 42,000 people a year to car accidents, and almost 700,000 people a year to heart disease, but we aren't willing to give up more of our privacy on these issues, then why are so many Americans willing to give up their privacy to protect us from terrorist attacks?

In the last 5 years, we have lost less than 4000 people to terrorist attacks, the vast majority of them in one attack. You are far more likely to die of heart disease or a car accident, or any number of other preventable ways than as a result of an attack. Yet so many Americans have been willing to allow the Bush Administration to gather details on every call they make, adding it to a large database, so it can be analyzed to protect us from Terrorism. We have given up a fundamental right of privacy, to protect us from a very unlikely risk. We wouldn't be willing to allow the government access to every detail about our driving, or every detail about our health, so why is it that every detail of our communications is any different?

The only difference I can see is that people have a disproportionately large fear of terrorism, and this is very easy to understand, considering the fear mongering of our President and his Administration. We have spent millions, even invaded another country, to save us from a reasonably minimal risk. We refuse at the same time to pay attention to, or spend similar amounts of money on, health crises that can be easily prevented. We are concentrating on all the wrong things.

I am not saying that it is not important for us to protect ourselves from Terrorists. It is absolutely essential that we work hard at that. But should we be quite so willing to allow our President to break the law, violate the constitution, and remove some of our basic freedoms? Should we let him take away our rights? Of course not. We need to keep a clear perspective, and we need to remind our President that he is not a King, he too is subject to the law.

2006-05-02T14:18:00.000-07:00

Stephen Colbert Tells it how it is

Most of us in the left half of the country would kill for an opportunity to sit in the President down and tell him what we think of him for 20 minutes. Get him out of his bubble, and force him to really hear a contrary view. Make him realize we are all not as stupid as he seems to think we are. Fantasy?

Well Stephen Colbert (of Comedy Central's Colbert Report) had such an opportunity. He gave the keynote speech at the White House Press Corp dinner which the President attends. He didn't waste the opportunity.

While he could have gone the easy route, and simply made some standard jokes about the president not reading, or his difficulties with giving speech and language, but instead he decided not to go the funny route at all. While his speech was on the surface a funny discussion of current events and the President, in reality it was a no holds barred slam of the President and the mainstream media. He didn't hold back, and reminded the President and those who cover him, of all the awful things the President has done over the last 6 years. He covered everything from scandal, to leaks, to violating the constitution, to Iraq etc etc. It was amazing to watch.

The reaction in the room was incredible too, most sat there in stunned silence, feeling too awkward to respond. I wonder if the President has really ever heard anyone talk to him like that.

It was amazing!

Anyway, watch it here for yourself. It is well worth the effort, to finally see someone with the guts to speak straight to the President.

2006-04-26T08:49:00.000-07:00

Absolutely stunning health care statistics

A new report was released today by the Commonwealth Fund has some incredibly alarming statistics. In 2001, 28% of Americans with moderate to middle incomes were without health insurance. However by 2005, 41% of them had no health insurance. That is a HUGE increase, and should be sounding alarms bells for all of us.

The middle income earners were only the most dramatic figure. Amongst the poor earning $20,000 a year or less, the number of uninsured went from 49% to 53%. The survey also found that 20% of those interviewed also were having trouble paying medical bills.

Basically, more Americans are uninsured, more are skipping preventative care and medications that they need, more are using the emergency room as their primary source of care, and more regular middle class Americans are in trouble.

This is an absolute disaster, and an absolute disgrace. Some of you might be surprised by this, but the United States spends more than any other country on health care; 16% of our GDP. In contrast, countries with national health insurance that covers all their citizens spend far less (10.7% in Germany, 9.7% in Canada, 9.5% in France). Why is it that we spend so much more on health care, and get so little for it? How can these other countries spend so much less, but still cover every one of their citizens?

Well the obvious answer is that they ration care, and this is true, they do have rationing of care. An elective non-urgent procedure might put you on a waiting list. You might have to wait 6 months for knee surgery for example. However in the United States you might get the procedure right away if you are lucky enough to be covered, or not at all if you aren’t. It is far better to ration non-urgent care and make sure every citizen has access, than allowing only those who are lucky or wealthy enough to have coverage get care.

But the rationing isn’t the only reason why they can afford to cover all their citizens for less money. Another major reason is that health care in the United States is a for profit enterprise, and in countries with nationalized health care it is not. What does this mean? Well you have to pay the real cost of the service plus a premium to enable to health care company (hospital, drug company, insurance company etc) to earn a profit, and keep their shareholders happy. When you are a for profit company, your primary responsibility is to shareholders, and it is to maximizing profits and share price. These two things do not help keep prices down in a health care environment.

Why is this? Why doesn’t the market work? It is because health care is an essential service. People don’t feel they have a choice. You can’t really choose not to get care, you have to if you want to live. When people are forced to take your services, and you need to maximize your profits, this is a bad situation for the consumers.

Others will argue that the reason we have high costs is because we have the best medical care, and the most expensive procedures, of any country in the world. This may be true, but it doesn’t help the majority of Americans if the wealthiest have access to the best available care, but the poor don’t have access to basic preventative care. As a whole, Americans have far less access to good care than people in other countries.

We have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. We have millions of our citizens without health care, and many more of us are losing health care every year.

We have a responsibility to fix this and take care of our fellow men and women, our fellow citizens. Whether you are a religious person or simply a patriot, we have an obligation to ensure all our citizens have access to quality care. We can make a difference, and we need to start making some noise. We need Nationalized Health Care NOW! Whether we do what Massachusetts did and take a more market driven approach, or we simply create a national health system, we need to do something. It is simply not right that in 4 years, 13% of middle income earners in this country lost their health insurance. Now is the time to make the change.

2006-04-07T08:17:00.000-07:00

Bush is at it again!

George W Bush is gaining a reputation for being a "teflon" president. Nothing seems to stick to him, even when he is caught lying over and over again. A big part of the problem is that the media doesn't seem to follow up or publicize sufficiently any of his lies. The right wing talking heads with their charges of liberal bias have sufficiently scared the media to the point that it won't pursue any of these stories for fear of appearing that they are "again" attacking the President. The result of course is that they treat him with kid gloves. Compare this with President Clinton, and the 24/7 playing of his Monica Lewinski lie, and it becomes obvious.

Bush has been caught lying about an awful lot, but there are three times I wanted to talk about today.

The first is his lying about the wiretapping. The Bush Administration has been running wiretapping activities on American Citizens on American soil without judicial review, something that is illegal. Bush has claimed that it doesn't matter that it is illegal, it was necessary to protect Americans from terrorists, although they have NO evidence that it has helped in any way.

Bush lied about this when he brought up the subject himself at a town hall meeting. He brought it up because at the time he was supporting an extension of the Patriot Act, and he was trying to make the act more acceptable by assuring people that there were still protections under the law. He said :

"any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

This of course was a bald faced lie, since the wiretapping program had been running for quite some time, and no court orders were being sought. Some may claim that he was lying because he wanted to protect the secret program so terrorists wouldn't know about it, but if that was true he simply wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. In reality he was lying about this issue because he wanted to fool the American people into supporting the Patriot Act extension by telling them there were constitutional checks in place... checks that he was currently overriding and breaking.

The result of him being caught lying? None. The Daily Show with John Stewart played the clip over and over, but there was no real mainstream media coverage. Bush gets the pass.

The second incident is actually one that has happened many times, and was just repeated a day or two a go. This is Bush's continued insistence that the reason we had to invade Iraq was because Saddam was defying the U.N. weapons inspectors and wouldn't let them in. This is patently false. The weapons inspectors WERE in Iraq, and they WERE inspecting sites. The Bush Administration asked them to leave when we were about to start bombing. At the time no-one was claiming that Saddam wasn't allowing inspectors in the country. They might have complained that he wasn't co-operating fully, but the truth is that he was. He told them he had no WMD, and he didn't. He provided documentation explaining what happened to all the WMD, and we rejected it as lies, although it was likely true. He was allowing inspectors into his sites, and we pulled them out.

Bush has repeated this lie many times, but he did so again at a press conference earlier this week. Why does he do this? Mostly because it is the only excuse he has left after he has had all his other ones debunked by the facts. The real reason is that he has to lie to protect his political legacy.

The result of this lie? Nothing. In fact the media will report him saying this lie over and over without ever calling attention to it. Bush gets a pass.

The final lie I wanted to talk about today was the bombshell that was dropped yesterday by Libby. Libby is Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, and he is currently under indictment for leaking classified information (namely that Bush critic Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent). In the past Bush and Cheney have both denied any knowledge of the leak, and have even gone as far as to say that they want a full investigation. Bush himself said he would fire anyone who was involved. Well looks like he needs to fire himself and his Vice President.

Libby is claiming that Bush and Cheney were both involved, and that they instructed him to leak the information. This is a huge issue! Why? Because Bush cannot claim that he lied to protect a secret program. What he actually did was reveal an undercover officer. He cannot claim that he did it to protect Americans, because in reality it hurts Americans when our CIA agents can't be secure in their cover. The only reason to lie was to distance himself from a blatant political move designed to punish a critic... one who was discrediting another Bush Administration lie about uranium, Africa and Iraq. He lied to the American people about his involvement, and he lied to cover up other lies about Iraq that got us into the war there in the first place.

When does it end? Will he finally be held accountable? Well I am sure Bush will deny the accusations, and he has a point; Libby is under indictment and that is a common claim, "I only did it because I was told to by my superiors." As much as I would like to think that this will hit Bush hard, the truth is it will slip off his Teflon shoulders like everything else. He will not be held accountable. In fact his approval rating is so low that the only people left who are supporting him are those who will reject this accusation out of hand. The rest of us will have our fears confirmed, and he will continue along on his merry way, lying continually to the American people.

It is a disgrace.

2006-03-24T08:23:00.000-08:00

Civil War?

There has been a lot of talk recently regarding Iraq, and whether or not the country has fallen into a civil war. Many analysts are claiming that it has, and the Bush administration is insisting that this is anything but a civil war. In fact they have been adamant in trying to steer people away from any mention of such a thing.

The Bush Administration is desperate to avoid the mention of civil war, because they know that if it becomes recognized as such by the American People, all hope of maintaining any support for the war will vanish. It will also be the ultimate indication of failure for their policies. We invaded Iraq because of WMD, but when they didn't appear the Administration insisted that it was ok because we were bringing democracy to Iraq. If all we end up bringing them is a civil war, then they have ultimately wasted thousands of lives and billions of dollars on a futile effort.

So is it a civil war? I guess it depends on your definition. To the Bush administration it seems that they are only going to concede civil war if the troops end up lining up on a battlefield across from each other, all wearing uniforms and then start firing at each other. While this is of course the popular image of the U.S. Civil War, it is also an obsolete form of warfare. No one fights that way anymore.

The most recent civil wars we have had have been in places like Sudan, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. These civil wars have all been defined by ethnic violence, mass killings, terror attacks, and guerilla tactics. They have not been fought on a U.S. civil war battlefield. In the context of these modern civil wars, the current conflict in Iraq is easily identified as a civil war. We have seen ethnic violence, mass killings, terror attacks and guerilla tactics. Neither side in the civil war is going to put on uniforms and start marching up and down the fields of Baghdad. That is not how wars are won.

The Bush Administration was still living in the Cold War when we invaded Iraq. They expected a conventional battle, and instead the Iraqis fell into the new type of war that was perfected by the Afghanistanis during their war with Russia. Now the Administration is again standing by outdated definitions of warfare, and they are looking increasingly out of touch.

We are losing dozens of people every day in Iraq. Today there were at least 29 killed, yesterday almost 40. Every day is the same. Bodies being found after execution, mass killings, bombings and terror. These attacks are no longer directed at the U.S., they are Sunni's attacking Shiites, and Shiites attacking Sunnis, and Kurds attacking everyone else. As former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi recently said, "If this is not civil war, I don't know what is."

One thing we all need to remember, is these people who are dying would all likely be alive today if it wasn't for our wonderful President. We invaded Iraq without provocation or evidence of threat, and we chose to insert ourselves into this situation. It was purely a war of choice. While these people might have lived restricted lives under Saddam, at least most of them would have been alive. Saddam was an evil tyrant, and needed to go. However was the best way to do that invading the country, spending billions of dollars, sacrificing thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and bringing their country to destruction?

It is like the famous quote from a Vietnam War veteran. "We had to destroy the village to save it." What a mad world we live in.

2006-03-02T13:21:00.000-08:00

Wow, two posts in one day!

I just posted another item this morning, but I had to post this one as well. It is just too important.

Saddam's trial in Iraq is continuing, and for those who haven't been following, he is currently being tried for ordering the killing of around 150 villagers (men women and children) in a village that was the home of some people who attempted an assassination on Saddam. The killing was ordered in retaliation for the failed assassination attempt.

Well the breakthrough today was that Saddam admitted that he ordered the retaliatory attack. His defense is basically that he didn't break any laws, because he was the President and he made the laws. The prosecution has claimed that even if this is true, he is still guilty under international laws.

Hmmm... Does this sound familiar to anyone? Maybe for example the way that Bush feels that it doesn't make him a lawbreaker if he decides that laws are inconvenient and decides to simple go around them. Kind of like the torture of prisoners, or the wiretapping of U.S. residents and citizens, or ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty by working with India on nuclear energy, or ignoring the Geneva Convention etc etc. Bush always excuses this breaking of treaties and laws by arguing that he is the President, and that his favorite "Unitary President" doctrine allows him to basically be above the law.

So the bottom line here is that Saddam and Bush are making the same argument. They are both saying that the fact that they are President allows them to not be shackled by laws in any normal sense. Simply by being President, they can do whatever they want and it is legal. Nixon tried this too, when he declared that something can't be illegal if the President is doing it.

The irony of course is that we accept (or at least a lot of us do) this argument from Bush, but we don't accept it from Saddam. In truth we should either accept the argument from Saddam and let him go, or we should put Bush on trial for breaking the law. We can't do both.

Now before anyone starts yelling at me for equating Saddam with Bush, please remember that Bush has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, all of whom wouldn't have been dead without his decision to invade Iraq. That decision was illegal, as under International Law you can only attack another country in defense or if you receive U.N. sanction, and we qualify for neither, making Bush a war criminal responsible for untold deaths. He also heads a government that has made torture a routine part of its dealings with prisoners, as well as ignorning the rights of prisoners of war under the geneva conventions. The only real difference between Saddam and Bush is that Saddam killed and tortured his own people, and Bush kills and tortures others. They both have excuses for why they do it.

2006-03-02T08:56:00.000-08:00

India and Non-Proliferation

Once again the big story today is the increase of violence in Iraq, with another 39 people killed, and the country clearly headed for Civil War. But again, I want to talk about something else that otherwise could slip through the cracks.

Yesterday Bush was in New Delhi, and he signed an agreement with India that will allow the U.S. to share nuclear technology and fuel with India. This is a dangerous agreement.

Why is that? Not because I don't trust the Indians and believe that this could assist them in their nuclear weapons, although that is likely a result. The main reason is because this is simply another example of Bush having no respect for international law.

There is a treaty, which the United States is a signatory to, called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Basically this treaty declares that no signatory can develop nuclear bombs, but in return for giving up their right to nuclear bombs they have the right to develop civilian nuclear energy projects. The treaty also declares that those signatories that already have nuclear weapons should work towards reducing them.

Well India never signed the treaty. The United States did, so under international law we are required to allow signatories to develop civilian nuclear programs, but to work towards stopping those countries that are not signatories. India not only didn't sign the treaty, but they have in the meantime developed nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Iran, one of the "axis of evil", actually did sign the treaty. Part of the reason we have concerns with them now is that we believe they are breaking the portion of the treaty that says they cannot build nuclear weapons.

What does all this mean? Well how can we stand up and say we are going to help the Indians develop civilian nuclear energy, when they aren't even signatories to the treaty, and have broken even the tenets of the treaty by developing nuclear weapons? How can we then turn around and refuse to assist Iran in developing their civilian nuclear facilities when they are signatories? It puts us in an incredibly difficult position, and is just dangerous. What we are showing the world is that you are better off not being a part of the treaty, develop nuclear weapons, and then we will come in and help you develop your civilian nuclear program anyway. However if you do stick with the treaty and we don't like you then you will be punished anyway.

I think Bush even recognizes this dilemma, when you consider this quote from him:

ÂWhat this agreement says is Â things change, times change, that leadership can make a difference. ... So IÂm trying to think differently, not stay stuck in the past,Â

What this quote points out is that Bush is admitting that he holds international treaties as unimportant when "times change". This is but another example to add to the list of treaties and laws that Bush declares "quaint" and that no longer need to be followed, such as the U.S. ban on torture, the Geneva Conventions, the laws protecting U.S. citizens from wire taps etc. Bush has no respect at all for any law or treaty if he feels it is inconvenient.

There is a name for that, and it is Dictatorship. Bush feels he is above the law and nothing should be able to stop him from doing what he wants. This is extremely dangerous.

Anyway, here is a link!

2006-02-23T13:56:00.000-08:00

Bush and the Bush Administration - Not Talking

Today has been an awful day in Iraq, and I can’t bring myself to talk about it too much. Hundreds of people killed, and the possible start of a civil war, all of which wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t invaded. Just so incredibly sad.

Anyway, I want to talk about something else instead. A large uproar has erupted in the media and in Congress over the plan to allow the change of ownership of a number of our country’s largest ports to a company that is owned by the United Arab Emirates. In case you have missed it, the Bush Administration has been reviewing the plan, and decided that it did not pose a risk to security, and therefore could go ahead. Congress has been incensed because they believe that handing our ports over to a foreign Arabic national company is dangerous, and they are incensed because they weren’t consulted.

Bush has replied that everything has been checked out, and has accused the opponents of the plan of being racist. He said that he doesn’t understand why anyone would have no problem with a British company running our ports (which they do) while objecting to a Dubai company running our ports.

The truth is that we can’t have any faith in his judgment on this issue because he didn’t even find out about it until the controversy had already started and he saw it on the news! I am not talking about him finding out about the controversy, I am saying he didn’t even know about the deal until he saw it on the news. This is simply amazing!!

The Bush Administration has so little faith in Congress (or respect for that matter), that they never inform them about anything they are doing; whether it is wiretapping outside the law, or torturing suspects. In this case, they didn’t even have faith in or respect for Bush, as he was not even informed about the decision. At first I find that incredible, but then again this is Bush we are talking about, and does anyone believe anymore that he is actually running the show?

Personally, I think Congress has the right idea. I do not believe that a company should be excluded from running U.S. ports simply because they are a foreign based company, or because of where they are based. The big difference here though is that this is not just some normal multinational. This is a company that is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. Do we really want our ports being run by a foreign government? Whether they are Britain or Iran, I don’t think we really should feel comfortable about that.

Congress is asking simply for a delay so they can examine the issue. That is what they were elected for, unlike the unelected members of Bush’s cabinet. I think that is a good idea, and maybe everything will come up roses. The scary thing right now is the thought that a bunch of unelected bozos in the White House have the ability to make these kinds of decisions without informing any elected official, including their boss the President. That makes my blood boil, and scares me to death. What other decisions are they making that we never find out about?

2006-02-02T08:22:00.000-08:00

Tax cuts and spending cuts

Quick post today, mostly to simply mark the passing of a disastrous spending cut bill yesterday in Congress. The House yesterday approved President Bush's spending cuts along party lines. They totaled 39 billion dollars, and by far disproportionately effected the poorest in our society. This of course in contrast to the tax cuts over the last 5 years, which disproportionately effected the wealthiest in our society. The largest tax cuts were for Medicaid and student loans.

I find it immoral and abhorrent to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans while taking away vital programs that assist the poor. Education is the best way to break the poverty cycle, and Medicaid is the last hope for the poor hoping for medical assistance. But instead of making sure these vital programs are available, we have to give tax cuts to the wealthiest, who have only got insanely more wealthy over the last 5 years.

The republicans will of course tell you that we need these cuts to curtail the growing deficit, and that these will help control outrageous spending. They will fail to remind you that the reason we have these deficits (after years of surpluses under Clinton) is because Bush decided to cut our nations income with tax cuts, and invade another country for billions of dollars.

This is exactly the kind of issue that just makes me so sad. We need to have a fairer and more equitable society, and we just squander every opportunity.

Now for the total conspiracy theory. One theory I have heard is that Bush's cuts to student loans is a direct response to lowered enlistment in the military. All branches of the military have been having a hell of a time meeting their goals (no surprise why) and this is in an effort to help boost that enlistment. How does this work? Well poor people who want to get an education have three options. Scholarships, student loans, and joining the military to get the military to pay for your education. This spending cut removes one of the options, so that if a lower income kid wants to go to school, they are now less likely to have an alternative to joining the military.

While I believe that it is very unlikely that Bush planned it this way, it will be a happy side effect in his book.

Anyway, we need to remember to emphasize that Bush's spending cuts for the poor are directly related to his tax cuts for the rich. We need to do something!

2006-01-27T10:14:00.000-08:00

Campaign Finance Reform, and Democracy in Action

As American's, we usually see democracy as an absolutely positive thing. We all tend to agree that one of the most important aspects of our society is its democratic nature, and we believe that other countries should become more democratic because that will help them to advance to a new and wonderful world. We also believe that as other countries become more democratic, the world will become a safer place.

Well we are not doing a good job of handling our own democracy, and the democratic experience of some other countries is not providing us the safety we would have expected.

Let me explain.

In the United States, we have mishandled our democracy terribly. The idea of democracy is that each individual has an equal say in how the country is run. In the United States this is the fiction but not the reality. In truth, we all do get a minor say during the elections, however the real power and influence is money. Politicians in America need money, and lots of it. In order to get elected it costs boatloads of money. So in order to get that money they sell their souls. Ok, it isn't quite that dramatic, but they do have to spend an inordinate amount of time pandering and begging for money. The impact of this is that they spend less time actually governing, and more time on their knees looking for handouts. In order to get elected, you need lots of money. In order to get lots of money, you have to get it from rich people (or be rich yourself). In order to get it from rich people, you have to give them a promise (or at least the illusion of a promise) that you will give them something in return... usually policies and government contracts that they want.

Recently in the U.S. we have seen the power that money has on politicians through the incredible corruption unveiled through the recent Republican financing scandals.

It is really pretty simple. People only give money to politicians because they hope that the politician will govern in a way that benefits them. Since most of the money belongs to rich people (funny that) most of the money given to politicians supports policies that support the wealthy. There are some obvious exceptions, like when thousands of poorer people give small amounts to a politician, but the problem is that it is much harder to get thousands of the poor to part with a small amount of money, than it is to get one rich person to give up a larger portion of money.

So we end up with a system where politicians don't necessarily have to be good at governing, they really just have to be good at fund raising. And to be good at fund raising, they have to advocate policies that support those giving the money.

What a joke, and what a corrupt system.

What we really need to do is have full public funding of elections, and outright ban ANY money given to politicians, labeling it as it really is, a bribe. Think about that for a second. If we take money out of the equation, then the politicians will not see success by how good a fund raiser they are, but instead by how well they serve the interests of the voters as a whole. This would cause a dramatic change in the sorts of policies and laws that are passed in Congress, and will improve our situation to no end.

Now will that happen? Of course not, every politician in power today got there because of their excellent grasp of the current process. They are good fund raisers, and so it is in their benefit to maintain the status quo. Without some incredibly dramatic revolution, this will never change.

Now to democracy's surprises overseas. Bush has been telling us that the spread of democracy in the middle east will lead to open and free societies that will be safer for us. This actually seems to make sense; it is a simplistic argument, but the basic idea seems sound. However the reality on the ground is very different. We have seen three recent elections in the middle east that have gone counter to our expectations.

The first is the recent election victory of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has called for the destruction of Israel. The United States pushed hard for this election, and then when it looked like Hamas might do reasonably well in the election, they clandestinely supported the Fatah party to try and help them to victory. However Fatah failed dismally, and Hamas has taken power. So here we have a situation where democracy has lead to a breakdown in the peace process, and most likely an amazing increase in the volatility of the middle east. Israel has already said they will not negotiate with Hamas, and unless Hamas repudiates their stated goal of the destruction of Israel, then I can't see how they will do anything but increase the danger in the area.

The next election was the election of Iran's new President Ahmadinejad. He has moved Iran away from reforms, and closer to the closed Islamic society of the past. He has also declared that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth, and is very likely pursuing nuclear weapons. He is a destabilizing force in the middle east, and will also cause us no end of trouble. He was also democratically elected.

Thirdly is the election in Iraq. It is now clear that the major victors in the Iraqi elections were the Islamic fundamentalist religious parties with ties to Iran. Those are the people who will now be leading the country. The secular Shiites that were supported in the election by the U.S. lost dismally. The Iraqi people voted almost universally on ethnic and religious lines, and the result was that they have chosen for themselves quite possibly the American's least favorite leaders. These are men who will lead Iraq towards an Iranian style theocracy, and will likely reduce the rights of women, increase the impact of Islamic law in society, and basically move the country away from the freedoms that we would expect.

Obviously democracy does not always give us the outcome we as Americans might hope for. The funny thing about democracy is that it is not pro-American, it is simply pro voter. And if the voters in other countries don't like the U.S., you can be guaranteed that their governments will not be pro-U.S. either. This of course leads us to the difficult situation where we have to start considering whether our support of the principle of democracy is strong enough to allow the further spread of anti-American sentiment and government policies throughout the world. This is a tough test for America to have to go through, and it will be interesting to see how we do.

I guess it really depends on what the rich in America want.

One final note, the Bush Administration always seems to be surprised that people in the middle east tend to vote for religious politicians. Why they are surprised is beyond me, as that tactic is a central pillar of Bush's own electoral strategy. Why he thinks that Muslems will be likely to vote for secularists while his own strategy is appealing to the religious insticts of his constituents is beyond me. The religious angle has been a big winner for him, so why not in the middle east?

2006-01-20T09:55:00.000-08:00

Iran. We are in trouble now.

Back before the war in Iraq, one of my many concerns about attacking Iraq was that Iraq itself was not a threat to us in the same way the North Korea or Iran were. It seemed strange to me that we would consider invading Iraq, while we pretty much ignored the threat from Iran and North Korea. Now at the time, we all suspected that Iraq had some kind of WMD program, but even so, it didn't seem that they were as great a threat to us as the others.

Soon after the war began, and it became clear that Iraq didn't have any WMD, the distinction became even clearer. North Korea actually developed nuclear weapons, and demonstrated that they have long range missile capabilities. This happened without any focus or effort to stop them from the Bush Administration. Iran also clearly progressed in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and also armed itself with long range missiles, likely imported from North Korea. Of Bush's Axis of Evil, Iraq was truly the least threat to us and our interests, yet that is the one Bush was determined to spend our strength and means attacking.

In the case of Iran, we pretty much ignored the growing threat, and really simply abrogated all responsibility to the Europeans. We we were busy in Iraq, and had no time for Iran. Of course the result of this inattention is that Iran now has further advanced its nuclear research, it has begun enriching uranium again, and there is little to nothing we can do about it.

Why is there nothing we can do? Because Iran knows that we will not do anything drastic, simply because we can't. Our military might is tied up in Iraq, and while we could participate in targeted strikes, we can't even project the threat of a full invasion. It is simply not possible. Add in the fact that the new democratically elected leader of Iran has called for Israel's destruction, and will soon have the means available to him to do that, and things get really scary. While many would claim that the threat of mutually assured destruction might deter him, as it did the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the cold war, there is ample evidence that his religious convictions will not allow him to be deterred. I hate to speak in generalities, but this is a religion which inspires many of the most radical of its adherents to give their life as suicide bombers, so I am not hopeful that the threat of self destruction is much of a deterrence for the radicals who lead Iran.

So what do we do? I honestly don't know, but our options would have been much broader if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Israel has now indicated that it will not accept a nuclear armed Iran, (and rightly so based on Iran's rhetoric) and there are indications that they will strike any nuclear facilities if it looks like the Iranians are getting close. The U.S. will likely be implicated as complicit in any attack, since the attacks would obviously have to travel across U.S. occupied Iraq. The last thing we want to is to get dragged in to a shooting war between these two states, but we honestly might not have much of a choice. Israel (as much as I criticize them for their actions with the Palestinians) have a right to life and existence, and we should defend any nation that is being threatened with annihilation. A war with the U.S. and Israel against Iran though will be disastrous, in that it will further cement the Muslim misconception that Americans hate Islam and Muslims. More suicide bombers will appear, more attacks will occur, and we will simply dig ourselves deeper into the hole we are currently in.

Obviously it is not good to criticize without offering an alternative solution, but unfortunately I can't see any good options. Iran says they are only seeking nuclear technology for energy purposes, but the Russians offered them very cheap nuclear fuel and they turned it down. The only real reason for that rejection is that they really want the ability themselves. They say they need the energy, but even if we offered to give them for free all the energy (in gas, fuel or electricity, whatever) they need, I don't think it is likely they would turn back. It seems increasingly obvious that they desire weapons, and are in a unique short term position to be able to develop them before the U.S. can extricate itself from the burden of occupying Iraq.

Finally, I would like to address the hypocrisy of the U.S. and Israel, in that both of us have nuclear weapons, however we don't trust anyone else with them. Bush has even restarted long-dormant research into new nuclear weapons. This is indeed a problem, as we have no moral right to tell anyone else that they can't have these weapons. However I have to admit (even with people like Bush and Sharon in charge) that I trust the U.S. with these weapons more than the Iranians. Neither the U.S. or the Israelis have a leader who is calling for the utter destruction of another country, not the least Iran.

Solving this problem is going to take a master of diplomacy, a deft hand, and an extremely creative and nimble mind. Unfortunately instead we have a President who has only shown his diplomatic ineptitude, his heavy handed style, and his incredibly incurious and stubborn mind. We are in trouble.

2006-01-16T08:32:00.000-08:00

Have we really come to this?

On Friday of last week, the United States apparently used missile laden drones to attack homes in a village near the Afghan border in Pakistan. They were after Al-Zawahri, the purported "number 2" in the Al Qaida hierarchy. The only problem was he wasn't there, and we killed dozens of civilians in a Pakistani village, including innocent women and children.

How did we come to this?

First, Pakistan is an allied state, however they did not countenance the attack! Pakistan has roundly condemned the attack, and they have asserted that they did not give permission, and they were not informed before the attack took place. The United States military thought they had the "number 2" Al Qaida leader in their sights, and it didn't matter where he was, we were going to attack. What an amazing lack of respect for the sovereignty of others.

Second, when did we decide it is ok to destroy a village, killing innocents, to try and get one man? Can you imagine police in the U.S. blowing up an apartment building full of people to try and get a mass murderer? Of course not. That would be roundly condemned. Then why is it ok to do the same thing in Pakistan? Obviously we value Pakistani life less than we do American life, or we wouldn't even think for a minute that this is a valid approach. Let me state this clearly... It is NOT appropriate ever to kill dozens of innocents to get one man.

Thirdly, it is just stupid! We are trying to win this "war on terror", and a major front in that war is the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. I can't think of a better way to turn more Muslims into American Haters, than by showing our complete disregard for Muslim life in this way. Our enemies claim we are against every Muslim, not just the terrorists. They claim that we are trying to destroy Islam. They claim that we have no regard for Muslim life. Well this attack does nothing to dispel those claims, and only strengthens our enemy's appeal. What a stupid thing to do.

Pakistan is rapidly turning against us, and our reputation, already shaky, is getting a huge hit from this stupid maneuver. Worst of all, we didn't even get the guy we were targeting. All we did was kill mothers, wives, children and fathers. All innocent. President Bush has brought us to this point, where actions like this are done in our name. I am ashamed.

2006-01-11T08:50:00.000-08:00

The absolutely wrong question

MSNBC this morning has a Washington Post Article that talks about the domestic spying controversy of the Bush Administration. Most of you will understand this issue by now, that the Bush Administration broke Federal law by going around congressionally mandated courts for reviewing any domestic spying. Instead they decided to simply spy on American Citizens without any oversight.

The article itself is scary, in that it seems to show that many American's are ambivalent or even supportive of the President's move. This seems to me to only really be possible if the majority of Americans are simply misinformed about this issue.

The latter does seem to be the case, and the accompanying poll (obviously non-scientific) is a great example of this. The poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10802208/) totally misses the mark on this issue.

It asks, "Do you support domestic spying in light of today's threat of terrorism?" That is it, that simple question. And I have to ask, what the hell does this have to do with the current issue? I understand that it is tangentially related, but the question isn't whether or not the President can spy on Americans on American soil. That is legal and appropriate, under congressional law, and provided it is done under judicial oversight. No-one is saying that there can be no spying on American citizens in America. The Congress passed the law stating that this can happen, and the Administration even has 3 days after starting a wire tap to comply with the law by seeking judicial oversight. There is a mechanism that provides for this eventuality, but the Bush Administration simply felt it could ignore the law.

So this poll is asking exactly the wrong question. The question should be, do you think that in light of today's threat of terrorism, the President is entitled to break the law while searching for terrorists?

The President broke the law. It is incontrovertible, and he admitted it. The only question is whether or not that is justified under the circumstances. However the main stream "Liberal" media is pandering to the President by helping to frame the debate in the terms the President would prefer. Instead we need to be addressing the issue of how the President seems to think he is above the law.

Judge Alito (in his confirmation hearings yesterday) stated clearly that he felt that NO person, no matter how high in the Government in the United States, is above the law. Unfortunately I bet he doesn't believe it, and the President also doesn't believe it. The media is only helping them in their power grab by portraying the issue in this way.

2006-01-06T11:38:00.000-08:00

What's next for Bush, Assassinations?

I am going to make a statement which many will initially find inflammatory, ridiculous, and exaggerated. I would have agreed until yesterday, but once I started thinking about it, I could see no reason why it might not be true.

Bush is going to start assassinating terrorist suspects inside the United States.

There I said it. Sound crazy?

Well not too long ago I would have said that it was crazy to consider that our own government would sanction torture. However it is now abundantly clear that in the fight against terrorism, torture is no longer off limits. Why else would Cheney lobby against a ban on torture? Why else would we send prisoners to third countries for interrogations? We have lots of evidence of American's who have been charged and convicted for torture, and there is little evidence that the Bush administration sees any reason to stop these actions.

Not too long ago, I would have said that it was crazy that we would have ignored the Geneva Conventions. However the Bush Administration considers the Geneva Conventions quaint, and says they don't apply to the war on terror. So we now hold "enemy combatants" for as long as we want, with no access to the red cross, in any conditions we determine fit.

Not too long ago, I would have said that it was crazy that the U.S. would be running secret prisons with no oversite by anyone, where secret prisoners are secreted away, for secret interrogations, with no transparency whatsoever.

Not so long ago, I would have said that it was crazy that the U.S. would be secretly wiretapping American citizens, listening to their calls, and doing so without judicial oversite. However Bush himself has admitted to doing this, and claims he will continue to do so, even though it is non-constitutional, and breaks federal law.

Not so long ago, I would have said that it was crazy to imagine an American Citizen being arrested, and held without charge, without access to lawyers, and without any regular court review, for 3 or more years. However that is exactly what has happened to Jose Padilla.

So since the Bush Administration took power, we now have secret prisons, American's held without charges and without access to lawyers, U.S. sanctioned torture of suspects, secret illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens, and no respect for international conventions of war. What exactly is left? What is the only real next step?

Well it is to start killing suspects before they can do any damage. We already know that the Bush Administration deems that their highest duty is to protect Americans from terrorists, and that this trumps the Constitution, U.S. laws and International norms. They have already indicated they are willing to do anything to protect Americans even if it breaks the law. The only thing left for them to do is start the Assassinations.

Now this may seem extreme, and by God I hope it is, but they are already doing everything else, why is this so unthinkable? They claim that they didn't go to the secret courts for their secret wiretaps on American citizens, because they felt that it would be too much of a risk if the court denied their claims of need. They feel they cannot stand by and wait for judges to make decisions while they are trying to protect the American people. Well what is to say that they will be willing to wait for the courts if they feel that a suspect is getting ready to kill Americans. Wouldn't it be easier and safer just to take them out, avoid all the messy issues that come up with torturing and holding them without judicial review?

I hope I am wrong. But nothing this Administration has done to this point tells me that this is far fetched or irrational.

2005-12-30T08:35:00.000-08:00

Whistleblower Protection?

Breaking news this morning on MSNBC.com, revealed that the Justice Department is opening a new investigation. What are they investigating? Is it fact that the Bush Administration authorized illegal wiretaps that were in violation of both Congressionally mandated law and the Constitution of the United States? Was it the fact that Bush basically committed a felony, and then admitted it and declared that he would continue breaking the law? Was it the fact that congressional Republicans who were so intent on upholding the law over politics during the Clinton Administration, now seem to think that Presidential law breaking is no big deal?

No, instead the Justice Department is going to investigate the leak itself. In other words, they are going to find out who told on the President. Who let the world know that the President was breaking the law, and then prosecute them.

So not only is the President allowed to break the law, but he is allowed to break the law in secret, and if anyone tries to let anyone know that he is breaking the law, then they will be prosecuted. This is like me finding out that the Governor is molesting children, but I am the one prosecuted for bringing it to light, because it weakens the confidence of the state in the governor.

Now the Bush Administration is claiming that this act of revealing their law breaking was shameful, because it helps our enemies. It allows them to understand the details of how we are investigating them, and therefore allows them to change their tactics. This may be true. However the investigative process WAS ILLEGAL!!! We shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, and if we had SIMPLY followed the legal procedure (which was VERY simple and reasonable) then we wouldn't be in this situation. It is asinine to claim that the one who needs to be investigated at this point is the leaker, not the criminal.

2005-12-22T08:59:00.000-08:00

Impeach Bush

This week Bush admitted to breaking federal law. He is a confessed criminal. He should be impeached and prosecuted, but of course he won't.

For those who have been out of touch on this issue, for the last 4 years, Bush has authorized secret wire-taps inside the United States. Under federal law, this is possible, but only through a certain prescribed process. There is a court that was set up in the 70's that is supposed to give judicial review for all of this type of wiretaps within the United States. This court (and the laws governing it) was set up after the excesses of the Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy administrations in spying on our own citizens.

The law is pretty simple. If the Federal Government wants to setup a wiretap on someone in America, they have to get approval. If they want to keep it secret, they can go to this secret judiciary, setup especially for this process, and get the approval there. They don't even have to wait for approval, they can get approval up to 3 days AFTER they have started the wiretap. The court has approved thousands of wiretaps and only rejected 4, so it is not much of an obstacle.

However the Bush Administration apparently thought it was. Four years ago, they called in the Chief Justice of this secret court, and told her that they were going to be conducting a number of wiretaps outside of her (and her court's) review, and that she must keep it secret, even from the other judges on the court. They then proceeded to break the law, by not notifying the court of wiretaps, and not seeking judicial oversite and approval. They broke the law, plain and simple.

They have lots of excuses for why they did that. Bush has said that it was necessary to keep us safe. He claims that his Administration needs the flexibility to pretty much do anything in order to fight the war on terror. He admitted that these wiretaps occurred without judicial review, and then even said that he would continue to do so. That is like me admitting that I have stolen 50 cars, and I will continue to steal them as much as I want. Maybe I was giving the stolen cars to poor single mothers, so I felt justified. I am sure Bush felt justified in what he was doing, but that doesn't make it legal, and it doesn't make it right.

The really stupid thing is that the court's review is reasonable and not onerous at all. They have up to 3 days after conducting the wiretap to get review, so it is not like it is even a matter of flexibility and speed. They are just so arrogant in their perception of their power, that they no longer believe they have to bother themselves with such pesky things as laws and separation of powers.

The President is not a King. He is not a despot. He is subject to laws just like everyone else, and he should be held accountable for them. The founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances for a reason, and Bush is that reason. He is a man who no longer feels himself checked by Congress (who passed the law he is breaking) or the Judiciary (who he ignored). When a man starts to think he is above the law, that is when the law needs to remind him the reality of the situation.

Impeach Bush.

Now will it happen? Of course not. The Republicans have control of all branches of power, and they are not going to impeach their president. They should of course, but they won't. In fact, this is a perfect example of their hypocrisy and lack of principles. They continually claimed during the impeachment proceedings against Clinton that they were not attacking him as a matter of politics, but that they were simply upholding the rule of law. They claimed that Clinton had made a false statement under oath. That is a breach of law, and they claimed that the fact that he had broken the law meant he needed to be removed from office. In their public statements it had nothing to do with the fact that they hated the man.

Well now of course is their chance to show that they meant what they said. Bush's lawbreaking is far more serious that Clinton lying under oath about an illicit affair. One was a personal infraction that was stupid and wrong, but really didn't hurt the country as a whole. Bush has weakened the very fabric of our constitutional separation of powers, and has violated the constitution. While he has done a huge number of other reprehensible and immoral things (lying almost constantly since the beginning of his Presidency) this time he has come right out and admitted breaking a law, shunting aside Congressional law and Judicial oversite. He is basically saying "Yep, I broke the law, but I am President. What do you want to do about it?"

Something must be done.

2005-12-15T08:18:00.000-08:00

The War on Christmas

Bill Orielly and his friends on Fox news have been raving about the war on Christmas. As you likely know, they believe that there is a secular attack on Christmas, and one of the fronts is Christmas greetings and Christmas decorations in the store. Apparently many stores now simply use a generic Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

Orielly and his crew see the evil hand of secularism behind this, and feel that this is a direct assault on Christian values. They are even boycotting any store that doesn't greet its customers with Merry Christmas, or include the words Christmas in its advetising and decorations.

WHAT??? This is just nuts. As a committed Christian, I have been concerned about the commercialization of Christmas for years. It bothers me that to most Americans nothing says Christmas more than buying increasingly expensive gifts at corporate stores for more and more of your friends and families. The fact that stores are mentioning Christ's name less is actually a good thing in my book. What is really offensive to me is when a store brazenly uses Christ's name to sell tube socks.

Personally I would rather stores get out of tying Christmas to materialism all together. Christmas is not about sales or decorations, Christmas is about the birth of Christ, and celebrating his life and mission. The more we remove stores from the equation the better.

2005-10-28T10:44:00.000-07:00

Two Great Reasons to Post

I haven’t posted for a while again, but I couldn’t resist this week. One good reason is that the topic of my last post has finally been resolved, although again it is hidden away. In my last post I mentioned how the Bush Administration was suspending the Davis-Beacon act. This act was the one that said if you are hiring workers with Federal money, you have to pay them a reasonable wage. Well the Bush Administration backed off from this recently, mostly because of the backlash they received and rightly so.

BUT … this week has a lot more pleasures, to the point that the New York Times calls it Bush’s worst week. Just yesterday, Harriet Miers withdrew herself from the nomination to the Supreme Court. How wonderful the whole debacle has been, and how much I wish it would actually keep going. It has been amazing watching the President’s base ripping into him. The Democrats have just had to sit back and watch. Bush nominated an incredible unprepared and unqualified person, who just happened to be his personal lawyer. What a joke. I would be ecstatic if it wasn’t for the fact that he will likely nominate someone who is even more an extreme right wing idealog, so he can placate his base. If he does there will be a fight to remember in the confirmation hearings, as the Democrats won’t sit still for someone so obviously a right wing sympathizer. In the past they might have, but the President is weak now and I hope they take advantage of the situation.

Then today, Scooter Libby is finally indicted for lying to the grand jury looking into leaks in the Plame case. Libby is the Vice President’s primary political advisor, and it will hurt the administration to no end. Plus the trial will hopefully bring to light the lies we were all told during the run up to war. Libby was one of the chief architects of the lies that emerged from the Vice President’s office.

The third piece of good news is that Rove is not (yet) off scott-free either. He has been put on notice that he is still under investigation, and an indictment may follow. Can it get any better?

How about adding in the fact that Bush’s Social Security plan is pretty much dead, and that the hurricanes have limited his ability to cut taxes even further. Things are going pretty well.

Now it may seem like I am being heartless in my gloating over his problems but let me put this into context for you. This guy is the guy who lied to America about the war in Iraq. Bush lied and people died; 2000 American soldiers as of this week. Plus uncounted Iraqi dead. I remember before the war warning people that we were buying our own west bank, and that we would end up enduring a trickle of soldier deaths, 1 each day. Well my prediction was wrong; it was too little. We have had an average of almost 3 deaths a day since the war began. What a tragedy.

Any man who leads his country to war, in the process killing thousands, over ideology and financial gain, doesn’t deserve any compassion or respect when he implodes. None whatsoever.

Here is a link!

2005-09-09T13:50:00.000-07:00

One aspect of the tragedy in New Orleans is that millions of people who were already on the bottom of society’s wage ladder were out of work. While many working white collar jobs can relocate or work remotely, those in low wage jobs usually don’t have that luxury. One of the rays of light for these people is the possibility of working on cleanup crews or reconstruction crews during the cleanup.

Well Bush has been thinking about that. He has been worried about all these people, and what will become of them. Has he been worried that the work will be enough to get them back on his feet? Don’t make me laugh. He has been worried about the poor owners of companies (such as Halliburton) that will be forced to pay wages to all those workers. Bush was so concerned, that he decided yesterday to make an emergency proclamation that suspends a federal law. The federal law has been in force for 74 years, and it mandates that companies using federal funds must pay workers a “prevailing wage”. Basically this means if you are using federal money, you have to pay the people reasonable wages.

Well Bush was so concerned with poor Halliburton and their (and other companies) profits, that he decided to suspend this law so that Halliburton can pay these workers as little as they want.

Nice of him huh!

He couldn’t use his emergency powers to provide housing for the displaced and poor. Couldn’t use it to improve efficiencies of food distribution. Couldn’t use it to provide financial assistance to those without insurance. Couldn’t use it to do anything to actually HELP those who were victims. Instead he decides to use it to help Dick Cheney’s friends at Halliburton, while screwing over the poor who will take the reconstruction jobs.

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

When do I wake up from this nightmare!

Here is a link:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2339

2005-04-19T10:04:00.000-07:00

Condaleeza Rice sinks to a new low.

If there is one thing that the Bush Administration has been good at, it is manipulating information. They have become experts at ignoring data that opposes their cause, and welcoming data which supports their cause. There are lots of examples, just think of the lead up to the war in Iraq where we "knew", "without a doubt" that Saddam had WMD. Or global warming, where the Bush Administration would prefer to leave international organizations rather than acknowledge the fact. There are lots more examples as well, and they point to an Administration that acts solely on ideology, not on evidence. If the evidence contradicts their ideology, ideology triumphs.

Well Condaleeza Rice has joined in on the fun. Every year since the Reagan Administration, the State Department has released a report titled "Patterns of Global Terrorism." This report was a study of all the terrorist acts that had occurred in the previous years, and was valuable in quantifying terrorism, as well as determining trends, courses for action, etc. This report was the same one that caused some press last year, when the State Department had initially reported a downturn in terrorist attacks, and then later in the year had to revise the numbers because of errors in the original report. After the revision, the report showed that terrorist actions had increased last year, not decreased. This was of course an embarrassment to the Bush Administration, who has their own "reality" where the war on terrorism is a resounding success.

Well this years report was not looking good for Bush Administration either. It was looking like the number of Terrorist Incidents was going to have another increase over last year. So Condaleeza Rice did what any good Bush Administration lackey would do, she asked the report drafters to change their methodology so that the numbers would be lower. Fiddle the books in other words. To their credit, they refused to do so, and wanted to keep the same methodology that has been used since the reports inception in the Reagan years. Without that the report is useless, as the data is not comparable to previous years.

Unfortunately for us, that was not good enough for Rice. She just decided that if the drafters wouldn't fiddle the books, then the report should be shelved. So for the first time since the Reagan years, in the middle of the Bush Administration's "War on Terror", we will not have an analysis of the prevalence of terrorism in the world. The numbers just didn't mesh with the Bush Administration fictional "reality" where we are winning the war on terror, so instead of trying to figure out real solutions to the problem, we would rather just ignore the data and believe whatever the hell we want to believe.

Unbelievable!

here is a link!

2005-03-28T07:58:00.000-08:00

Innocent Men in Guantanamo?

The Seattle Times today has an interesting review of one of the prisoners currently in Guantanamo. Murat Kurnaz is a German citizen, who was arrested in Pakistan four years ago, who has been held in Guantanamo ever since. Like all prisoners in “Gitmo”, he was given a review of his status, and he was found to be an “enemy combatant”. With that new designation he is of course allowed to be held indefinitely without access to lawyers, and without hope of release.

Well thankfully for us, the courts intervened. (Damn those activist judges!!). A Federal Judge has managed to review the evidence that had convinced the Gitmo review panel that this guy was an international terrorist associated with Al Qaida. According to the judge, and the German government, there is no evidence that he is associated with Al Qaida, and the evidence is clear that he is likely an innocent man.

Apparently there is an overwhelming amount of exculpatory evidence in his file, all of which shows his innocence. Then there is also a single memo, written by an anonomous military official, with no support or backup, that claims he is associated with Al Qaida. The judge reviewing the case basically accused the military of ignoring the evidence in his file, and ruling arbitrarily against him. The Judge said the memo “fails to provide significant details to support its conclusory allegations, does not reveal the sources for its information and is contradicted by other evidence in the record.”

So what does this mean? Well the Bush Administration has been keeping hundreds of “Enemy Combatants” in Gitmo for years now. These prisoners have no access to courts, legal assistance, or review of any kind. Once a tribunal has designated them an enemy combatant, that is it. They are to remain indefinitely.

The Bush Administration claims this is legal, which is questionable in itself, but it is definitely not moral. According to all independent review, Murat Kurnaz is being held on extremely limited evidence, and should be allowed to go free. How many more of these combatants are in the same situation? Why are we keeping them if they are not connected to Al Qaida? What is the point of questioning them if they have no information?

The thing that disturbs me the most about this is that it is another example of the Bush Administration claiming that they have information that the rest of us aren’t privileged to, but that proves their assertions. The whole WMD fiasco is a perfect example where they told us to trust them, because they have the evidence of WMD in Iraq, but they just couldn’t show it to us because it was classified and a matter of national security. When the chips fell though it turned out they had no evidence at all, and in truth they were simply lying to us.

This is another example. When the military was questioned about Kurnaz’s detention, they claimed that the evidence against him was sensitive and had to be classified. However now that the evidence has been declassified, it again turns out that it is nothing but a smokescreen.

Our President and his Administration seems to think that they can do anything they want based on no evidence whatsoever, as long as they claim it is supported by “Classified Information”. The sad thing is they have proven that they can, because the public continues to give them the benefit of the doubt, time and time again.

One day we will all wake up.

2005-03-27T20:52:00.000-08:00

Life and Politics by Jonathan Alter

I posted a couple of days ago about the Terri Schiavo case, and how no matter what your feelings about whether her feeding tube should be restored, you couldn't deny that the Republicans had been incredibly hypocritical over the issue.

Well Jonathan Alter posted a blog item that says basically the same thing I did but with a lot more eloquence. It is well worth a read:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305206/site/newsweek/

2005-03-24T08:11:00.000-08:00

Republican Hypocrisy: Again

Everyone is probably overloaded on the Terri Schiavo case by now, so I hate to bring it up again. As for my own feelings on this issue, I think that life is precious, and we should always do what we can to save it, unless it is the person’s wish to have the lifesaving treatment removed. In case of incapacitation, like hers, then it is up to the family to pass along the wishes of the patient. Of course this case is incredibly sticky and sad.

That isn’t what I really want to talk about now though. What I really want to talk about is the incredible hypocrisy of the Republicans over this issue:

They continually complain about activist judges. What are activist judges? They are judges who “legislate” from the bench. That means that they ignore the law, and push through their own personal agendas. In this case, the judges did exactly the opposite, they obeyed the law as it was written (that the husband has the power of attorney). Republicans kept arguing that the judges should instead rule based on moral values, not the law. However this would be “legislating” from the bench, and is what the judiciary is criticized for all the time.
The continually claim they are for States rights, and that the Federal Government’s power needs to be reduced in favor of the States. In this case, they overruled numerous State courts, and used an unprecedented Congressional maneuver to move the venue to Federal Courts, because they didn’t like what the State courts were doing.
They continually talk about individual responsibility, and how the Government should not be making decisions for us, but should just get out of the way. However in this case they stepped in against a husband who was fulfilling the wishes of his wife. He was legally entitled to. This is a gross example of Federal Government overreach, and they are the ones who did it.
They talk about good governance, but they passed a law that only applies to one individual. Why did they do that? Because they don’t believe that making it apply to all such cases would be a good idea. Basically the law would have to state that it was important to extend life at all times, even against family wishes. They don’t want that, as it is really against some of their principles, so they push through a law that only applies to one person.

This is just an amazing example of how hypocritical the Republicans have become. Power corrupts, and holding all three branches of Government corrupts absolutely. Agree with them or not on whether or not Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die, but who have to agree that they are not following their own vaunted conservative principles at all.

2005-03-21T14:44:00.000-08:00

Prisoners sent to third countries for interrogations.

There has been a lot of talk lately about the practice of sending prisoners that we capture during the war on terror to third countries for interrogation. For the uninitiated, it has become a common practice of the United States to send prisoners to countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia for questioning.

Many of these prisoners have later claimed that they were tortured while they were in these foreign governments control, and of course this is an ethically troubling proposition. After Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo, we are already close to the line on the whole idea of torture, and its use. Many are rightly outraged at the cavalier attitude of the Bush Administration as regards to torture. Since Abu Ghraib however, they have been strenuous in their stated opposition to torture of any kind.

Which makes these prisoner transfers especially troubling. The Bush administration has come under some reasonably heavy questioning over the last few days about these transfers, and their response has been to claim that they expect the other countries to abide by treaties that prohibit torture. They say they have been assured by these other countries that torture will not occur. They say that this assurance is good enough for them.

Well then why are we sending these prisoners to these other countries? What is the point? I am assuming that we have some of the best interrogators in the world, and that they are highly skilled and highly efficient in their jobs. Is the Bush administration really trying to tell us that the interrogators in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are simply more skillful or better qualified than our own? Are they really trying to tell us that they will do a better job? Of course not, the only reason to send the prisoners there is because they will be tortured, and for obvious reasons we don't want to do it ourselves. There is absolutely no reason to send the prisoners there if they are not going to be tortured.

So when the Bush Administration makes these statements and denials, they are baldfaced lying again. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but you would think that the press would call them on it eventually. If we are not sending them to be tortured, then what is the point of sending them?

2005-03-11T08:44:00.000-08:00

Your rights have been reduced again!

Many Americans are now getting pretty used to having our rights reduced in service of the war on terror. In fact many Americans even agree that it is a fair trade-off. Many would argue that if we have to give up a part of our freedom of speech to protect our families, it is a reasonable measure. Personally I think that giving up our rights is giving in to the enemy, but hey, that is just me.

Well yesterday Condaleeza Rice announced another of your rights that has been taken away. Under an Optional Protocol of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, foreign citizens arrested in foreign countries have the right to access and support from their home country's embassy or consular office. If they don't get that assistance, then they have the right to have their case reviewed by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. This is a protective measure, meant to allow proper representation and assistance to those arrested in a foreign country. Like all such conventions, we signed it because it would offer a measure of protection to U.S. citizens abroad. Not every country has a judicial system with the rights we take for granted in ours. Not every country will provide legal representation for all those arrested. Not every country will guarantee the right to quick review of your case. Actually, the U.S. doesn't guarantee these things anymore, but that is another topic.

The U.S. even took advantage of this protocol when they sued Iran over the hostage crisis many years ago. This was something that protected Americans, so we were happy to sign up.

Well as mentioned, yesterday we withdrew from the optional protocol. What that means is that your legal rights have been weakened if you are ever arrested while traveling overseas. This could be extremely dangerous to Americans, and for some reason the Bush administration thought that they had a good enough reason to remove that protection from it's citizens.

So what was that good reason? Well if you are like me, your first thought would be that it was about protecting us from terrorists. We have already given up many of our rights in the pursuit of terrorists, (some of them mentioned above), so that would be a reasonable assumption! The Bush Administration must be concerned about terror suspects claiming that they have the right to contact their home embassies, and we are afraid the International Court of Justice might start imposing restrictions on how we can fight terror. This is a reasonable assumption, but it is dead wrong.

The reason we had to lose this right, was that Texas has 50 Mexican nationals on death row, and Texas failed to notify their consular officials of their arrest. Under the protocol, they should have done this, and then the Mexican nationals would have had the possibility of assistance from their home country. Some of these Mexican Nationals have appealed to the International Court of Justice, and the court ruled against the United States, and stated that these Mexican Nationals should have their sentences reviewed because the U.S. didn't do what it should have. So like a boy who takes his ball home when he doesn't win, the U.S. is withdrawing from the protocol, because we don't want to have to deal with all those pesky international legal protections next time we want to kill some foreigner.

Yes it is a sad world. So in order for Texas to be able to kill Mexicans without international interference, you have to give up your right to legal protection and consular assistance if you are ever arrested overseas. Wonderful huh!

Here is a link!

2005-02-01T08:30:00.000-08:00

The GOP's Destruction of Health Care

While most of us have been distracted by the war and election in Iraq, the President’s attacks on Social Security, and the confirmation hearings, the GOP has been covertly planning the demise of health coverage for middle America as well. Not content to destroy the safety net for the poor, they also want to destroy all affordable access to health care.

The Seattle Times is today reporting that the GOP wants “to erect a system in which workers, instead of looking to employers for health insurance, would take personal responsibility for protecting themselves and their families.” All part of that wonderful sounding “ownership society”, which is basically a euphemism for “how it was back before those lily livered liberals destroyed America by building the great society.” You see, compassionate conservatism means destroying the safety net in every way possible.

As for Health Care, the GOP is hoping to get rid of employer funded health plans. Yes, I am not exaggerating. They want to wean Americans off any type of Health Care assistance, and make them pay for it themselves. Yes, they have planned some kinds of personal savings accounts, and supposedly cheaper access to catastrophic coverage, but what it boils down to is that you will no longer get health insurance through your company, and of course you will not from the government as well. You will be responsible to get your own insurance, and of course pay for it.

Of course, as usual, the devil is in the details. This is perfect for young healthy single people, with a good income. They will be fine! Of course for those with long term chronic health conditions, they will be in trouble. As will the majority of Americans who will end up deciding whether it is better to pay for medical checkups this month or to pay the car bill. Since the middle class is already struggling, preventative care will disappear. Most people will only go to the doctor when they have no choice, and in most of those situations they will pay for the cost of care themselves. No group rates. No negotiated costs. No large company behind you trying to get the cheapest costs. You will simply have to pay.

This is incredibly short sighted for a number of reasons. First is that they have ignored one of the most vital lessons about health care. That is that preventative care is a lot cheaper that reactive care when issues get to critical state. However this new plan will have the effect of most people only seeking care when they no longer can afford to wait.

The second reason is that this will only be affordable for those who are already wealthy. The wealthy do not need assistance with their health care, it is the middle class and the poor who need assistance paying for this care. This plan will do nothing to make health care more affordable, and everything to save money for corporations and their shareholders, who want to remove the health care burden from their books.

This change is all about saving money for corporations, at the expense of the middle class. It is all about the abhorrence of any kind of assistance for the poor. This will take us back 100 years to the medical system we used to have. Most people didn’t get quality medical care, it was reserved for those who could pay for it. In our wealthy society, with the money we have at our disposal, this is an abhorrent anachronism. We must fight this change all the way. Health Care, at least in a wealthy country like ours, should be available freely to all.

2005-01-31T08:54:00.000-08:00

Great news in Iraq

I am back after a rather long hiatus! There were a number of reasons why I had to take a break, (new job, changing schedule, overloaded etc) but one of the main ones was motivation. I simply had a very hard time getting motivated to write, when the truth of the matter was there was very little positive that I could write about. Bush was busy destroying our country and the future of our children, and I was feeling rather helpless. So I had decided to not write again until I could write something positive.

Well yesterday in Iraq we had some positive news. While those of you who know me, or have read my blog in the past, know that I am not a booster for the bush administration, I was indeed very happy with the apparently mostly successful election in Iraq. While there were problems, and a lot of innocent life lost, Iraqis did turn out in large numbers to use their franchise. This is great news whether or not you are a Bush fan. While it always irks me to see him succeed in anything, the stakes are too high in Iraq to taint it with politics. We have to have a stable reasonably successful Iraqi government, or we will never get our troops out of there. While we should NEVER have gone into Iraq in the first place, now we are there we have to do all we can to see them succeed.

From all I have read, the election seemed to go well, so lets hope the aftermath goes well too. There are a couple of possible problems I can see, including what a majority Shiite lead religious government might look like. Also, the Sunni's did participate, but at a far smaller level than the Shiites and Kurds, so how that will impact the results is unknown. Finally, will the U.S. be willing to accept the outcome, even if it doesn't mean that they have as much control in the future? It is really just the beginning, but it is a good first step.

Here's to hoping that Bush gets his democratic Iraq. Many many lives depend on it.

2004-12-30T09:16:00.000-08:00

Sad news after the Christmas Season

This week has not been full of good news. The biggest issue of course is the Tsunami disaster in Asia. The last count I saw was 115,000 dead. This is not necessarily unprecedented as far as number of lives lost, although it is one of the worst, but it is unprecedented in the vast geographical scope of the disaster. Please make sure you donate to some of the relief funds. My wife and I donated to the Red Cross using Amazon.com's home page and it was very easy, but whether you donate to them or someone else, please just donate.

We also need to encourage our President to do more. It took him days to publicly offer any kind of condolence, since he was so busy on his vacation in Crawford Texas. His initial offers of aid were phenomenally small. He has now pledged 35 million dollars in aid, which might sound reasonable, but remember we have spent 200 billion (that is 200,000 million) on the war in Iraq. It seems to me that it would be a public relations boon for the U.S. to spend all we can to assist the mostly Muslim victims of this disaster, instead of only spending money on killing (sorry, liberating) Muslims.

Fortunately Americans (and millions more around the world) are stepping up and offering help on their own, and I am hoping you will too.

The other sad news this week is from Iraq, where hundreds more have been killed in military action, suicide bombings and executions. We are only one month away from the elections, and it will be a miracle if they go well. I hate finding myself in this kind of a position, but I really hope that the election goes well, even though it will be a victory for Bush. The Iraqi people have suffered enough from our actions.

Take Fallujah. One of the most famous quotes from the Vietnam war was from an army officer: "Well Sir.. We had to destroy the village to save it." I think this applies fairly well to Fallujah. The city simply doesn't exist any more, there are no citizens living there, it is just a pile of rubble which is continually being fought over by our troops and the insurgents. Civilians who recently tried to return simply gave up and went back to their refugee camps, vowing they would never return. They say their homes are destroyed, and there is nothing left.

Well done! Is this our new strategy? Simply destroy every Iraqi city until the people are all in refugee camps? I know that the U.S. military will say that it is not their fault, they were only liberating the city from the foreign terrorists and insurgents, but they know that the majority of the fighters in Fallujah were Iraqis. While these Iraqis may be the enemy, they are fighting to defend their homes from an occupying power. They are rebels fighting for self determination (at least in their own minds). While the country would be far better off with a solid democracy and being out from under Saddam's boot heel, we have no guarantee that this will be the final outcome. Far more likely at this point is a Shiite dominated religious government similar to that in Iran. So if you are a secular Sunni, I can understand 100% why you wouldn't be too happy with the idea of U.S. backed elections.

It is just so sad that our soldiers and the Iraqi people are dying in record numbers, all because we were misled about the threat that Iraq posed to us. Remember this war did not start in order to liberate Iraqis. It started because they were going to give Nukes to Al Qaida who was going to use them on our cities. Oh how far we have come.

So what is the ray of light? The ray of light in this situation is what you can do yourself. You can support our brave troops who are in an intolerable situation, placed there by their commander in chief. You can give generously to relief agencies who are doing miraculous work in Asia, Africa and Iraq. You can get involved, and help people understand the realities of our world. You can do something.

2004-12-22T13:13:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas.
Before I start getting pessimistic, I want to wish every one of you a Merry Christmas, or if you are not celebrating Christmas, at least a Happy Holidays. We need a little of that Holiday spirit right now.

I haven't been posting much, for two reasons. First I have been very busy. Secondly, because things have been getting so bad that I have found myself avoiding the news. I simply don't want to know what is going on half the time. For me that is really sad, since I had just started getting out of my post election funk, when everything seemed to start going downhill.

From the Republican's trying to change filibuster rules so that the Democrats can't stop Bush's radical nominations, to the continued snow job of Americans over Social Security reform, to the continuing economic problems and the abandonment of fiscal discipline, to the increasing attacks on rights by the religious right, we haven't seen much good news.

There are two standout issues though, of course. The first is Iraq. Even Bush has now admitted that things are not going well in Iraq, and that the insurgency is having an impact on how Iraqis and Americans view the war. FINALLY. It was the first acceptance of reality I have seen from him for a long while, although it is after the elections so maybe he just doesn't care what people think anymore. Iraq is a disaster. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place with no good options. Do we pull out and likely leave a civil war in our wake? Do we continue our occupation and continue to incite increasing levels of violence against us? What exactly do we do? Of course we should never have been there in the first place (remember we invaded because they were going to give nuclear weapons to Al Qaida), but now we are there we have no good options. I am so incredibly mad that our soldiers, and the people of Iraq, are dying at an increasing rate because of our unnecessary invasion. Just this weekend dozens of Iraqis were killed in bombings. Just yesterday dozens of Americans and others were killed in another attack. The longer we stay, the greater the violence, and the more danger we add to the situation. Of course we can't leave either, so I don't know what we should do.

Personally I am kind of glad Bush is going to have to deal with this, and not Kerry. He created the mess, let him deal with the consequences.

The other issue I wanted to highlight today is Bush's tax cuts and their implications. Old news you say? Why am I still talking about it? Well I have always maintained that when people support tax cuts, they never seem to realize that they will require cuts to programs that are often important. It is really simple to want to keep an extra $50 a month, but when you realize the impact, it can make the tax cut less attractive.

Well it was just revealed that the Bush Administration has notified a number of different food aid agencies that it will not be able to meet the financial obligations we had with them. We had promised 100's of millions of dollars in food aid to a number of international food agencies, and now we are renegging on those promises, because of our budget crunch. Please don't forget that the reason we have this budget crunch, is because we have billions less in revenue because of Bush's tax cuts. So in order to make sure that the wealthy get to keep more of their wealth, we had to take food from the table of those who have the least. The food aid was designed to help poor countries and communities bring themselves out of poverty. Unfortunately we no longer have the money to help them because we had to give more to the wealthiest.

It makes me sick.

So Merry Christmas! For me it seems increasingly that I have to retreat into my own family and ignore the world around me in order to feel the spirit of Christmas. Seems to me that Christ would not approve of helping the rich have more at the expense of the hungry, or causing so much death and destruction in Iraq, based on falsehoods and distortions. What a wonderful world we live in.

2004-12-10T10:03:00.000-08:00

Money in Politics

First of all, let me say that money is the main problem with politics today. This is my personal opinion, but I feel very strongly about this. Our politicians spend half their time fundraising, and the other half of the time appeasing those who gave them money. Donations are legal bribes, and nothing more.

Campaign Finance Reform bills such as the McCain/Feingold bill do help, but they don't do enough. As long as politicians need millions of dollars to even come close to being able to run a successful campaign, we will never escape this problem.

Why is this such an issue? A few good reasons:

- Money disqualifies good candidates. Unless I have access to millions of dollars (either my own, or some wealthy benefactors) I have absolutely no chance of running for office, at least at a Federal level, but increasingly even at a local and state level. So I could be the absolutely best candidate for the job, but I have no chance.

- Money corrupts the process. Money always does. Anytime someone needs these quantities of money, they will have to do something to get it. In political terms this means taking care of those who fund you.

- Money removes access. Our politicians are supposed to represent us, but of course they don't . If you have two people, one a major donor, the other a constituent, and both need to speak to a candidate to express their views. Guess who will have the access they need. Having money so intricately involved in the process means that only those with money have access.

- Money is a distraction. Our politicians spend inordinate amounts of their time raising money and courting donors. This time would be better spent actually governing. Don't we need them worrying about the issues rather than worrying about how their vote will effect their money stream?

There are other issues as well but these are the main ones. Money in the process is the main reason why politics is the mess it is in today. Unfortunately we have zero chance of changing this. Those who would have to change the law are the same ones who have benefited from the current system. They do not bite the hand that feeds them.

One solution would be full public funding of elections, and the classification of campaign donations as illegal bribes. I am dreaming, but it would be better.

Since we cannot change the situation at all, we have to live with it and minimize the damage. This last election was actually a reasonably good example of this. The Democrats managed to raise more money than the Republicans, something no-one thought they could do. The reason for the surprise was the massive increase in small donations from individuals; $10, $20, $50 at a time. These small donations (if we have to live with the system) help dilute the power of the big donors, even if only ever so slightly.

Even more importantly though, maybe we can support those big donors who actually support our candidates. This may seem like dancing with the devil, but we have to do what we have to do. There are a lot of organizations and companies out there donating inordinate amounts of money to candidates on both sides. The majority do seem to support the Republicans (not too much of a surprise) but there are companies that support the Democrats. The Republicans are always talking about voting with your dollars, and maybe we should.

I propose that we all shop as much as possible with companies that mostly support Democrats. This may seem petty or strange, but every little bit helps. Here is a well known example. Wal-Mart is well known for donating almost exclusively to Republicans. Costco is the opposite, and donates almost exclusively to Democrats. If you have a choice between joining Costco or Sam's Club, choose the first. That way you are supporting the financial health of an organization that supports the causes you do. Seems pretty simple.

So how do you find out which companies to support? Well recent disclosure laws have made it much easier. Here are a few sites that can really help.

www.buyblue.org
www.opensecrets.org
www.choosetheblue.com

The hard thing of course is that in some categories your choices are limited. For example, whenever you need to fill up your car, the only gas company that donates more to Democrats is Shell. All others are Republican strongholds.

While I don't think this will be the solution to all of our problems, it certainly can't hurt.

2004-12-07T13:04:00.000-08:00

Social Security - Bush finally comes clean.

Throughout the campaign, Bush continually accused Kerry of having financial numbers that just didn't add up. He accused him constantly of lying to the American people, because he claimed that Kerry would not be able to pay for all his programs without raising taxes.

This always drove me nuts, because Bush was clearly pushing for a program that was going to cost more than anything that Kerry was proposing. That of course was Social Security privatization. This program is going to cost an additional estimated 1 to 2 trillion dollars. Yes, Trillion. Why? Because Bush is telling seniors that he will not reduce their current benefits, or the benefits of anyone who is close to retirement. However, if younger people start contributing less to the social security program, then the program will have less money to pay the current seniors at their current rates.

So the question was always "how are you going to pay for it?" Bush never answered, until yesterday, when his Administration finally admitted that they would likely have to borrow that money. In other words, it would add to our federal deficit.

Do you remember in the campaign how Bush said he was going to cut the deficit in half over the next few years? What most people failed to realize (and the MEDIA never called him on) was that his calculations for that were missing two critical pieces of information. The first was the cost of the war in Iraq, which Rumsfeld recently admitted would likely last another 4 years at least. These costs, as well as other costs in the war on terror were never included in the calculations, because according to the Bush Administration they were "unknowable". So we may as well just ignore them and pretend they don't exist.

The second piece of information that was missing was the cost of the plan to privatize social security. This was a strange deficiency, because the costs for this were known, and even if the media did a poor job of pointing it out to people, the numbers were available. The Congressional Budget office, (a bipartisan congressional entity) estimated the costs at 1 to 2 trillion. The Bush Administration yesterday admitted the 1 trillion dollar level. These were not hidden numbers, but they were conveniently omitted from the president's calculations showing how "he was going to" reduce the deficit. So the truth is Bush had absolutely no plan to reduce the deficit, because he knew the SS costs were going to be high if he followed his plan, and he knew that the costs of the war on terror were going to be high as well. In other words, he lied to the American people, because he knew it was the popular thing to say. Oh well, par for the course.

The problem here though is that we are already at record levels of deficit. We are in danger of inflation, rising interest rates, increased weakness in the dollar and possibly all sorts of other financial problems. All because we cannot maintain reasonable fiscal discipline. If Bush pushes through his plan (and he holds all the cards, the house, the senate and the executive) then the deficit will simply continue to grow as we are forced to borrow money to keep paying current Social Security recipients. It is just phenomenal.

Now this is a really good reason to be opposed to Bush's plan. We simply can't afford it right now. We have to fix our financial situation, and we need to do it soon. Everyone also of course needs to remember that we are primarily in this position because of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Remember Clinton? Remember the huge budget surpluses that Bush inherited from him?

However this isn't the only reason to oppose this plan. It is simply bad policy. It is a sop to the securities industry. They will makes billions in commissions, and they are salivating over the opportunity to manage all this money. It is also dangerous. If there is stagnation or even a fall in the stock market, then people's very existence is at stake. We have had 4 years of stagnation in our current stock market (all under the Bush Administration) for example, and what if it lasts another 4? If we had a similar situation as a whole generation was ready to retire, they would simply not have enough money to support themselves. That is just for a stagnant market, obviously a declining one would be even worse.

Now some will argue that over the long term, the market always does well. Yes it does. It certainly does. But that is just the market average. There are of course the outliers, those years (like the last 4 ) where little happens, or even worse, markets go down. If you are unlucky enough to retire during one of those periods; forget retiring! Also, since these private plans will be manageable by their owners, there is always the chance that poor decisions will put the retirement funds in jeopardy as well. Some will argue that this risk is inherent, and it is up to the owners to make wise choices. My question is "are we going to provide investment education for every American?" And what if I am just unlucky?

This is a recipe for disaster. Most likely will do fine, and many may even do really well, but there will always be those who are unlucky, and what will we do with them. We have a responsibility as a society to protect those who through no fault of their own are disadvantaged. It is part of our collective responsibility. No we don't have to do it, but we are wealthy enough to make sure we do. That was why Social Security was instituted in the first place. It wasn't meant to make anyone rich. What it was meant to do was ensure that every American who worked all their life, was eligible for at least a minimum retirement lifestyle. Shelter, food, clothing etc. We owe it to them, and the Bush Administration is failing in this responsibility. They are failing us. They are disadvantaging our future seniors, as well as our future children who will be paying for our deficits. What a wonderful world we live in!!!

2004-12-01T14:43:00.000-08:00

Seattle Times Roundup!

There are a number of good articles today in the Seattle Times that I just had to point out. I couldn't just pick one :)

- The Bush Administration didn't wait long, but now that they are finally relieved of the need to be re-elected, they are moving strongly against environmental protections. The first blow? Bush "plans to reduce by more than 80% the miles of rivers and streams it designates as critical to the recovery of .... Salmon and Steelhead." According to the Seattle Times, this is just the beginning, they are also planning on reviewing forest protection plans that protect endangered species such as the Spotted Owl. At the same time they removed "dam removal" as an option in restoring habitat. I remember when Bush declared that "The Human Being and the Fish can coexist peacefully", but I guess those times are over, and we have declared all out war.

- The United Nations appointed a panel to review the international rules governing when countries can invade others, mostly in response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Their finding? Only the Security Council has the legal standing to declare a preventative war. This isn't new, in fact it is just a clarification of the rules that existed before we invaded Iraq, but the fact is that this is now a rebuke to the U.S. for its invasion. The article also mentions some other suggestions, including increasing the size of the security council, which will never happen since that would dilute the power of the current veto holders. The real significance here though, is a rebuke of the world envisioned by Bush, that of a single benevolent superpower that strides the world keeping the peace. The panel universally rejected that in favor of the rule of law. It is basically the difference between vigilante justice and our current court system. Sure, the court system can be slow and make mistakes, but it is a lot better than allowing someone to kill at whim.

- The Red Cross has released a report that found "Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." The Red Cross identified interrogation techniques which they said violated the international rules against torture. If you will remember, those are the same rules that our new Attorney General informed our President were "quaint" and that he had the right to ignore them if he wished. Wonderful huh!

- Finally, on a bit of a different tack, one of the good things Bush did in his first term was make it mandatory for credit reporting agencies to provide a free credit report at least once a year. The article at the Seattle Times explains this a little more. If you live in the western U.S. you can get your free reports starting today! Go to www.annualcreditreport.com.

2004-11-30T09:35:00.000-08:00

The Tyranny of the Majority

Well after that heading this might seem strange, but I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving, at least those readers in the U.S. My family had a nice time, and we are still recovering from the overdose of food.

I know I haven't been posting as much as I used to, and I promise it will get better. The problem is that everything is just so depressing. I was looking back through my blog, and I am one depressing guy, it is just post after post of negativity. I really wanted to do a positive post today, and I was preparing for that, but of course, Dennis Hastert had to get in the way.

For those of you who know the name, but can't place him, Hastert is the Republican majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is the guy who gets to make and enforce all the rules in the House. Well he has just made an unprecedented change.

See in the past, any bill could get debated and discussed, any bill could get voted on. Not any more. Hastert recently announced that he is changing House rules so that no bill will even be considered unless the "Majority of the Majority" approves of it. What this means is that unless more than 50% of the Republicans support the bill, it won't even come to the floor. This is simply an amazing abuse of power. They can do it, but they shouldn't.

This means that if there are any bipartisan bills, even if they would pass easily because all Democrats and nearly half the Republicans were in favor of it, it would not even get a chance. This is not even theoretical any more. Recently the House tried to pass the intelligence reforms that were suggested by the 9/11 commission. These reforms had broad bipartisan approval. The President said he supported them. The majority of the Democrats and a good chunk of Republicans supported them. The bill would have easily passed. Unfortunately it was not allowed to come to a vote though, because a majority of Republicans disapproved.

This is a supposed to be a democracy, instead we are getting a tyranny of the majority. Nothing will be allowed to be even considered in the House unless the Republicans are supporting it fully. There will be no opportunity for any Democratic supported bills to even be debated in the House. Democrats will only be able to react to Republican bills, they will only be able to have legislative success if they vote for Republican presented bills. This is outrageous.

There are a couple of reasons I think they are doing this. In future campaigns, they will be able to point at their Democratic opponents, and accuse them of doing nothing in Congress but obstructionism. They will be able to say "See my opponent, he spent x number of years in the House, and did nothing positive, only opposed bill after bill after bill." Of course most people won't realize that this is because of the Republican control of the agenda. I also think they are doing this simply because they can. They see it as their right as victors. However I mentioned earlier that it is an unprecedented change, and I think it is a dangerous one to make.

Remember the NAFTA agreement? NAFTA was passed in the House (under a Democratic majority) by the majority of the Republicans and a minority of the Democrats. This would never happen under these kinds of rules. The Republicans are setting a precedent that could forever change the nature and tone of our Congress. It will become an even more bitterly divided place, and somehow I think that maybe that is what they want as well. They plan on becoming the permanent majority, and maybe this is part of the plan. Our only hope is that the American people will wake up to what they are doing, and it will backfire on them. However I don't have much hope of that happening.

In the meantime, we will now have a government agenda that is totally and fully the Republicans. There will be no room for ANY Democratic initiatives. Kerry is talking about pushing a bill in the Senate to provide health insurance for all children, but it will die in the House, because it won't even get discussed.

This is a usurpation of power, and a dangerous one.

Here is a link!

2004-11-22T11:05:00.000-08:00

Tax Law. The boring issue we all need to know more about.

One of Bush's stated goals for his second term is reforming the tax code. When I heard this, it frightened me, not just because he had given us no details, but because it seemed clear based on his past performance that this would mean disastrous changes. The problem with tax law is that it is just too complicated and boring for most people to pay close attention to. They don't want to know the details, they just want to know how it effects them. Unfortunately, tax cuts and "reformation" are often spun in such a way as to confuse the issue so that people think they are getting more than they are. The idea that Bush's past tax cuts were primarily for the middle class is a good example of this, when clearly they benefited the very rich.

So what does all this mean? Bush is planning on reforming the code, and I for one am waiting with bated breath to see what kind of damage he is planning on doing. In the past he has cut taxes for the very wealthy, moving more of the tax burden to the middle class. He has also cut taxes on investment income, increasing again the burden on those who work for a living. So is he going to do the same thing again?

It looks like he is, and it just gets worse. According to a news item in the Washington Post, some of the details of the next tax cut plans have begun to emerge. There is little surprise in where Bush wants to "simplify" the tax code. As stated in the article, they are planning on cutting "interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth"

What this means of course is that those who live off inheritances, the prototypical trust funder, end up paying no taxes. Those who work for a living end up paying a larger share. These kinds of tax cuts benefit the very wealthy, and mostly ignore most Americans. How many of the working poor in our country will benefit from cuts in dividends? Even so, this isn't really surprising.

What IS surprising is how Bush is planning on paying for these tax cuts, because he has already said he wants his "simplification of the tax code" to be revenue neutral. In order to pay for them, he plans on "eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance." Yes you did read that correctly. He wants to remove all tax deductions for local and state taxes. This of course means that the middle class share goes up even further. I would hazard a guess that by far, most Americans would end up with a tax increase in this situation. Most Americans would pay more in tax increases because of the lost deduction, than they would get back in interest and dividend tax cuts. Of course for the very wealthy that is the opposite.

As for the second way he will pay for the tax cuts, it is absolutely stunning! He is going to eliminate the business tax deductions that help businesses provide health insurance for their employees. Without these tax deductions, what incentive would businesses have to provide insurance?! This is a recipe for thousands of companies cutting employer provided health plans, and millions of Americans either going without insurance or having to find private insurance on their own. Anyone who has ever tried that, knows that finding insurance on your own is incredibly expensive, because you have no bargaining power.

I simply have a hard time believing that they actually plan on doing that. We already have a health care crisis, and this would simply increase the problem astronomically. If this report is accurate, I have a hard time understanding why they would do that. I can only think of two reasons why they would do that.

One is because they simply don't care. They have their core constituency, and they will not be effected. Now that they don't have to be re-elected, they can do whatever the hell they want! As much as I think this is possible, I don't think it is the real reason. That leads me to my second theory. The truth is that I simply cannot see this passing. Even though Congress is Republican through and through, it would be wildly unpopular, and I would have a hard time seeing it pass. That is why I think it is meant to be shocking, it is meant to be unpopular, and it is meant to not pass.

Which then means that they already know it won't pass, and it is just providing them with a way that they can claim that their "simplification" of the tax code was planned as revenue neutral. That way they can push the changes, and when the Democrats (and enough Republicans) vote against the idea of stripping health insurance from millions, they can blame the Democrats for the resulting deficits. They will keep their precious tax cuts for the wealthy dividend classes, and will be able to blame the Democrats for the negative consequences.

But wait a minute! Didn't Bush say he wanted to half the deficit? Do you really still believe anything he says?

I think this just plays into the whole "Starve the Beast" philosophy of many in the Republican party, and espoused by men like Grover Norquist. This philosophy basically goes like this. You increase the deficits through tax cuts to the point where the Federal Government simply can no longer function without financial ruin. The only choice then, is to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare; programs the Grover Norquist Republicans can't stand. They have long ago realized that these programs are politically untouchable because they are so popular. The only way to get rid of them is to manufacture fiscal crisis.

Bush has already shown no interest in deficit reduction; as we have seen he has done exactly the opposite. If he truly wants more tax cuts, there is simply no way that the government can continue to support these social programs. Greenspan himself said just last week that the deficit was getting to the point that social programs would need to start being cut. The plan is in process, the strategy underway.

We had all better start learning about tax law, no matter how boring and difficult it might be. Our future might depend on it.

2004-11-19T09:20:00.000-08:00

Purges, firings, consolidation of power.

The last couple of weeks since the election have seen some major shake-ups in the halls of power. The Bush cabinet has lost a third of its members, and it is possible it will even continue. The C.I.A. has been losing experienced top level operatives at an alarming rate. Other agencies have been effected as well, but the two most interesting, and probably most significant, are the State Department and the C.I.A.

Both of these departments have been through a difficult 4 years. The State Department has been at logger heads with the rest of the Bush Administration over foreign policy most of the time. Under Colin Powell, they were a voice of sanity in the wilderness. They objected to many of the most dangerous foreign policy initiatives, and they were criticized by other members of the Bush Administration for being too cautious, and not willing enough to buy into the President's policy initiatives. Well that will now change.

With Powell leaving, and Condaleeza Rice replacing him, one of the main voices of reason in the Administration has been silenced. Rice is already indicating a shakeup at State, she will likely start purging those in the State Department who aren't quite as willing to toe the Administration line as she is. Rice is a smart woman, but she is not known for her independance. Her strength (as far as Bush is concerned), is that she will buy wholeheartedly into policy initiatives, and she will be a facilitator, not an obstructionist. This is good for Bush, but not so much for the world.

One of my biggest criticisms of Bush is that he insulates himself (or is insulated by others). He admits he never reads the papers, and that he gets all his information from his advisors. Well, if your advisors are good, this is a bad way to make decisions but not disastrous. However the replacements he is making for those cabinet members who are leaving do not inspire confidence. Most of those leaving the Administration are men who had years of independent experience. Most of those replacing them are distinguished only by their rise to power with Bush. They are loyalists, not necessarily experts. This is extremely scary when you consider that Bush doesn't have an independent source of information; if those who advise him are all loyalists and "yes men", then how is he going to make decisions?

The other big shakeup is at the C.I.A. The recent appointment of Porter Goss as the head of the C.I.A. has been extremely rough for the agency. The C.I.A. has not had a good four years. They failed to detect and stop 9/11, they failed to draw conclusions from agents who found possible attack preparations and they failed to give accurate assessments on Iraq's WMD programs. While the Bush Administration did distort the information they were given by the C.I.A., the fact that the C.I.A. totally failed to find that Iraq had NO WMD, was a disaster.

Much of the criticism of the C.I.A. over the last few years has been that it is too willing to tell the President what it wants to hear. The C.I.A. needs to be independent. It needs to give solid, fact based reports, not tainted in any way by politics. That is what politicians need to make good decisions. Without that, we can never be sure of our intelligence. Many have argued, and I agree, that the C.I.A. was too willing to give the Bush Administration what they wanted on Iraq. They were too willing to support the Administration's search for reasons to invade. A fully independent and dispassionate search for WMD for example would have found no evidence to support the idea that they existed.

So what is the solution for this issue? Of course it would be to make the C.I.A. more independent, to make sure it remembers its charter for giving unbiased fact based intelligence. However the appointment of Porter Goss has done the exact opposite, and that is why C.I.A. leaders are leaving in droves. Someone leaked a memo from Goss that read as follows:

"I also intend to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road. We support the administration and its policies in our work. As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies."

Huh??? What Goss is saying is clear. The agency is required to support the administration's policies. They are not to oppose them in any way, or give support to the opposition. Are they a political organization now? Are they only going to produce intelligence that supports the president's policies? Are they going to suppress intelligence that might hurt the president's policies? This is an extremely damaging memo.

Some may say this is just politics. However if we cannot rely on our intelligence services to provide good, solid, unbiased intelligence, then that makes every one of us less safe. It means that they are concentrating on supporting policies instead of securing our nation. It is incredibly dangerous.

All of these changes are a dangerous trend. Bush is surrounding himself with people who are known for their loyalty rather than their expertise. He is ensuring our intelligence is biased. We are in for a long 4 years.

2004-11-16T11:25:00.000-08:00

I am a hypocrite, and I admit it.

I have been a staunch opponent of States Rights for years, but I am now willing to become a staunch supporter. Hypocritical? Flip Flop? Sure, both those things.

In the past I have been a proponent of a strong Federal Government, at the expense of the states, for a few reasons. Firstly, it has always seemed important to me that every person in America deserves an equal shot, an equal footing, and equal rights. I have always felt for example, that all school funds should be distributed on a national level. This allows for every child in America to get an equal shot at good quality education. I have also supported educational standards set from Washington, to ensure that kids in some States did not get a substandard education. It always seemed to me that this was critical to ensure fairness across the country.

The other big issue for me was rights. States Rights has long been the clarion call of those fighting desegregation, and other civil rights. The south long argued that they should be able to determine these issues locally, not have them imposed by the national government. I opposed this strongly, because I supported civil rights, and the civil rights of every American was important to me, even those in states that might choose to have less rights than others. Since the federal government was imposing the ideals that were important to me, I supported the idea of federal power over states rights.

There are lots of other issues as well, but those are two good examples.

Now we live in a different world however. The federal government is now almost universally hostile to the issues that I hold dear. They are determined to dismantle social security. They are determined to reform tax laws so they are less progressive. They are determined to support faith over fact. There are even those with great influence who support abolishing some civil rights laws, and hate crime laws and other such issues that are important. There are those who want to break down the barriers between church and state.

These are now the issues that might get imposed upon us from Washington. So of course I am a hypocrite, and I am now a strong proponent of states rights. I believe now that Washington State (where I live) should be allowed to determine many of these issues ourselves. Since it is mostly a blue state, I feel that the outcome would be much closer to my values than if these issues are imposed from the other Washington. What I have really learned though is that my position on States Rights is more about the related issues than States Rights itself. States Rights are not important to me, what is important to me is progressive ideals.

Salon.com has a great article about this today, addressing the same issue. Are we in the blue states about to start calling for a more disparate union? Are we going to try and distance ourselves from the policies of the federal government? It is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.

2004-11-12T13:11:00.000-08:00

Fallujah. A whimper?

One of the biggest mistakes you can make as a military commander (yes, I am an expert ;) is to underestimate the intelligence of your opponent. Your plans will rarely turn out the way you hope.

In Fallujah, it seemed that our military brass thought that the insurgents in Fallujah would stand and fight. It seemed that they thought that this would be the insurgent's last great battle. That they would face the might of our forces, and in one fell swoop we would wipe them out, paving the way for free and democratic elections in January.

Well it didn't quite work out that way. Most of the insurgents packed up and went off to other parts of the country to fight another day.

Now of course it is hard to work out the reality from the rhetoric. Our commanders are not idiots, and I am sure they suspected that what actually occurred in Fallujah would happen. So why were they telling their troops to prepare for the ultimate battle? Why was the Administration building this up when we would only end up disappointed? I don't really know why the Administration does half of the things they do, but it seemed that the optimism overshadowed the reality again. Seems to happen quite a bit in the Bush Administration.

The battle for Fallujah is not over yet, and I don't want to minimize the sacrifice of those brave soldiers who fought and died in the city. But it was clearly not the major battle we had been led to expect. This comes back to the intelligence of our enemies though. When we underestimate it, that is when we get in trouble.

Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You are an insurgent, and your goal is to drive the U.S. from Iraq. You have weapons, but no-where near the firepower or force available to your adversary. Your strength is in your unpredictability, your ability to blend into the civilian population, your ability to hide and then strike out at the most advantageous opportunity, when you can choose the time and place.

You have been hearing for weeks that the U.S. is about to invade Fallujah. This time they are coming and staying, because they have no choice if they want to liberate it before elections. You our outnumbered and outgunned. In a face to face firefight at the U.S.'s choice of time and place, you will lose your natural advantage. You will have no chance to win.

What do you do?

Of course you leave, so that you can continue to fight the occupiers another day. You leave, regroup, and start striking again when you can with your natural advantages. There is little to no advantage to staying put and dying under overwhelming firepower. Insurgencies aren't about territory anyway. They are about changing minds, both those of the occupiers, and of the civilian population. The best way to win an insurgency is to infuriate the occupiers to the point that they over react, and kill large numbers of civilians. This will increase the civilians who sympathize with you, and you do that enough, you make it impossible for the occupiers to govern. When you don't have the firepower to take on the occupation head on, that is really the only option.

Why do we seem to keep thinking these insurgents are idiots? Why do we think they are stupid enough to fight us on our terms? While at least some of the insurgents are likely Islamic extremists with death wishes, we are likely to get some of them to be willing to fight us. However many of the insurgents are fighting for what they perceive as their country. They want us out of Iraq, as they see us as occupiers. We have probably created many of them when we have killed civilians in the past, and their family members seek revenge. This kind of insurgent is not going to throw their life away. They are going to seek another opportunity.

Since the only way for the insurgents to win is to win over the hearts and minds of the population, this is really the only way we can win as well. Every civilian we kill simply creates more insurgents. However if we can convince the Iraqis that we are really trying to help them, that we want to improve their lives, and that we really have no designs on empire or their oil, then we can starve the resistance of support. That is how you defeat an insurgency. That is what we need to do.

2004-11-11T13:09:00.000-08:00

Ashcroft is gone! Will we get someone better?

One of the few silver linings of the last few weeks was the news that John Ashcroft was resigning from the job of Attorney General of the United States. Ashcroft was, to put it nicely, a nut, quite possibly one of the most ideological men to hold the position. He was one of the chief proponents of the Patriot Act, an act which fundamentally changed the relationship between the government and the people. He held people in detention with no access to lawyers or opportunities to defend themselves, for years at a time, all in the name of protecting our freedoms. He did more to remove our freedoms than any other man in years.

I am not sad to see him go.

Well now Bush (I won't be able to say President Bush for a while, give me time to mourn) has announced his replacement. At first glance it seems like a reasonable move. He has named his long time counsel, Alberto Gonzales as the new Attorney General. As a Hispanic, this is actually a fairly progressive move, and Bush should be commended for that. Other than being a minority though, what do we really know about him?

Well what we do know is not exactly flattering. I had hoped that the replacement for Ashcroft would be someone who might restore some of the respect for the rule of law, and the respect for intrinsic rights, that Ashcroft trampled all over. Gonzales is not that man.

Exhibit number one is his counsel to Bush that basically said torture was fine, and that the Geneva Convention was full of quaint aspects, and that it did not apply to those captured in Afghanistan. He was the chief architect of the now infamous memo that laid out the Administrations policies regarding Taliban and Al Qaida fighters captured in Afghanistan. He was the one who said these men should be sent to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba so they could be "outside" U.S. law. He was the one who claimed that torture was not torture unless it caused major organ failure. He was the one who claimed that Bush could waive the Geneva Convention or Federal War Crimes statutes whenever he felt like it.

In other words, he pretty much laid out the legal framework that allowed for soldiers to be held without rights for 3 years, and set the foundation that led to the abuses in Abu Ghraib.

So it seems likely to me that we will not see any improvement in the policies coming from the Attorney General's office. In fact, it appears that things may possibly get worse. Even with this background, he will likely get through relatively unscathed through the confirmation hearings, and we will be living with his views on "human rights" for the next four years. If he believes that international and U.S. law can be disregarded at the whim of the President, what else can Bush ignore? If he believes that prisoners of war do not deserve Geneva Convention protections, what other protections are on the chopping block? If he believes torture is a valid investigatory process, then who else will be subject to non-fatal inducements?

We need an Attorney General who will uphold the law, not look for ways to circumvent it for convenience sake.

Here are some links:

http://www.slate.com/id/2109495/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002087096_webcabinet10.html

2004-11-08T10:41:00.000-08:00

Environmental policies for the next 4 years.

One of the major issues that was barely discussed during the campaign was the environment. It came up rarely, and in fits and starts, but was never a focus of the discussion. This is a real shame, since the President's environmental record is awful. Here are some highlights:

- Endangered species. Bush has fought to undermine the endangered species act numerous times, and has listed the least number of new endangered species of any president since the act was instituted.

- Wetlands. The Bush administration removed clean water act protection from all isolated watersheds. In other words, any wetland or water system that doesn't eventually flow into one of our major rivers and into the sea. This removed millions of acres of protection for wetlands, which can now be developed or polluted as desired.

- Air Pollution. Bush pushed through the Clean Skies initiative, which weakened current clean air standards, by making most of the provisions voluntary rather than regulatory. There used to be regulations for example that required power plants that were going through upgrades or refurbishment, to include pollution reduction measures while they were making the changes. This was scrapped.

- Energy policy. Bush's energy policy was formulated in secret meetings with energy companies. Nothing else really needs to be said about this.

- Protected lands. Bush has allowed new coal plants to be built near national parks. He has allowed increased development, drilling and mining on public lands. He has encouraged this even in national wildlife areas. He has designated less new land for protection than any other modern president, while allowing more access for industry to currently protected lands. He has also opened up national forests for logging, while removing provisions that allowed for public review of logging plans.

- Global warming. Bush has continually avoided the issue, even going as far as to say that science has not yet come to a consensus on global warming, and that we are not even sure if it exists. He withdrew from the Kyoto treaty, while suggesting no alternative. While there may have been some problems with the treaty, he made no attempt to suggest any other ways we could slow the process, preferring to allow industry to increase output of global warming gases. He has fought any suggestion of curbs on industry in numerous arenas, and at numerous times.

This is just a start. If you follow the link above, you will see that the Bush Administration has been a consistent assault on environmental protections. The excuse is always that we need a vibrant economy, and that business needs a free hand to succeed. This is a recipe for short term success and long term disaster.

The second Bush Administration will be no better. A perfect example of this is a recent report from the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council is a collection of all the nations that border on the Arctic, including of course the United States. This group has spent the last 4 years studying the environmental impact of global warming on the arctic. What they have found is disturbing, as it appears that global warming is occurring in the arctic at approximately twice the rate of the rest of the world. There have been significant ice loss, increased water and air temperatures, and major habitat changes, and it appears they are accelerating.

So how did the Bush Administration react to this information? By working hard to block any policy recommendations from being publicized by the group. The Bush Administration feels that the science is too immature and that they "lack the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals." What exactly were these "detailed" policy proposals?

One example was this paragraph which the Bush Administration opposed:

Arctic Council urges the member states to individually and when appropriate, jointly, adopt climate change strategies across relevant sectors. These strategies should aim at the reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases.

Seem fairly innocuous and common sense? Not to the Bush Administration which is determined to fight any suggestion that any responsibility or acknowledgement of the problem ever occur. They are determined that business and polluters should never have to change their ways, if those changes would in any way impact their bottom line.

I am all for protecting our business interests. There is no reason we have to destroy our economy. On the other hand though, we also have to protect our environment. We have a responsibility to provide a clean and healthy environment to future generations. Not only that, but it is morally wrong to be causing global climate change which will have a major impact on those in other nations, especially the masses of people who will need relocation, food assistance etc. How dare we say that our wealth is more important to protect than their basic necessities. I am not advocating radical change, but I do think we need to take this issue more seriously, and realize the responsibility we have. American's make up a small percentage of the world's population, however we produce the greatest amount of greenhouse gases. If these are having a serious impact on the world that will effect millions of people, then we need to act, and act now. It is only morally right.

2004-11-05T13:15:00.000-08:00

What Now?

Sorry I didn't post yesterday, I was literally too depressed to write. However I am feeling slightly better today, so here we go!!!

The big question now for Democrats, is what is next? What do we do now? I have been keeping an eye on the pulse of the party, and it appears that the recriminations are flying fast. People are blaming Kerry. People are blaming the stupid red-necks in the red states. People are blaming Howard Dean. People are blaming Karl Rove. We need to get all this blaming out of our system asap, and start working on the 2006 election.

I think we need to do two things. First of all, we need to ignore Bush's (and Kerry's) call for unity. Second, we need to redefine ourselves in moral terms. Let me explain in more detail.

Firstly, we are a divided nation. It is extremely clear. Kerry called on us to start the healing, and that is a fine idea, but not a recipe for success. Bush asked us to start to come together, and work together on advancing his policies. This should really be translated as "We won, so you need to recognize that the American people all want our policies, so roll over and play nice." This of course ignores the fact that most Americans don't approve of most of his policies; remember, more than 50% said we were on the wrong track. What won the election for him was single issues, like terrorism and gay rights. It also ignores the fact that Bush barely talked about ANY of his plans for the second term, so people were not voting on these. Does anyone remember Bush talking about reorganizing the tax code? How about privatizing social security? He even denied he was going to do that during the debates!

The other reason to not give in to his policies, is that they are a disaster waiting to happen. They go against every principle we stand for. We stand for a fair taxation policy, and if we allow the wealthy to further their gains, we have not done our job. We stand for fiscal responsibility, and if his policies are going to increase the deficit, we need to stand up and fight that. We stand for equality and rights, so we cannot rollover as these are trampled on. We stand for ensuring that our seniors have a comfortable retirement, and we need to fight to ensure that even the poor can enjoy their golden years. These are principles worth fighting for, and if we roll over for Bush, then we are exactly the kinds of flip floppers the Cons accused Kerry of being.

Finally, fighting these policies is the only sane move. We will NEVER win if we are simply Republican-lite. If we support all their policies, then why would anyone vote for us? We need to provide a strong alternative. This leads into my second "thing we must do!"

The second thing is we need to redefine our positions as moral issues. We did this in the past with huge success, but we forgot how to along the way. Think of Martin Luther King. His fight was at its base a moral fight. The issue of discrimination and inequality is a moral issue. However somehow, since then, we have forgotten that our position is a moral one, not just an intellectual or logical one. As Bush proved, logic can be trumped by emotion. Reality by Morality. In order to win, we need to embrace this, not reject it. We need to remember our roots, and remember that the things we fight for are morally right, not just rational.

When a child's future depends upon the lottery of birth, it is a moral outrage. When a poor child gets a second rate education, this is a moral outrage. When a man works full time to support his family, but still cannot get by on minimum wage, that is a moral outrage. When families have to choose between food and health care coverage, that is a moral outrage. When poor seniors who have worked hard all their lives, are forced to live in poverty because our society forgets them, that is a moral outrage. When we treat people differently based on their race, creed, color, lifestyle or heritage, that is a moral outrage. When we choose to honor the wealth of corporations over the sanctity of our environment, that is a moral outrage. When we send children to die in foreign lands, killing people who were no threat to us, that is a moral outrage. When we ignore our part in climate change that will negatively effect billions of people, that is a moral outrage. When we sit back and do nothing while the wealthiest in our country get wealthier, while more families are in poverty, that is a moral outrage.

These are all moral issues. They may not even be rational. They may not be logical. It may be dreaming to believe that we could eradicate poverty in our nation. It may only be faith that leads us to believe that we can have sustainable development. It may only be hope that we can allow every child equal opportunities. However saying that these moral values are any less important than those spouted by the right is preposterous.

We can fight on their own ground, because our fight is at its most basic a moral fight. We stand for moral principles of the highest order. We stand for morality that cannot be denied. We even fight for moral principles that can be supported in the Bible. These are moral principles worth fighting for.

If we retool our message, so that it is a moral message, not just a rational message, we again can inspire and excite the masses. That is what they will respond to. It is not discussions of fiscal responsibility, or discussions of rationality in decision making. It is grand hopes and dreams, the stuff of visionaries, that can lift and inspire the people of our great nation. Do that, and we will be back beating those who destroy those dreams.

2004-11-03T10:08:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to the Republicans and President Bush

Well it is all over, and I was wrong, the pollsters were wrong, the exit polls were wrong, hey pretty much everyone but Karl Rove was wrong. The last polls all showed a close race, but most of the pollsters were calling it for Kerry. The exit polls yesterday were all showing significant Kerry wins in most of the swing states, and in the overall popular vote.

It is clear though, that the majority of Americans want what Bush has to offer. He is the first President in years to actually win with more than 50% of the popular vote. 4 million more Americans wanted him than wanted Kerry. Not only did he win significantly, but the Republicans increased their hold on the House and the Senate, which will make it easier for them to push their agenda. A number of supreme court positions will likely be opening up, and Bush will be able to stock it with conservatives.

So the American people have spoken, and they have said they want a much more conservative America. This is of course depressing for me, but it is pretty clearly the case.

One thing that does seem clear, from turnout, exit polls and initiative wins, is that a major reason for Bush's win was the moral issues, especially gay marriage. Bush support for the gay marriage constitutional amendment is highly popular, and those who vote based on this issue came out in droves, as could be seen in the initiative wins for this issue across the country.

My theory is that many (not all, but many) Republicans are single issue voters. They vote based on abortion, gun rights, gay marriage, small government, terrorism, etc. It seems to me that they are a coalition of people who find one issue that resonates with them, and then use that as a litmus test. This seems to be much more prevalent in Republican voters than Democratic ones.

Anyway, now we need to prepare for another 4 years of President Bush. Looking over the last 4 years, that makes me extremely nervous. There is very little that was positive about the last four years, and now that Bush is freed from needing to be re-elected, as well as the larger mandate he has, I don't think much will hold him back. We are in for four more years of Environmental degradation, four more years of ignoring global warming, for more years of corporate interests over our interests, four more years of international isolation, four more years of conservative moral legislation, four more years of faith based policies, four more years of war and terror. Fun huh!

Actually, I am almost glad that Bush will have to deal with Iraq himself. It will be horrendous for our troops, but the majority voted for him, so what can I say. Iraq would have been an intractable mess for either Kerry or Bush, so at least this way Bush will fully get the blame for the mess. Recently an anonymous source (likely a member of the Joint Chief's of Staff) said that Powell had confided in him that we were losing the war in Iraq, and that at current troop levels we will not be able to get to victory. So either Bush will be instituting a draft, or we will be simply perpetuating the war interminably. It is a disastrous situation.

Anyway, I can't see much in the policy arena that will be positive for me in the next four years, which is rather depressing. But we will survive, and I will be here, calling them on every stupid disastrous decision they make. It will be a wild ride.

2004-11-01T13:56:00.000-08:00

So who is going to win tomorrow?

This is of course the "Big Question" and if I knew the answer I could retire to Tahiti. :) There are lots of prognosticators in the media and online, and they have started letting us know who they think will win. Tucker Carlson, the conservative Crossfire host has called it (to his chagrin) for Kerry, saying that he believes that the anger against Bush is stronger that the excitement for Bush. I think he has a point. John Zogby (of the ubiquitous Zogby polls) has also called it for Kerry, mostly on the strength of the idea that undecideds and those who have not been polled (cell phone users etc) will fall on the Kerry side.

There are of course those who have also called it for Bush, usually because they feel that the fact that the last week of the campaign has been almost solely fought on the terrorism and foreign policy battleground. They say this will help Bush because by large margins, most Americans feel that Bush will do a better job protecting us from terrorists. So when the election is about this issue, Bush will prevail. I think that the Bin Laden video does speak to this, but I am not convinced that their argument is correct.

The bottom line is this; no-one knows at this point. Most polls are VERY close. If you look at the popular national vote, all the polls are within the margin of error. Fox News' latest poll shows Kerry beating Bush, 48 to 46. Rasmussen has Bush 49.4, Kerry 48.8. Zogby has Bush 48, Kerry 47. Gallup's latest is a 49/49% draw. Just about the only poll that had a large difference was a recent Newsweek poll that showed 50% for Bush, 44% for Kerry, but that is an outlier, as all other polls are much closer.

The real important polls though are the battleground polls, as those make the real difference. It doesn't matter who wins the popular vote (as Gore can tell you through his tears), all that matters is who wins the electoral college. There are a large group of states that no-one is concentrating on, because they are pretty much solid in each camp. But there are a number of states that are extremely close, and could easily go either way.

Florida, the bane of the 2000 election, is one of them. Fox News' latest poll has Kerry up 49 to 44% in Florida. Insider Advantage has it at 48% even. Zogby has Kerry by 1, 48 to 47%. Quinnipiac has Bush by a huge 51 to 43%. Gallup's latest has Kerry up 49 to 46%. Mason Dixon has Bush up 49 to 45%. What this all means of course is that it is really anybody's game in Florida. It could easily go either way. What Kerry has in his favor is that so far early voters in Florida have leant his way. Add to that the usual swing of undecideds to the challenger, and the fact that young people with cell phones don't get polled, yet they lean to Kerry, I think Kerry has a really good chance of pulling it out of the bag here.

The other big states are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan and possibly New Hampshire and New Mexico. I think New Hampshire will go for Kerry and New Mexico for Bush. That leaves the other 6, all of them as close as can be. Whoever wins the majority of these states, will win the presidency. If I had to guess right now, I would say Minnesota will go for Kerry, and Iowa for Bush. Pennsylvania is leaning Kerry, as is Michigan. I think the really close ones are probably Wisconsin and Ohio, and I don't know which way they will go.

It is going to be an exciting night tomorrow night!

If you want to do some of your own research, here are some interesting sites. Slate Magazine has an excellent Election Scorecard, which breaks down the states by who they think is likely to win each one. If you scroll down, they also have an excellent table with all the polls available at a glance per state. RealClearPolitics.com also does a good job making the poll info available. They are a little harder to dig around, but they are interesting.

ElectoralVote.com is another good one, although they really only take the absolutely latest poll for each state, rather than running averages (like RealClearPolitics) or analysis (Like Slate). Professor Sam Wang of Princeton University has a more statistical Meta-Analysis of the polls, and his prediction is a Kerry victory.

Personally I think it will come down to turnout (which the Democrats should win this year) as well as those undecided's and unpolled masses, who currently look to be leaning towards Kerry. So right now I am pretty confident, but I won't be letting myself get too excited until tomorrow. So my prediction? I think of the battleground states, Kerry will win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Florida. Bush will win Iowa. That leaves Wisconsin and Ohio. If Bush wins both of these, then we will have an electoral vote tie, 269 to 269, which will put Bush in the Whitehouse, as the House of Representatives will then decide the President. However, if he loses either of those states, then Kerry wins. Since I think those are the two real battleground states, and Bush only wins if he wins both of them, then I am inclined to give the election to Kerry.

We will see how I do tomorrow!

2004-10-30T11:33:00.000-07:00

Bin Laden Tape. Who does it help?

I think that it is clear that Bin Laden is trying to influence the upcoming election. We haven't heard from him in a year, and then he releases a new tape a few days before the election. So I think it is clear he is trying to have an impact. The real question is what is it that he is trying to achieve. I think there are three options.

First, he is trying to elect Bush. This may seem counterintuitive to some, because they have been told so many times that Al Qaeda attacked Spain right before their election in order to get them to vote out the incumbent pro-Bush government. I have never been convinced that this is the case. Why? Because you have to understand what Bin Laden's motives are. He is striving to create a war between Christianity and the Islamic world. He wants us to attack and kill Muslims, because that legitimizes his movement, and brings him new recruits. His ultimate goal is to force a worldwide war, a kind of Armageddon, and then Islam will emerge triumphant, over the whole world.

If this is the case, then he is much better off with Bush in power. Bush so far has done everything Bin Laden wanted him to. We invaded Iraq, and now more that ever, Muslims are sympathetic to his cause. So how would the tape help Bush win? Very simply. Most of the commentators talking about the tape have spoken about the boost it is expected to give Bush. When Bin Laden criticizes Bush, many independent voters may look at that, and rally around the commander in chief. They may also argue that if Kerry wins now, it is what Bin Laden wants (in their own naive view) and so they have to vote for Bush. Personally I think that this likely was the goal of the tape, and it will help Bush somewhat in these remaining days.

The second possibility is that Bin Laden wants Kerry to win. He is mad at Bush, and wants to humiliate him. This is possible, but only makes sense if Bin Laden has a naive view of the U.S. public. He had to know that the way most average Americans would take this was to turn to supporting Bush, if he didn't, then he is far less sophisticated than we have given him credit for. While I can see this as possible, it just doesn't make sense to me. Although honestly, trying to determine his aims is a murky proposition at best.

The third option was that he wants to be able to claim victory no matter who wins. This is actually very possibly the real goal. The fact that commentators are arguing about who this helps is a supporting factor in this argument. Since it is not clear who this helps, if Kerry wins, or if Bush wins, he can claim that he had an impact on the U.S. election.

The bottom line is that we really don't know who he wanted to help, but it does seem clear that it is going to end up helping Bush. I originally thought that just the fact that Bin Laden was alive and taunting us, 3 years after Bush declared him wanted, dead or alive, played directly into Kerry's argument about the ineffectiveness of Bush's war on terror. What I generally forget though, is that most Americans seem to act less on logic and reality, and more on emotion and gut feelings. Since this tape will likely scare a good portion of the American public, as well as reminding them of 9/11, I don't think that many of them will take the time to really think this through. I think in the short few days we have, the emotional aspect will be supreme, and it will help Bush.

Let's just hope that it isn't enough to regain the momentum he had lost over the last few days to Kerry.

2004-10-28T13:20:00.000-07:00

Two important numbers from Iraq

There are two important numbers I wanted to talk about today, both from Iraq. The first is 377, the second is 100,000.

377 is the number of tons of highly dangerous explosives that went missing from the Al-QaQaa nuclear and munitions site in Iraq. These explosives were highly refined, and very dangerous. Just one pound of these explosives would be enough to bring down an airliner.

The accusations on both sides have been flying, and we really don't know everything yet, but there are a few things we do know. This article by the Associated Press helped sort out the facts:

- Al-QaQaa was an extremely important site. The U.N. nuclear monitors considered it the pre-eminent high explosive stockpile location in Iraq. In fact they moved explosives from other locations to this site so they could all be isolated together. The explosives were then sealed in the bunkers here, and last checked on March 15th, 2003, just 5 days before the invasion.

- This site was not a hidden site. The U.N. agency notified the world and the U.S. of its presence and of the material that was there.

- U.S. troops arrived first at the site on April 3rd. They were there for two days before leaving for Baghdad. While it would seem that they would have explored the entire compound, they didn't, the compound has over 100 buildings and bunkers.

- On April 10th, another group of U.S. soldiers arrived, and they had orders to search for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons. They were not ordered to search for conventional weapons or explosives, and they were not ordered to secure the site after they left. They did not find any of the WMD they were looking for, but we currently have no details on whether or not they actually saw the conventional explosives there or not. They left after 24 hours, and the site remained unsecured.

- The second unit did say that the place was overrun with looters when they arrived. The first unit that passed through has not made that observation. It seems the first unit was really just part of the battle plans, and was not part of the inspection groups. It wasn't until the second group arrived on the 10th that any searches were done, and these were not for the conventional explosives.

Now Kerry is accusing Bush of being negligent, and not securing the explosives after the invasion. Bush counters with the argument that we don't know what happened to them, they may have all been moved before the U.S. troops got there. I think Bush's argument is actuality a reasonable one, it is possible that Saddam moved all the explosives, spread them around as it were, to ensure they weren't bombed or captured by the allies. He would have had a short time to do it, after March 15th, however it is possible.

The problem is that this is really beside the point. The most damaging aspect of this issue, is that fact that even though the U.S. knew that these explosives were at this site, they had no plans to secure the site, no plans to search for the explosives, no plans beyond possible WMD. As far as we can see, the orders were to find WMD and then move out. No orders were given to find the largest stockpile of conventional explosives in Iraq and secure them. When Bush says it is possible that they were moved before we got there, and he says that Kerry is jumping the gun before we know what really happened to them, this is a smokescreen. Because if Bush had been doing his job, then these explosives would have been a priority. We would have gone to the site, noticed that the explosives were gone, and identified that as an issue. The simple fact that the U.S. had NO IDEA what happened to these explosives and didn't even seem to realize they were gone until the Iraqi government gave their report this month to the Atomic Energy Commission is absolutely horrifying. It is not like they didn't know they were there. It just seems that they either didn't worry about them, or just forgot about them. Criminally negligent.

Secondly, the fact that they had no plans to secure a location which included the largest stockpile of explosives in Iraq is even more damning when you consider what they did secure. The Administration had extremely detailed plans on how to secure all the oil wells in Iraq, and had them secured almost immediately after the invasion. We managed to secure them, but failed to secure the largest stockpile of conventional weapons in Iraq??????

The second number I wanted to talk about is also from Iraq. The number is 100,000. This is the number of dead Iraqis that have died since the invasion that is above what you would normally see in Iraq during the same period. In other words, the number of dead Iraqis likely as a result of our invasion. This number seems very high to me, but it is reported in a survey by Johns Hopkins and Columbia University, in conjuction with a Baghdad University. The survey was a household survey, in other words they went and asked Iraqis how many people had died in their family, spoke with doctors and first responders, etc. That is why I think the numbers are likely high.

However, most estimates still place the number of Iraqi dead as a result of the invasion between 10,000 and 40,000. This is still a huge number of people, most of them civilians, many of them women and children. Iraqi civilians are dying every day, as a result of airstrikes and other action, yet we rarely hear about them, and that is a tragedy.

One thing we have to remember when we are trying to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, is that every one of these dead Iraqis has a family, all of whom are likely devastated, and angry at the U.S. Every time we kill another Iraqi civilian, we likely create another 10 to 20 enemies of our occupation. It is a disaster. We wonder why we are not liked.

2004-10-27T15:20:00.000-07:00

War on Terrorism and our Rights

Over the past three years, since 9/11, we have seen a major erosion of our rights. This erosion has been open and not hidden either, and is mostly encapsulated in the PATRIOT act. However it has also been seen in decisions to deny rights to those captured during the war on terror, both here and abroad. It has even been seen in decisions that deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, under the guise that it is protecting us from terrorism.

The argument for these dilutions of rights, was that they were necessary to fight terrorism. The American people, mostly, accepted the reduction if it made them safer. So the question then needs to be, has it? Has it been worth losing some of our rights?

Well this can probably be measured in two ways. The first would be to analyze how many terrorist attacks have been stopped because of the enhanced anti-terrorism capabilities. Unfortunately this is nearly impossible, since there is little evidence to analyze. Ashcroft will tell you that we have stopped hundreds of attacks, but the Bush Administration's credibility is shot right now, I don't believe a word they say anymore. Besides, if they had truly foiled some grand terrorist plan, they would have trumpeted the details from the rooftops by now, especially with the election so close.

So we have to look at the other measurement, which is terrorist convictions. One of the big arguments for these laws, was that it would make it easier for the government to build a case against the terrorists, and therefore they would be more likely to obtain a conviction. So what is the government's record on this? Absolutely poor. In fact they haven't obtained any lasting convictions. The one conviction they did get, was overthrown in court because the prosecutors withheld evidence. That is it. No convictions. None.

It is not for lack of trying. They have locked up thousands of "terrorists" here within the U.S. and thousands more overseas. They either still hold these guys without trial, they have let them go, or they have tried for a conviction and failed. The same holds true in Guantanamo. Once the Supreme Court declared that those held there needed access to legal assistance and needed an opportunity to defend themselves, they have had no success. They have let lots of them go, they have tried to have trials which have bogged down in a mess, the whole situation is a disaster.

This is what the Bush administration did with all these fancy new laws reducing our rights. Was it worth it? Honestly I don't know. But it seems to me that the evidence is pretty clear that either the Ashcroft Justice Department is incompetent, or they simply haven't found any really useful damning evidence using these new powers. If that is the case, then it was not worth the reduction in our civil liberties.

2004-10-26T09:05:00.000-07:00

Outfoxed. Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

My wife and I watched the documentary, "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" last night. I was very impressed with the documentary, the detail and research that went into it was astounding. I have always known that Fox news was less than "Fair and Balanced", but the extent to which they manipulate and manage the news is incredible. From daily memo's instructing the talking heads with what spin they should put on the news, to the fact that they editorialize all the time, it is an amazing thing to watch. I would recommend the documentary highly.

The problem with Fox isn't so much that it is biased, that is ok in a free society, it is that it pretends to be mainstream. It pretends to be "Fair and Balanced." O'Reilly's (he of phone sex and Falafel fame!) show continually talks about how it is the "No Spin Zone", and he continually insists that his show is the one place where you can get the facts, and only the facts, without spin. The irony of the fact that his show is pretty much nothing but spin is lost on most of their viewers.

So why is this a problem? Well Fox viewers will see the viewpoints portrayed on Fox, and they will hear that they are mainstream ideas. They will hear that Fox is the middle of the road, and that all other media is far left wing. This leads Fox viewers to an incredibly distorted view of the world. Yesterday I was listening to an interview with Carol Cassady, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives. She had indicated that she supported the war in Iraq because we had to attack the terrorists. The interviewer asked her if she discounted the findings of the 9/11 commission and the CIA reports that showed no significant terrorist connections between Iraq and the 9/11 attackers. Her response was a perfect example of the Fox effect. She said that most of the media was biased, and was anti American, and so they were trying to tell people that the reports didn't show the link, insinuating that they actually did. I have read the 9/11 report, and there is no connection. She however, has bought the Fox line that they are the only credible news outlet in America. It is really sad, because it allows people to ignore reality, and live in their fantasy world.

So in the spirit of journalistic exploration, I decided to go to www.foxnews.com, and see if I could find any examples of bias. Here goes.

Here is the main headline: "Kerry begins day in Wisconsin by bashing Bush on missing Iraq explosives; president elsewhere in same state." well it didn't take long. Notice how Kerry is the one bashing the President? This is common on Fox, Kerry is the negative campaigner, Bush the victim. Just the use of the word Bashing has a negative connotation.

Another story on the site, titled "Kerry's Final Sale" makes points about how Kerry is too formal, and only is really good in an academic setting. When he is quoted as making a friendly statement, "I've got your back", they criticize him by saying "there's a formality in the way that Kerry speaks, even when he's saying something as casual as this. He says the phrase slowly and carefully pronounces each word, so it doesn't sound like it would if it came from a friend or a teammate who made the promise in a huddle."

In contrast they say that Bush "has a completely different style than Kerry. He likes to tell jokes and deliver punchy one-liners that bring home his points." The whole point of the article is that Kerry, unlike Bush, tries to hard to be likeable, and often fails when he tries to connect with the crowd. This is of course right out of the Republican play book.

What are the other headlines on their main page? "PAC spending favors Kerry", "Kerry camp gives up on Missouri", and "Cheney: Kerry 'Misguided' on Iraq". Not exactly favorable reporting. PAC's are brought up because they are seen as unfair by Republicans, forget for a moment the fact that Bush currently has more money in the bank than Kerry, it is just that Kerry has more of his money from PACs. Kerry giving up on Missouri is intended to show that Kerry is struggling. Cheney's comments get headline status.

Want more? Another headline on the main page, "Bush: Our Base is United". Another one? "The British are Sliming". This latest is an article about how the British media is in the middle of airing a number of "Anti-American" television shows. Of course, they are on topics such as the fact that 9/11 and the War on Terror has polarized the American people, which of course it has. Much of the anger in the TV shows is aimed at American foreign policy and the Bush Administration in particular, but of course that is then painted as Anti-Americanism. Of course to Republican's, anything Anti-Bush is automatically ant-American.

More? How about "One Economy; Two Spins" which basically makes a case that out economy isn't as bad as everyone is saying it is, and that the problem (yet again) is media bias which dwells on the negative. How about "Activists, Not Global Warming, a Third-World Threat" which makes the point that it is environmental activism that is the problem, not Global Warming. Another? How about "Getting the Facts Straight on Iraq" which insists that Iraq is much better off that Kerry or Edwards are saying. Or "Saddam, Syria Colluded Under U.N. Watch" which puts the focus on France, Russia and Syria, as well as the U.N. for all the problems in Iraq. Or what about this one, "Who's Really Smarter?" which makes the case that Bush is actually smarter than Kerry. Me thinks they protest too much!

It gets even worse when you delve into the Bill O'Reilly section of the site. This so called "independent" voice, in his "no spin zone" is universally hostile to the Democrats and John Kerry. He blasts Kerry for attacking the President for saying "Whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up - you know, is up in the air." Kerry did blast him for this statement, but this was after Bush blasted Kerry for saying that we should reduce terrorism to a nuisance level. They are both basically saying the same thing, that this is not a traditional war, and there won't be a traditional end, but O'Reilly of course ignores the similarities.

Here is a list of headlines under the O'Reilly section of foxnews.com:

Kerry and the Swift Boat veterans
A Sin for Catholics to Vote for Kerry?
Senator Kerry's "Global Test"
Police officer is ordered to remove anti Kerry sign
CBS doc's flap effect on "Elite" media
etc etc etc

As I said before, this is all fine if it is presented as partisan. However Fox maintains the illusion that they are middle of the road and "Fair and Balanced". That is why this news organization is so dangerous. Besides the fact that Fox News viewers are less informed about the world and what is actually going on, they are also getting a distorted view of what they are told is "middle of the road" thinking.

Watch the documentary I mentioned at the beginning. It is very good.

2004-10-25T10:10:00.000-07:00

Just one week to go. What to talk about?

Well here we are, just one week to go before the election. You have probably heard the election called the most important of our lifetime, and I believe it is. We have had a good look at how a George Bush Administration operates, and we have to wonder if that is how a second one will be. As President Bush constantly says, he doesn't change course because of popular opinion or any other reason, so I guess we can be sure that his second Administration will be a continuation of the first. So how was that first Administration?

Well lets take a look:

The economy is in shambles. Yes we are slowly improving right now, but the improvement has been sluggish, and many economists blame uncertainty, as well as the increasing federal debt for many of the problems. Millions more Americans are in poverty since Bush took office. Minorities have lost ground, they now have less wealth than they had when Bush took office. There are 500,000 less jobs since 2001, a huge loss when you consider that we need to add more than 100,000 jobs every month just to keep up with new job seekers. The deficit is at record highs, and we have gone from billions in surplus to billions in deficit.

The wealthiest Americans have received the vast majority of three tax cuts, when we could least afford them. Bush is the first President in history to cut taxes during war time. His tax cuts did provide stimulus, which is why we are slowly climbing out of recession, however it was a short term benefit, as our country will be dealing with the massive debt incurred for years to come. This debt will be a drag on our economy for the long term, and the effects are just beginning to be seen. Our children will end up having to pay off that debt; debt that was incurred in order to give millions back to those who already have millions.

The environment has suffered. Bush has scrapped or allowed to expire many environmental protections. He has often replaced these with voluntary protections, expecting businesses to put the common good over their bottom line. He has ignored the global warming issue, even going as far to say that we are not sure it is even happening. He scrapped the Kyoto accord, without suggesting any alternative. He has allowed snow mobiles back in our national parks. He has removed thousands of acres of wetlands from protection by adjusting the definition of watershed. He scrapped Clinton administration fuel efficiency standards, that would have reduced our pollution and reliance on foreign oil. He has invested in "clean coal" technology, instead of true environmental renewable energy. His Administration has named the least number of species as endangered species of any modern President. He has put aside the least amount of our wild areas for protection of any modern President. He has been an environmental disaster.

Bush has ignored science. He has hampered stem cell research that could help thousands of people. This is still years away, but under another Bush Administration, thousands more will die as the cures are delayed. He has denied climate research that shows global warming is an issue.

Americans have lost ground in regards to their privacy and personal security. The Bush Administration has illegally detained individuals without access to legal representation or even contact with their families, for years at a time without charging them with any crime. This includes American citizens. They have fostered an environment that lead to the crimes in Abu Ghraib prison. They have detained hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay, in violation of international law and treaties.

He has done little to address the health care crisis. Millions more Americans are now without health care. Hospitals are going bankrupt from treating patients without insurance. Insurance costs are skyrocketing. Drug costs have gone through the roof. He made it illegal for Medicare to bargain for cheaper prices with the drug companies. He did introduce a prescription drug benefit that will kick in in a couple of years, but it does nothing to address drug costs, so will be a huge windfall to the drug companies. He introduced a plan to allow seniors to buy into private prescription discount cards, however the savings have already been wiped out on many drugs by price increases. He has refused to allow re-importing of drugs from overseas, so that Americans pay far more for drugs than most other nations. He has no plan for fixing the issue, other than allowing the wealthy to buy into their own savings plans, and going after trial lawyers.

He has been a disaster in the war on terror. While we did invade Afghanistan, and remove some of the ability for Al Qaeda to operate there, they are still there, and still working against us. Osama Bin Laden is still free, and still working to kill Americans. Bin Laden had one goal, to taunt the U.S. into invading the middle east, provoking a holy war. We fell into his trap. He wanted us to help him turn more Muslims to him, and we have succeeded. Previously unallied terrorist groups have recently announced alliances with Al Qaeda. More and more Muslims are fighting against us in Iraq. We are alienating a whole generation of Muslims, and that is exactly what Bin Laden wanted. We are less safe today, because instead of drying up support for Al Qaeda, we have increased it.

We invaded a sovereign nation, illegally. The only legal ways to invade another country are under U.N. approval or in self defense from attack. We did not have U.N. approval, and Iraq was not a threat to us. The Bush Administration told us that Iraq had WMD, and they were going to give them to Al Qaeda so they could use them in our cities. None of that was true. There were no WMD in Iraq, and Al Qaeda had no collaborative relationship with Iraq. We now own a country which is becoming increasingly hostile. The longer we are there, the more Iraqis join the resistance, and attack our troops. The more money that flows to the terrorists. The more our troops are in danger. We will spend thousands more lives and billions more dollars before we leave Iraq, and when we do, it will likely be not much better off than when we started, if not worse. It was a disaster of epic proportions.

He has spent billions of dollars on an unproven, ineffective missile defense program, that has yet to be shown to work in any fashion. This is money that could have been used to shore up our homeland security, or invest in any number of other ways.

Energy costs have gone through the roof. We now have the highest oil prices ever seen. Bush's family and friends in the oil business are taking home record profits.

Our international friendships and alliances are shot. We lost our credibility in the U.N. with Powell's remarkable false assertions. We lost our credibility with most of Europe. We have weakened NATO. We have a majority of people in the world who now hate our government, and want George Bush out of office. Who will believe us when we next turn up evidence that a regime is a threat?

We have ignored real threats while concentrating on bogus ones. We ignored the situation in North Korea for 2 years, and in the meantime they expanded their nuclear arsenal. We ignored the situation in Iran, and in the meantime they are closer to having a nuclear arsenal. We ignored the situation in Palestine, giving consent to Sharon to do anything he wanted to the Palestinians, likely extending that conflict, and increasing sympathy for the Palestinians and hatred for the U.S. and Israel.

Bush opposed the 9/11 commission that was investigating the errors and issues that lead to the 9/11 attacks. He refused to allow full access to member of his Administration, only allowing Rice to testify after the commission agreed they would not ask for any other members. He refused to appear alone and under oath.

He opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. He also failed to fully fund Clinton's COPS program that put 100,000 new police on the streets, many of which have now been let go. He has failed to fully fund first responders, including Firefighters. He has failed to improve inspection of containers being shipped into our country, and scanning of cargo areas on planes.

The Bush Administration has done all these things and more. There is ample evidence that they intend to continue on this disastrous course, and we as a nation can't afford it. It is time for a change. Never before has it been so critical. We cannot afford another 4 years of the same.

2004-10-21T13:07:00.000-07:00

The ignorance gap grows!

Yesterday I spoke about a study that showed an alarming number of American's who had little knowledge about the policies of Bush and Kerry, and were often totally wrong in identifying which candidate supported which policy. This was scary, but yesterday's post pretty much laid the blame equally on Democrats and Republicans.

Not today.

A new study came out today, published by the Program on International Policy Attitudes. The study asked a number of important "reality" based questions, and then tallied the results based on whether an individual was a Republican or a Democrat. What they found is scary, but not that surprising to me. Democrats had a fairly good grasp of reality, while Republicans did not.

Want some examples?

Even after the recent Duelfer report to Congress which showed no WMD in Iraq, and even after Bush administration acceptance of this fact, 47% of Republicans surveyed still believe that Iraq had WMD. 25% still believe that Iraq had major WMD development programs. Now this is surprising in itself, since the report was from our own Weapons Inspection team, but you might think they are just ignoring the experts. But even this is wrong. 56% of Republicans actually still assume that most experts believe that Iraq had WMD. More than half!!! They must have either paid no attention over the last 6 months, or they are subconsciously blocking reality. 57% also believe that the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had a major WMD program.

This is just astounding. The only thing I can think of as an explanation is Bush's comments that the Duelfer report supported their assertions, although if you looked at what Bush was actually saying, he was saying that the Duelfer report showed that Saddam still wanted WMD. In these voter's minds, they must have heard that assertion, and assumed it meant he had WMD. Just amazing.

WMD are just the beginning. 75% of Republicans still believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to Al Qaeda, contradicting the CIA, and even Donald Rumsfeld, who recently said he had seen no hard evidence of this. 63% believe that clear evidence of this has been found. Again though, even more astoundingly, 60% believe that most experts also believe this. 60%!!!! Since virtually no experts believe this, it is an incredible number. 55% assume that the 9/11 commission also found this, when in reality it had the exact opposite finding.

Another amazing finding. 58% of Republicans believe that we should not have invaded Iraq if they didn't have WMD and Al Qaeda connections. So in other words, if reality had managed to make it through their filter, they would be against the war.

They are incredibly ignorant about world opinion as well. Only 32% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of the people in the world oppose us attacking Iraq. 42% believe that opinion is evenly divided, and 26% believe that most people think it was the right thing to do. The majority of people in nearly every country are opposed to the war, including in many of the members of the "coalition of the willing", however Bush supporters are oblivious.

The same goes for how the world views the Bush Administration. 57% of Bush supporters think that the majority of people in the world want Bush re-elected. In fact in recent polls, in nearly every country polled, the majority wanted Kerry elected, mostly as a vote against Bush. However only 9% of Republicans got this fact right.

The numbers just go on and on. Bush supporters got Bush's position on major international treaties and initiatives wrong nearly every time. For example 51% thought Bush supported the Kyoto treaty. How on earth can they think that? Do they not even listen to Bush when he speaks on these issues??

It all comes down to what I spoke about in a much earlier post. Just like a parent who has difficulty accepting evidence that shows their beloved child is a bully, many American voters, and obviously especially Bush supporters, have an extreme aversion to reality when it contradicts their internal perception of Bush and America. They must simply filter out anything that contradicts what they already believe.

What this really means though, is that we have a large population of our society that is voting based on an incredibly distorted understanding of reality. These people are obviously part of the "faith based" world that Suskind talks about, where reality is unimportant. This is an extremely disturbing trend for our future.

2004-10-20T14:34:00.000-07:00

Our engaged electorate, or lack of it.

I must live in my own little world. I always recognized that I am more obsessed by politics and news than most people, that is just who I am. I recognized that to most Americans, politics is something they just think about every 4 years, if then.

However after reading the results of a new study by The Survey Group at Middle Tennessee State University, I now realize that I was overestimating the involvement of the average American.

The study doesn't surprise too much on the levels of support for Kerry and Bush. What really surprised me was the lack of knowledge about some of the most important issues in our current election. According to the study:

only about half of Tennessee adults can accurately name Kerry as the candidate who supports rescinding the recent federal income tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 a year. About a quarter (23%) incorrectly attributed the proposal to Bush, and 27% admit they dont know which candidate supports the measure. Similarly, only about half (50%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who favors giving parents tax-funded vouchers to help pay private or religious school tuition. Thirteen percent attribute the plan to Kerry, who actually opposes it. Over a third (37%) admit they dont know.

Knowledge levels are even lower on the other three issues. Well under half (42%) are aware that Bush wants to let younger workers put some of their Social Security withholdings into their own personal retirement accounts. Nineteen percent incorrectly think Kerry supports the measure, and 40% say they dont know one way or the other. Just over a quarter (28%) rightly name Bush as the candidate who supports giving needy people tax breaks that would help buy health insurance from private companies. Thirty percent inaccurately name Kerry as the measures proponent, and 41% admit not knowing. Finally, just 39% know that Kerry advocates requiring plants and factories to add new pollution control equipment when they make upgrades. Fifteen percent wrongly attribute the policy to Bush, and 45% dont know.

Not only are these polled citizens not knowledgeable about these important issues, they also often fail to support the same policies of their preferred candidate. I can only assume that this is because they really don't understand what their candidates believe in.

What does all this mean? I don't think the American electorate is stupid. I think it is more likely a simple reflection of the problems with our political process. We have devolved the election process to soundbites and attack ads. The media covers sensation and not substance. The people are saturated by what is not really important, and this blocks out the true substantial issues between the candidates, to the point that the American public just doesn't understand what is going on.

The scary thing to me is that these are the people we are relying on to elect our leaders! We need to change the process, help people to really understand the issues, and make sure that the campaign is waged on fact, not perception. I have little faith that we can do that in today's environment though.

2004-10-19T13:48:00.000-07:00

Bush's Faith Based Presidency

Most of you might have heard by now of Ron Suskind's latest article in the New York Times, titled "Without a Doubt". (Link Here). It is an amazing in depth look at the President, and how he makes his decisions. It is extremely thorough, and every American should read it. The New York Times requires registration, but use www.bugmenot.com to get a free temporary login if you want one.

Suskind argues that Bush has a very simple decision making process, which basically boils down to following his gut instincts. Once he has made a decision, that decision is final, because he believes that he is directed by God in all that he does. There is no point in changing a decision if God was the ultimate author of that decision. It must be right, and no matter what the reality of the situation, it must work out in the long run, because it is God's will.

This is a good process if we can be sure that God is truly guiding Bush. However if he is simply deluding himself, this is extremely dangerous. He simply discounts evidence that his plans are faltering, not because he thinks his plans will work, but because he KNOWS his plans will work because they are God's plans.

The other interesting thing about the article is this exchange between Suskind and a Bush Administration official:

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

So we in the "reality based community" are being ruled by those who create their own reality. This makes so much sense when you consider Karl Rove's philosophy of always projecting the idea you are winning in the election, no matter what the reality is. Or Bush's insistence that everything is great in Iraq. He feels that if he says it, that is reality. It is kind of like the old idea of the "Power of Positive thinking" run amok.

Reality doesn't matter to these guys. It doesn't matter if Iraq is going bad, because God wanted them to invade Iraq so everything will work out. It doesn't matter if our deficits are skyrocketing, because God wants tax cuts for the wealthy, and it will work out. It is faith based policy making, and it is disastrous. The American people really need to decide if this is what they want.

2004-10-18T13:39:00.000-07:00

Minorities still way behind and losing ground.

A surprising (at least to me) new report underlines the incredible difficulties so many minorities and poor have to struggle with. During the Bush term, the gap in wealth between white families and minority families has grown, and for these families, their wealth has even decreased.

According to the study by the Pew Hispanic Center, the median family wealth for a white family in 2002 (the last year the numbers are available) was $88,651. This includes all assets and income, so includes things like a home, cars etc. This was a modest increase since before Bush came into the Whitehouse. White families had wealth of $86,370 in 1999.

However the numbers become extremely dramatic when you look at the minority numbers. In 1999, Hispanic families had a median wealth of $10,495. This is startling by itself compared to the white family's numbers. However by 2002 they had dropped to $7,932. Black families went from $8,774 in 1999 to $5,998 in 2002.

Now granted, the main reason for this problem is the recession. Families with more wealth at the start of the recession are able to weather it much better than those without. Also granted, this wealth gap existed under Clinton, and wasn't improving dramatically, although it was improving. Regardless of whose problem or fault this is, it is something we HAVE to find some solutions to.

Many will say it is personal responsibility, that these people are to blame for their own situations. Personally I think that can be part of the equation. Equally important though, is the fact that most minorities still have to deal with discrimination on a daily basis. They also more likely to live in poor neighborhoods with poor school systems. They are more likely to live in crime ridden neighborhoods. Families working earning minimum wage have an increasingly more difficult time breaking out of that cycle.

It is a travesty, and we need to do something about it. As the wealthiest nation on earth, we should be ashamed to see this kind of disparity.

2004-10-18T13:08:00.000-07:00

Bush... Really is a Uniter, not a Divider

Bush finally showed us what he meant when he said during the 2000 campaign that he was a uniter not a divider. I thought he meant in our country, but apparently he meant our enemies.

Since we invaded Iraq, the world united against us. Recent polls show that almost universally, people around the world despise our recent actions in Iraq, and even more so, want to see Bush out of office. So there was one great example of Uniting instead of dividing. He has also done a great job uniting the Democrats. This has to be the most united I have ever seen the Democratic party, all with an eye single to removing Bush from power.

While the war in Iraq has done wonders to unite people against us and the Republican party, it seems the best was yet to come. Over the weekend, Al-Zarqawi, our number one enemy in Iraq, the guy that has been beheading people left right and center, and who has been the mastermind of most of the terrible attacks we have recently experienced, finally put aside his friendly rivalry with Osama Bin Laden, and pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda.

While the Bush administration has tried to tie Zarqawi to Al Qaeda for years, their evidence has been poor, and the CIA (as well as the 9/11 commission) have said that no collaborative relationship exists. Until now that is. Zarqawi said in his statement that he and Al Qaeda have been negotiating for the past 8 months, and they have decided to work together. Now Al Zarqawi will take orders from Osama. Now Zarqawi will be his right hand man in Iraq. While most terrorism in Iraq used to be either Zarqawi or Iraqi nationalists, now we can truly say that Al Qaeda is behind it all.

Bush has managed to bring them together, and we will pay for it. They will benefit from Al Qaeda's organizational skills, coupled with Zarqawi's ruthlessness and men on the ground. It is a terrible mix.

Now what has the Bush Administration said about this? Well of course that this is again (isn't everything?) vindication for their position that Zarqawi and Bin Laden were working together. The sad fact is that they weren't, and since we invaded and conquered Iraq, they now are. The truth is that rivals can often come together, when they have a unified goal and a common enemy. Think about the United States and the Soviet Union during world war two. Zarqawi and Al Qaeda were rivals in the past, but the United States made them firm friends. We will regret that this ever happened.

2004-10-14T09:48:00.000-07:00

Third and final Presidential Debate.

Last night was probably the most important debate in modern politics. Hyperbole? Maybe, but it was extremely important. The first two debates set the stage and pulled Kerry back to even with the President in the polls. This final debate would determine who gained momentum from the debate, and who would take that momentum with them into the home stretch.

Kerry took it home.

To be honest with you, I think stylistically it was Kerry’s weakest debate of the three; the lucky thing is he is debating George Bush, who, while he improved each debate, never reached even Kerry’s low point. Stylistically I think last night was a tie, but on the substance? The choice was exceptionally clear.

Bush hurt himself most dramatically by refusing to answer questions. Over and over he dodged the issue. All politicians do that, but Bush was doing it question after question, and even on series of questions in a row. It definitely hurt him.

One of the most striking examples of this is how he seems to think that the No Child Left Behind Act is the solution to every problem in America. If not the NCLB act, then tax cuts. When asked about the minimum wage, his answer was the No Child Left Behind Act. When asked about job outsourcing, his answer was the NCLB act. It seemed most of the time when he failed to answer the question, it was a question he answered with the NCLB act.

There was one really funny Dick Cheney answer. Kerry accused Bush of taking his eye of Osama bin Laden:

“Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, “Where is Osama bin Laden?” He said, “I don‘t know. I don‘t really think about him very much. I‘m not that concerned.” “

Bush’s response was very funny. “Gosh, I just don‘t think I ever said I‘m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It‘s kind of one of those exaggerations.”

Actually, he did say that, in pretty much those exact words. “"Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. ... And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him”

Very funny.

One of the questions that Bush also failed to answer was the question about how he is going to pay for his Social Security plan that allows young people to stop paying into social security. The CBO has estimated that it will cost between 1 and 2 trillion dollars. He was asked specifically how he was going to pay for it, and he refused to answer.

This is actually an extremely significant question, because with this 1 to 2 trillion dollars, Bush’s proposed spending increases mean he will be adding 2 to 3 trillion in new spending. This is incredible, considering he is not pushing for any tax roll backs. Kerry’s plan is expected to cost around 1.3 trillion, but at least he is rolling back the tax cuts for those over 200,000. Bush has never explained how he will pay for this, and he is getting away with it.

Overall it was an interesting debate. The good news is that most of the polls I have seen after the debate all show that Kerry won. In fact only one I saw showed that it was a statistical tie, but that one was the ABC poll which had significantly more Republicans watching than Democrats.

All in all I think Kerry benefited dramatically from the debates, and he now has the momentum. With only three weeks to go, and only the slimmest of margins between the two of them, it is going to be an interesting march to the election.

2004-10-13T09:49:00.000-07:00

Debate Tonight... Important Fact Check Info IN ADVANCE!

Tonight is the third and final Presidential debate. The polls are so close you couldn't slip a piece of paper between them, nearly every poll shows the two candidates neck a neck within the margin of error. Even more importantly, in many of the important battleground states for the electoral college, the polls are the same way. This election could go either way right now. The debate tonight is incredibly important, because if Kerry can maintain momentum coming out of this debate, he could have the whitehouse.

To help you watch the debate tonight (9 Eastern, 6 Pacific, nearly every channel) I thought it would helpful to provide some fact checking in advance. A friend of mine sent me this New York Times article that is great for preparing to watch the debate. I will include the text and the link:

Here is the Link

Here is the text by Paul Krugman:

"It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions you'll hear, and the truth about each:

Jobs

Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam, when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the course.

Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country needs and the number actually available.

Unemployment

Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.

The deficit

Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.

The tax cuts

Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1 million.

The Kerry tax plan

Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently forgot about it.

Fiscal responsibility

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."

Spending

On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality.

Health care

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would do nothing to restrict patients' choices.

By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers."

2004-10-12T10:16:00.000-07:00

Liberal Media.... Yeah Right!

The Sinclair Broadcast Group has given thousands of dollars to the Bush Re-election campaign. They own 62 television stations around the nation. Earlier, they gained the ire of the left when they ordered their television stations to not show an edition of Nightline, because they were going to read the names of those killed in Iraq. They also banned their stations from airing ads from some anti-Bush groups.

Now they have sunk to a new low. They have their hands on a 90 minute documentary that basically calls Kerry a traitor. They have ordered their stations to air the documentary in prime time completely ad free. Two weeks before the election! This is inappropriate manipulation of the media to an incredible degree.

Television stations (at least the broadcast ones) are held to a high standard. We the people, GIVE them, for free, a certain portion of the publicly held spectrum in order to broadcast their channel. In return they are required to live up to certain standards. That is why the FCC can fine them for indecency, but they cannot do the same on Cable TV. Cable TV is paid for by the users, and doesn't use any public domain to get to them. Broadcast TV uses the public domain of spectrum, so has to live up to the requirements.

One of these requirements is to give equal opportunity to both sides of a political debate. What they are doing though, is airing an inflammatory documentary, which will denigrate one of the candidates, without giving equal time to the other side. They claim that they have an open invitation for Kerry to appear during the 90 minutes to answer the questions. Of course Kerry will not do that, as they will be able to edit his remarks and show only what they want. The DNC has asked that Kerry be given 90 minutes of his own to reply. They have of course refused.

This is blatant favoritism from a media company that is expected to act responsibly under the people's trust. They are failing dismally. Before you say "What's the big deal", think about the outrage that would accompany CBS deciding to block the swift boat veterans for truth ads, kill a news magazine story that was pro-Bush, and then air Fahrenheit 9/11 for free with no ads two weeks before the election. The right would be apoplectic, and you know they would pull out all the stops to fight it.

The problem in our country is that too few organizations own all of our media, and it is getting worse every year. Most of these organizations are owned by large corporations, (GE, Disney etc) and therefore are expected to contribute to the wellbeing of the corporation. When you have one candidate that is corporate friendly, and another that is less so, they will always have an underlying bias in what they focus on. It is a sad thing, but it is only getting worse.

2004-10-11T10:57:00.000-07:00

Newly Registered voters. The Wild Card

Newly registered voters are the wild card in the upcoming election. Why? Because they are generally not counted in polls. Most polls are of likely voters, and newly registered voters are generally not included. That is because in order to determine how likely a person is to vote, the pollsters ask if you voted last time. If you say no, then they usually don't consider you a likely voter.

So when you are looking at the polls, often they don't include these people. In normal election cycles, this makes sense, however nearly every state in the nation is seeing record numbers of people registering to vote. The good news for Democrats is that in nearly every state new Democratic voters are also outnumbering new Republican voters. In the nation as a whole, it is as much as 2 thirds of new voters are Democrats.

(link to my source for much of the numbers)

What this means is that the Democrats could pull out a surprise on election day. When you currently look at the Electoral map, most of the close states have had a surge in new voters. If enough of these new voters vote Democrat, then the polls will be underestimating their impact, and some of these swing states could go to Kerry. Here is an interesting breakdown by state:

Florida: The big one. This was of course where we had all the problems in 2000, and it will be watched extremely carefully this year. Florida is even more volatile than you would think. Polls currently say that it is neck a neck in Florida, with a slight advantage to Bush. However Florida has had 600,000 new voters register since January, and that could make a huge difference. That along with the hurricanes that have battered the state make it extremely unpredictable.

Washington: Washington is currently polling with Kerry ahead, but not by a huge margin. However in Washington you have seen 330,000 new voters out of a total of 3.4 million. These new voters are more likely to be Democrats, so I would think Washington is more solid Kerry than the polls would indicate.

Oregon: This state was very close in 2000. Bush only lost the state by 6,700 votes. New registrations have been record breaking in Oregon however, and in Oregon, new Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1.

Nevada: Most pollsters have Nevada in the Bush camp, just slightly. Registered Republicans have traditionally outnumbered registered Democrats, but this has changed with a swell of new enrollments this year. Now there are 4000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Nevada.

Tennessee: Gore lost Tennessee by 80,000 votes in 2000, and Bush is polling slightly ahead in Tennessee as well. However there have been 329,000 new registered voters in Tennessee, and if two thirds of them vote Democrat, that will be enough to push it into the Kerry camp.

Ohio: Ohio is another close state, that most polls show will go to Bush by around a 3% margin. However they have also had a major surge in new registrations. There have been 608,000 new voters registered, enough to make the difference.

North Carolina: This is John Edwards home state, but it is not polling well for the Democrats. Kerry is down 7%, however this is again amongst likely voters. North Carolina has also seen a surge in new voters, and they have registered 563,000 new voters.

What this all means is that the race is far less predictable than you would think. It is important whenever you look at polls to understand the methodology behind them. I know that after the Vice Presidential Debate, there were two polls, one that showed that Cheney won, and one that showed that Edwards won. That would be confusing if you didn't understand the reality behind the numbers. The poll that showed Cheney won, had interviewed likely voters who had watched the debate. That poll found that more Republicans watched the debate, so they weighted the numbers more heavily to Republicans. Of course this makes it easier to see why Cheney won in their poll. The one where Edwards won was a poll of undecided voters. So the pool of people they were interviewing was very different.

In the same way we need to be careful when looking at our national and state by state polls. There are record numbers of newly registered voters, and they are Democrats more than Republicans. They could make the polls wrong by as much as 2 or 3 percentage points, and could make a huge difference in the election. I think considering the latest polls that show Kerry leading by 3% in the popular vote, as well as the fact that many of these close states could be more likely to vote Democrat when you include the new voters, I am feeling a lot more confident for Kerry. One more debate to go, if Kerry can continue to do a good job there, things could be great!

2004-10-09T01:59:00.000-07:00

Presidential Debate #2

Well the second debate is behind us, and personally I was very pleased with Kerry's performance. I thought he commanded the room, he was relaxed and personable, he was obviously in command of the issues. He did a great job.

Bush did do better than the first debate, but honestly, he still didn't do as well as Kerry. I thought he came off as extra defensive, almost panicky at times, although he seemed to get better as time went on.

So how did they do specifically? Kerry nailed most of his questions. I think the only one that he had to struggle on, and that he appeared to temporarily lapse back into his old self, was the answer on Abortion. He made sense, but only if you really listened. However I thought his rejoinder after Bush's response was excellent. Bush stated that Kerry was obviously pro-partial birth abortion and anti-parental consent laws because he voted against them. However Kerry clearly stated that he felt they needed to include exceptions in the case of the life of the mother, and that there are times when judicial review rather than parental review is appropriate. What I wrote there doesn't seem like a great answer, but it was good in the debate.

As for Bush, it was more of the same. One of the commentators I saw stated that they thought Bush was preaching to his base, and maybe that is why I didn't think he did as well as many are saying. One of my favorite moments was when Kerry suggested that under Bush's criteria, he himself was a small business owner because he received $87 in payment from a timber company he partly owns. Bush responded incredulously, with a pretty useless joke about how it was news to him. However the joke is on him, since it appears that Kerry's statement is true.

I think Bush's worst answer was the last one. He was asked to name 3 specific mistakes he had made during his tenure, and he couldn't name one. He vaguely mentioned some possible tactical mistakes in Iraq, but said that overall the war in Iraq was worth it. Kerry could have easily come back, accused him of not answering the question, and named three mistakes for him. So on this question neither did very well, but I think it will reflect worse on Bush.

This is one of the largest problems with the Bush Administration, they refuse to admit any mistakes. And as Kerry says, if you can't even admit there is a problem, how are you going to fix it.

All in all I think Kerry won, but it is obviously still a very close race.

2004-10-07T10:47:00.000-07:00

Final Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq Report

I have studied the full final report presented yesterday to Congress by the U.S. Weapons Inspection team in Iraq. (available here if you are interested). There are a few things that are abundantly clear from the report:

- Saddam had abandoned his programs, however he did hope to be able to restart the programs some time in the future. It is clear that he hoped to end the sanctions, and that once that occurred he felt he would be able to restart the programs.

However there were no plans drawn up, no groups researching feasibility, no ongoing programs to maintain technology. These were just Saddam's hopes and dreams.

- What is abundantly clear though, is that the sanctions were working. Saddam destroyed his Chemical stockpiles and dismantled his chemical infrastructure way back in 1991 at the conclusion of the gulf war. He also dismantled his nuclear program when it was clear the U.N. sanctions would not be lifted if he didn't. He did try and maintain a biological program for a few years after that, but abandoned that also under the sanctions and the continued U.N. inspections. So after 1991 he no longer had a chemical or nuclear program, and he created no more WMD. After around 1994 he no longer had a Biological program.

These changes were a direct result of the U.N. inspections, and his infrastructure and programs suffered significantly under the sanctions. The U.N. inspections and sanctions were successfully keeping him from rebuilding his weapons.

- He was complying. This is the biggest thing. Bush continues to claim that one of the reasons we had to invade was that he was not complying with U.N. resolutions. Actually the report shows that in the most part he was, and by 1994 he had already destroyed his stockpiles and dismantled his programs. So he was in compliance, the problem was we didn't believe him.

Anyway, read it for yourself, it is a stunning report. Just to give you a bit of perspective, remember, there were no WMD's in Iraq. There were no WMD programs. Saddam had dismantled his WMD stocks. In contrast, here is what the Bush Administration said in their own words over the last 3 years.

"Saddam will disarm, or we will disarm him!" George Bush

"There's strong evidence and no question about the fact there are weapons of mass destruction," Powell said, "We will find weapons of mass destruction."

"We have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country." Tommy Franks

"Weapons of mass destruction are what this war was about -- and it is about," Ari Fleischer.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction Dick Cheney

President Bush, in his State of the Union address, claimed that Iraq had the chemicals sufficient to produce:

"25,000 liters of anthrax"

"38,000 liters of botulinum toxin"

"500 tons of sarin, mustard [gas] and

"VX nerve agent"

He also claimed they had:

"An advanced nuclear weapons development program"

Rumsfeld Mar 30 ABC interview: "the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

"WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE"

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16

Remarks by the President Bush to the Nation on 17 March 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

2004-10-06T16:01:00.000-07:00

The Cheney Road of Lies

Ok, I wanted to go through the Cheney debate transcript, and point out all the lies. Unfortunately I only got half way through the debate and gave up. It was too big a job!! Nearly every answer to every question, Cheney was lying. Anyway, read on if you dare, it is a long road to enlightenment :)

“Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with al Qaeda. Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director‘s testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship.”

Yes Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. These were Palestinians killing Israeli’s, this was not anti-American terrorism. Saddam did not have an established relationship with Al Qaeda. The 9/11 commission found that, as well as the CIA in their most recent report. George Tenent in his testimony did not say they had a ten year relationship, he said there had been contacts over a ten year period. Also, those contacts (according to the CIA and 9/11 commission) never led to any collaborative relationship.

“The effort that we‘ve mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. “

This is laughable when you consider the two reports that came out in the last two days. The first was the final report of the U.S. Weapons Inspection team in Iraq, that concluded after a year of searching that there were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded, Iraq had not built any WMD since 1991, and their infrastructure for building WMD had been deteriorating since 1998. The other report was one commissioned by Cheney himself from the CIA, which recently AGAIN concluded that there was no evidence of any relationship between Saddam Hussein, Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda. So Iraq had to be invaded because it was the most likely place non-existent WMD might get into the hands on terrorists who had no relationship with Saddam. Ludicrous.

“The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government is no longer in power.”

Saddam was not a threat in any way to the U.S. before the war in Iraq, this has been proven conclusively and exhaustively. Without him in power, the U.S. is likely responsible for civil war in Iraq, thousands of new Al Qaeda recruits, and inflaming moderate Muslim opinion. We are not safer today, on the contrary, the world is a much more dangerous place today than it was when we invaded Iraq.

“They (Iraq) will have free elections next January for the first time in history.”

Virtually no-one believes this will happen, or if it does, they don’t believe they will be fair. Even Rummsfeld says he thinks that we can go ahead with the elections even if large parts of the country cannot participate. The U.N. is supposed to be organizing the elections, but they have only got 35 people there, they are being pressured by groups to pull out even those workers because of the danger that is posed to them, and Kofi Anan says that elections in January will be impossible.

“The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there‘s a connection between Iraq and 9/11”

This is also laughable. Cheney has been one of the main purveyors of the idea that there was a connection. At least three times on “Meet the Press” alone he has drawn this connection. Twice he did it by insisting that Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 plotters met with Iraqi intelligence officers right before the attacks. This has been disproved conclusively by intelligence agencies that place Atta in another country at the time. He also said on “Meet the Press” that Iraq was part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11” He has worked hard to draw that connection in people’s minds.

“Then, in the mid-‘80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense programs.”

Kerry has voted against weapons systems. He has also voted for weapons systems. There were two defense programs he specifically ran against in the 80’s that had the highest profile, and that was the B-2 bomber, and Reagan’s Star Wars program. The B2 bomber was criticized by many because its initial rationale was a plane that could stealthily drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Many criticized the expense when we already had intercontinental ballistic missiles. As for Reagan’s star wars programs, they were a joke to begin with, were never really going to work, and were a colossal waste of money. Here is a good review of Kerry’s voting record on this issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2096127/

It is also extremely hypocritical for Cheney and the Bush Administration to talk about the weapons systems Kerry has supposedly voted to cut, since many of them were also voted against by Cheney himself, some even in bills Cheney sponsored.

“we‘ve never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one. “

The Bush Administration lost focus on Bin Laden almost immediately after 9/11 when they decided that the real battle would be with Iraq. They started moving resources and focus from Afghanistan even before the country had been fully captured. Also, the war in Iraq withdrew focus, money and manpower from the hunt for Al Qaeda. One of the main reasons why we now have Saddam in prison, and not Osama. If we had spent the resources on fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, rather than diverting them to Iraq, we truly might be safer today, and we might have caught Bin Laden.

“John Edwards, two and a half years ago, six months after we went into Afghanistan announced that it was chaotic, the situation was deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over.”

What Edwards actually said was that Afghanistan was "largely unstable," with much of the country "under the control of drug lords and war lords”. At the time that was true, and in fact it is even true today. Drug production is up dramatically in Afghanistan, and the Karzai government doesn’t control huge swathes of the country. Karzai, the likely winner of Saturday’s presidential election, cannot even leave his compound to campaign!! He has left twice, and the first time his helicopter was shot at with a missile. If that is not chaotic, then I don’t know what is.

“we‘re four days away from a democratic election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We‘ve got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women.”

This is actually strange. The number of estimated eligible voters in Afghanistan is 9.8 million, so we already have more registered voters than eligible voters. Also, only 42% of the registered voters are women. Considering that we are already over the 9.8 million eligible voters, and the fact that women make up 50% of Afghan society, it means we have a huge number of fraudulent registrations amongst men, in the very least.

Basically this means that registration fraud is a HUGE issue.

“We‘re standing up Afghan security forces so they can take on responsibility for their own security.”

When the interim President of the country cannot even go out and campaign because he is shot at, the security is not being “stood up”. The central Government’s security forces don’t even control much of the country outside the capital, Kabul. Most of that is run by warlords and drug lords, just as Edwards suggested.

“We have President Karzai, who is in power.”

Over the capital city, which he can’t even travel around.

“Young girls are going to school.”

A recent study I read found that this was the exception not the rule. In most of the country, girls still do not go to school, because of religious objections. They are eligible to go now, but their families do not send them.

“When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they‘ve taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.”

Edwards was talking about Coalition casualties, and in that case he is correct. However even if you want to include Iraqi police and soldiers, you cannot have any accurate idea as to the numbers, because the U.S. military doesn’t keep figures on Iraqi security deaths, and the Iraqi Government refuses to make these numbers public. So we have no way to verify Cheney’s numbers.

“With respect to the cost, it wasn‘t $200 billion. You probably weren‘t there to vote for that. But $120 billion is, in fact, what has been allocated to Iraq. The rest of it‘s for Afghanistan and the global war on terror”

He is in one way correct on this, but what Edwards is saying is that the cost so far for the war is $200 billion. We haven’t spent all that $200 billion yet, but Congress has set aside that much, and it is what is estimated to need to be spent over the next year. So the money is not available for other purposes, in my book, that means it has been spent and allocated.

“The allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion by one estimate.”

The allies have not agreed to this at all. There are discussions around this, but so far they are still discussions. The U.S. wanted them to forgive the debt, but the Europeans countered by asking the U.S. to forgive the debt of poor third world countries in return. Their point was that if Iraq (with its vast oil reserves) deserves to have its debt forgiven, then those poor countries deserve it also. The arrangement has not been agreed upon or finalized.

Also, Cheney is using this figure to make the point that the Allies have contributed 80 billion towards the costs of the war. This is ridiculous. The U.S. costs are not in any way defrayed by this debt forgiveness, it is the Iraqi’s who owe this, not us. If they forgive this debt it will not help us to pay for the war in any way.

“That, plus $14 billion they promised in terms of direct aid, puts the overall allied contribution financially at about $95 billion, not to the $120 billion we‘ve got, but, you know, better than 40 percent. So your facts are just wrong, Senator.”

The $14 billion they promised is wonderful. However they have only actually contributed $1 billion of that.

“You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops when they needed the equipment, the fuel, the spare parts and the ammunition and the body armor.”

Kerry and Edwards did vote against one version of the bill that would have provided the money for these things. They voted against it because it provided no way to pay for the appropriations. Kerry and Edwards supported and voted for a competing version of the bill, that repealed a portion of the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans to pay for the Bill. Many Republicans voted against that version.

So basically they are being accused of voting against the troops, when what they were doing was voting for financial responsibility AND the troops against financial ruin and the troops. It is nuanced, but it is not really that hard to understand. Think about it.

“it‘s hard to know where to start; there are so many inaccuracies there.

The fact of the matter is the troops wouldn‘t have what they have today if you guys had had your way.”

This was in response to Edwards saying that Cheney had sent the troops to Iraq without the needed body armor in the first place. Actually, if Edwards and Kerry had got their way, they would have had the body armor and ammunition. The only difference is that the deficit would be smaller, and the wealthy would have less tax “relief”.

“You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in ‘91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we‘ve got 30 today. “

There is no comparison between the coalitions. All of Western Europe was involved in the first coalition, and they brought real military and financial support. We also had numerous Middle Eastern countries involved. This time round there are no middle eastern countries of note, and the coalition includes countries like Tonga. Even the one country that Bush kept talking about, Poland, has a very small contingent in Iraq, and is already planning on pulling them out.

“A CIA spokesman was quoted in that story (recent report on terrorism/Iraq link) as saying they had not yet reached the bottom line and there is still debate over this question of the relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein.”

The report is clear that there is no evidence of the relationship that Cheney wants you to believe exists.

“We know he (Zarqawi) was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kermal (ph), where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use.”

Zarqawi was in Iraq. He was holed up in a camp in Kurdish territory. Under the U.S. no fly zone. Where we had told Saddam he could not send troops or we would destroy them. Saddam had no control over this area, and the idea that Saddam was harboring him is ridiculous. In fact, since our allies, the Kurds controlled this region, and it was within our no fly zone, the real question that should be asked is why did we not ask them to shut it down?? The only reason I can think of is because we wanted the camp to remain so we could use it as evidence against Saddam. Nothing else makes sense, and that makes us even more responsible for him being there than Saddam.

“We dealt with Iran differently than we have Iraq partly because Iran has not yet, as Iraq did, violated 12 years of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council. “

These are the twelve years of resolutions that called for Iraq to disarm its WMD programs, and get rid of its stockpiles. Which according to the U.S.’s own recent report by the Weapons Inspectors, they did. So they actually had lived up to the resolutions.

“And if they (Iran) aren‘t (living up to the nuclear requirements), my guess is then the board of governors will recommend sending the whole matter to the U.N. Security Council for the application of the international sanctions, which I think would be exactly the right way to go.”

Those sanctions which the Bush Administration claimed over and over would not work on Saddam. Why do they think that they will now work on Iran?

“One of the great by-products, for example, of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is that five days after we captured Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya came forward and announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials to the United States, which he has done. “

This had little if anything to do with the U.S.’s capture of Saddam. The Europeans had been negotiating and working with Gadhaffi on this issue, and they had promised him certain concessions if he complied. The Bush Administration wants you to believe that out of the blue Gadhaffi changed his mind when he heard Saddam was captured. It is simply not true.

“We‘ve made major progress in dealing here with a major issue with respect to nuclear proliferation. And we‘ll continue to press very hard on the North Koreans and the Iranians as well.”

Iran and North Korea have both improved their nuclear capabilities dramatically under the Bush Administration. They have done little if anything, so there is no “continuing to press hard”. In Iran they have abdicated the responsibility to the Europeans, and in North Korea they are abdicating the responsibilities to the Chinese. We have done very little.

‘Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they‘re trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false. “

The charges are false?? Why then were they fined for their illegal actions? This is not something that is questionable, it is something that is established fact. The only piece of Edward’s comments that is still under investigation is the overcharging of the U.S. taxpayer by Halliburton in Iraq. That is currently under investigation, however as Edwards said, Halliburton is not even suffering the normal hold up of money until the investigation is complete, which is a normal requirement. As for bribing foreign officials and the other crimes Edwards mentions, they have all been established and proven in court.

“And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that‘s not very distinguished. You‘ve missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You‘ve missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.”

Edwards has missed quite a few votes over the last year and a half, but that is because he has been running for President and Vice President. Is he expected to not campaign but stay for every vote in the Senate? Most of these votes will not change based on his vote anyway, and those that are very close, he will generally attend and vote. As for the actual record, here are the actual numbers:

1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record

So yes he has been absent a lot recently, but as you can see, before he started running for President, he had a great record.

“Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I‘m up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they‘re in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.”

Cheney is suggesting that he should have met Edwards in the Senate, however Cheney rarely if ever meets with the whole Senate, he almost exclusively meets with only the Republicans. As for the statement that this is the first time they met, this has been debunked repeatedly in the media today. They met numerous times, and there is video footage of them sitting next to each other at one particular occasion.

“We‘ve added 1.7 million jobs to the economy.”

In the last year. We are still down about a million jobs since Bush took office. He is well on track to being the first President in 70 years to have less jobs in America when he leaves office than when he started. This is a huge indictment of the President’s policies.

“the Kerry record on taxes is one basically of voting for a large number of tax increases -- 98 times in the United States Senate. “

This is incorrect as well. Many of these were bundled in other bills, they are counting multiple tax increases in the same bills, and they are even counting when Kerry voted for modified versions of bills that didn’t cut taxes as much as the Republicans would like. It is simply false.

I am about half way through the debate, and I am tired and done with this. Cheney is so willing to simply mislead the American people, it is almost criminal. This is such a perfect example of the problems we face today in America. We no longer can expect honesty from our President and his Administration, and this is destroying our country.

There will be some who will claim that Edwards also stretched the truth on some points, and I concede that maybe he did in a few places. Mr. Cheney has lied in every single one of his answers however, and this is simply beyond the pale. We need new leadership asap.

2004-10-06T09:41:00.000-07:00

Iraq... It is falling down around their heads

I am sure most of you were expecting me to comment on the Vice Presidential Debate. I do want to do a more extensive post on that, but it will take a little more research, so will have to wait. Let me say right now though, I think it was a good debate, substantial and very interesting. I think it was very close, and I might even give Cheney the edge, but I think Edwards held his own against a much more experienced opponent. That said however, about 50% of what Cheney said was a lie, which kind of makes it hard to say he won the debate. That will be the focus of the next post however.

Iraq is the topic I want to talk about now though. There were four very interesting things that happened over the last 2 days, all of which are extremely important.

- First, Cheney had commissioned a report three or four months ago to look into (again) the possible connections between Iraq and Al-Qaida. Guess what they found. (Link to Seattle Times) That there was no substantial connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida. Is anyone surprised at this point? One of the main points the Bush Administration has hung their hat on, is that Zarqawi (one of the worst terrorists we are fighting in Iraq right now) was in Iraq before the invasion, and that he was colluding with Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida at the same time. The report shows no evidence of this. Also the report shows that while Zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion, he was in a part of Iraq that was under the no fly zone, in Kurdish (our allies) territory, and not under Saddam's control.

Cheney was asked about the report last night, and he pretty much brushed it off. Once again he seems to want to ignore reality, no matter how often the reports that he commissions and asks for show conclusions that contradict his positions.

- Second, and this is talked about in the above article as well, Rummsfeld has now admitted that there is no connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Finally. Here is what he said:

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

This is a major admission by Rummsfeld. Now I have to admit, the next day he backed off the statement and said he was misquoted. Sorry to see he is such a flip flopper. The statement is significant though, as this is the guy who has said in the past that he had bulletproof evidence of the connection.

- Third, Paul Bremer, the former Coalition Authority head in Iraq, was speaking in a meeting yesterday and told the audience that the problems we are currently experiencing in Iraq come down to two mistakes made by the Administration earlier in the war in Iraq. The first was that we never had enough troops on the ground, the second was that we didn't do enough to stop the looting. These two things led to an expectation of lawlessness, and if we had sent in more troops originally, then we would have been seeing less of the current issues.

This is a HUGE admission by a Bush ally. You have to remember that the number of troops we were sending in to Iraq was a major element of contention before the war. General Shinseki, when he was testifying before congress before the war, claimed that we would need hundreds of thousands of troops. Afterwards, he was roundly criticized by the Administration, especially Rummsfeld, who said that the numbers were ridiculous. Well of course, now we now that Shinseki was right. Whenever the Bush Administration is asked about the number of troops in Iraq, they continually say that if the commanders on the ground need more troops, they will get more troops. Too bad that didn't apply to the commanders before the war. Too bad they also ignored Bremer when he asked for more troops.

- Fourth. ANOTHER report came out today, and this one is the nail in the coffin of the Administration's rationale for war. After a year of searching, the Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector in Iraq has released his final report (link here to MSNBC). The findings were not surprising, but damning to the Administration:

"Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

Even more damning, they found that his weapons programs were less advanced at the time of the invasion, than they had been in 1998 when the last major round of inspections occurred! So rather than a "gathering threat", he was a diminishing threat. They found that he had created no new weapons after 1991. It is apparent that the inspections and sanctions were working. So, once again, a major reason for us going to war is no longer valid.

How will these issues effect the Bush Administration? Probably very little. It seems that there is a major disconnect between reality and the fantasy world they live in, and no matter what evidence is presented to them, they insist that their fantasy world is right. What really amazes me though is that half of the American people seem to find this acceptable. Just amazing.

2004-10-04T15:24:00.000-07:00

Department of Homeland Security. Protecting us from ...... Piracy????

Ok, considering the laser like focus on terrorism and security that the Bush Administration wants us to maintain, this just seems really strange. It seems that the Justice Department, Commerce Department and Department of Homeland Security are going to take time out of their busy days convicting, hunting down and defeating terrorists, so that they can take on the evil of piracy. You know, all those guys selling pirate DVD's on the streets of Beijing, or the guys selling knockoff Levi's jeans in Hong Kong. It seems that this issue is such a huge issue (apparently 7% of commerce worldwide is in pirated goods) that it now has to take time from the hard work protecting our shores from biological and chemical attack.

Insane you say? Well of course not. You have to remember that the Bush Administration is the most pro-business government in generations. If something is detracting from the profits of international mega corporations, then we have to do something about it!!! According to Republicans, it is not the business of Government to provide Health Care for its citizens. It is not the Government's place to provide retirement or to care for the needy. These are the guys who say that Government should be smaller, less involved, and stay out of private lives. These are the guys that believe that Government intervention in commerce is a bad thing.

However when it comes to protecting Mega-Company's profits, well, we have to pull out all the stops and do all we can to stop this pernicious practice.

Personally, I think the Government should not be involved in this at all. Part of the Government's duty is to protect the week from the strong. If our Government does not have the resources to assist the neediest in our society, then we do not have the resources to assist the largest corporations in the world to increase their profits. This is a gross waste of our energies, and a gross waste of the public trust.

This would be serious enough if it was just the Commerce Department. But to have the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice involved, when we are under threat of attack by terrorists and have a short supply of resources as it is, is abhorrent. We need this Administration out asap.

Here is the link

2004-10-04T13:47:00.000-07:00

Election Progress

We are now less than a month away from the election, and the good news is that Kerry is back in the game. The first debate went extremely well for him. The latest poll (CNN/Gallup) has more than twice as many people saying that Kerry won than saying that Bush won. Even better, the polls are showing Kerry is either back to a dead heat with Bush, or slightly ahead (in the Newsweek poll).

I hate to admit it, but I was a little worried a few weeks ago. The momentum was all Bush's, and I was concerned that the American people had drunk the coolaid. However the first debate reignited the chances of Kerry. Now the polls are showing that we again have a chance.

The next debate is the vice presidential debate, tomorrow night. This should be extremely interesting. This debate is generally nothing more than a sideshow, however it has new found importance this year. After Bush's dismal performance in the first debate, the Republicans are really hoping that Cheney will stem the tide, and stop the Kerry momentum. How will it go? Honestly I have no idea. Cheney and Edwards are so incredibly different, in style, presentation, experience, pretty much every factor, it should end up being an entertaining debate. Personally I have faith that Edwards will at least hold his own with the more experienced Cheney. Edwards is a trial lawyer after all, he is used to speaking under pressure and connecting with an audience. What I hope happens is that Cheney will come across as Mr Doom and Gloom, and Edwards will be the shining light of optimism. Who knows though, we will see.

We also have the two final Presidential debates coming up, and I am very excited for them. It will be interesting to see how the President adjusts. After the first debate in 2000, Gore made the most dramatic adjustment imaginable, going from combative and severe to overly nice and accommodating. It will be interesting to see if Bush makes any kind of adjustment. The next two debates will be mostly on domestic issues which he will not do as well in, so the way they decide to handle them could be very interesting.

Anyway, here is to the latest polls!! :) Looking much better.

2004-10-01T09:43:00.000-07:00

The debate

Well that was much better than I expected. From all the pre-debate discussion, it appeared that there would not be an opportunity for any meaningful rebuttals of the opponent's positions. I thought that the format actually worked fairly well, and both parties were able to explain their positions, and then defend themselves against attacks.

Kerry won, hands down. Kerry was presidential, Bush was hunched over his podium, looking lost half the time. Bush did get animated every now and then, and that was good for him, but too often he looked bored or distracted. Bush also seemed to struggle to fill the allotted time. It was often very obvious when he had come to the end of his prepared statements, and then he would start to struggle, change tack, even get right off track for the rest of the time period. He genuinely didn't look like he wanted to be there.

Kerry was good. He was succinct and direct. I was worried about his tendency to be less than clear (which is a real problem) but he did a fine job of explaining his positions and the distinctions between him and Bush.

Also, he FINALLY started saying some of the things that he should have been saying clearly for a long time. It was a "mistake of judgment to go (to Iraq) and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden." .... "This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America"

One of the best comeback of the night, was this exchange:

The President was asked if the experience in Iraq had made him less likely to be willing to use force in the future. Here is Bush's response:

"I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us. "

Here was Kerry's response:

"Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, The enemy attacked us. Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us."

This was the pattern in the debate. Bush was very much on the defensive the entire time. Rightly so, he has a lot of mistakes to defend. I think Bush needed to do two things, defend his foreign policy, and show why Kerry would not be the man to do the job. He tried the second, by consistently referring to his opponent as inconsistent, however he really failed to do the first.

I think the main argument Bush tried to use was that in order to win the war on terror, you have to be consistent at all times, or it sends the wrong message to our troops, allies and enemies. I think Kerry did a good job of responding to this, by saying you can also be certain with the wrong positions, and that obviously Bush was in that situation.

What about factual accuracy?

Well both played a little loose with the truth a few times, Bush far worse than Kerry though. Kerry said at one time that Afghanistan was where Osama Bin Laden was hiding out, however most believe he is in Pakistan. Damning evidence? Well not really, there is a chance he is in Afghanistan, but there is virtually zero chance he is in Iraq.

Kerry also said that we had spent 200 Billion dollars on Iraq. Actually we have only spent about 120 billion, but Congress has approved 200 Billion for the war.

As for Bush? Bush claimed that we have trained 100,000 Iraqi troops. Well we have already hashed out that lie. He also claimed that the A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice. This was a network that was led by this guy, A.Q. Khan which was a conduit for illegal nuclear shipments. Well they did bust up the group, but the leader, A.Q. Khan has subsequently been pardoned by our ally, Musharraf of Pakistan. So I wouldn't exactly call him "brought to justice".

Bush also claimed that his Administration worked with Congress to create the Department of Homeland Security. He kind of did, but he opposed the creation of the department for a long time, even threatened to veto it, and finally acquiesced. I don't think he can claim credit for that.

Kerry at one point claimed that Bush has reduced funding for nuclear non-proliferation activities, and that this was a dangerous thing to do. Bush shot back that he has actually increased the funding by 35%. Well the numbers don't back him up. According to the Center for Non Proliferation's review of Budget figures, The Defense Department had its budget for non-proliferation cut by 9.2% over the last 2 years. The Departments of Energy and State did have modest increases, but only 1.1% and 4.1%. Not only that, but Kerry was specifically talking about the Strategic Defensive Arms Elimination initiative with Russia. That program has been cut from $70.5 million dollars in 2003, to $58.5 million dollars in 2005. That is a 12.2% reduction.

At one point, Kerry said that 3 countries does not make a strong coalition when we invaded Iraq. Bush called Kerry on it, saying he forgot Poland. Well actually Poland was not involved at the very beginning of the invasion. Poland did end up with some troops during the actual initial land war, around 200. So while Bush is probably reasonably right that Poland was involved, it was an extremely minor contingent.

Kerry had some very important statements that I hope the American people heard.

"Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. "

and

"President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, Here, let me show you the photos. And DeGaulle waved them off and said, No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me. How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? "

and

"today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this president's watch. "

and

"The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. That's what we have here. "

and

"I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. "

and

"Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he's been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide. The world is more dangerous. I'd have made a better choice. "

The bottom line is that Bush was on defense the entire debate. He used tired repetitive statements over and over again, which little substance. He was clearly outmatched.

Bush's advisors have to be worried. The polls immediately after the debate all found that the public thought that Kerry won. This was supposed to be the slam dunk debate for Bush. The foreign policy debate was supposed to be the one that he would excel at, that is why they pushed to have it first. Kerry however is coming off this debate as the clear victor, and the next two debates he will have the clear advantage. Bush has little to say on the domestic front. He will claim that jobs have been created, but that only works if you only count the last year, and Kerry will call him on it. He will claim that Kerry will raise your taxes, but Kerry will be clear that it will only be on the top two percent. The next debates will be very interesting.

2004-09-29T23:03:00.000-07:00

Why don't people see the truth???

My wife and I were talking tonight, and she asked a very important question. Why don't more American's see what is going on with the Bush Administration? Why are so many people willing to vote for a leader who has so obviously misled us so many times, and has led us to disaster?

I was thinking about this, and I think I have a possible answer. People have self perceptions. They have a self image, and it is very hard to dissuade someone of that self image. It has usually been built up over a long period of time, and it can be hard to chip away at.

In the same way that people have a self image about themselves, they also have an ingrained image of their country. Americans are taught from a young age that they live in the greatest country on earth. It is the most free, the most filled with opportunity, the most peaceful country. We are taught that we never go to war except as a last resort. We are taught that when we fight it is always for a good cause. We are taught that we are moral and honorable as a nation. We are taught to revere our leaders.

While this can sometimes be a good thing, it also sets in stone a certain self image of our nation that is hard to counteract. People don't want to believe that we could go to war for less than good reasons. People want to believe the President when he says that we are spreading freedom and democracy. Because it fits into their image of our country.

When you see evidence that counteracts that perception, it is very easy to shrug it off. A good example is a parent of an unruly child. Often this parent will have a hard time seeing the evidence of their child's problems, because they are blinded by their image of their perfect child. It can take an awful lot of evidence before they finally abandon their perception and image, and see their child for what they really are.

In the same way, most Americans are likely to give the President the benefit of the doubt, because he is telling them things that fit with their national self image. He is telling them that we are making Iraqi lives better, that we only fought there because we had to. He is telling them that we are spreading democracy and freedom. This fits perfectly with the image ingrained in them as a child, so they accept it willingly.

When they see evidence to the contrary, it is very easy for them to simply discount it. It is too painful to have your self image destroyed. If you have always believed America to be altruistic in all things, then you will have a hard time believing that we could perpetrate Abu Ghraib. If you believe that America only attacks as a last resort, you will easily discount evidence that shows that the Bush Administration were eager to invade. If you believe that we only improve the lives of others, you will discount evidence that shows that Iraqis are in a worse shape now than they were when we started. If you believe that we only fight noble wars, then you will resist all suggestions that this was not noble. Part of that is because you would then have to accept some of the responsibility for the actions. You would have to accept that American soldiers are dying every day for something less than noble. You would have to accept that thousands of Iraqis are dead, men, women and children at our hands.

That is simply too painful for the average American to take.

2004-09-28T13:42:00.000-07:00

Debate, or at least simultaneous press conferences.

I have been reading the latest information to come out about the formats for the debates, and I am really disappointed. I knew Bush would push for as controlled a debate situation as possible, however I didn't expect Kerry to acquiesce. According to this review of the debate parameters, there are a number of restrictions on this "debate" that pretty much render the whole thing useless.

The biggest shock for me is that they are not allowed to address each other at all. Not allowed to ask each other questions, or followups; not allowed to even respond directly to each other. I thought this was supposed to be a debate? They are not even allowed to rebut their opponent's responses. This is absolutely stupid. This basically means that both candidates will simply answer their questions using their prepared answers, and then we move on to the next question. We may as well simply have watched their campaign ads.

Bush generally does well in debates, he is usually straightforward, he usually give short concise answers, and he usually comes off as a likeable character. His biggest weakness is his grasp of reality. He will say things are peachy kean and rosy, even though things are not, and he will say it with conviction. Kerry's greatest hope would have been to actually ask Bush for some substantive answers, but he will not have the opportunity.

Kerry has to do well in these debates. But somehow the Bush Administration managed to get the exact debate format they would be comfortable with. Kerry accepted the regulations. Once again, what was Kerry thinking???

2004-09-27T13:35:00.000-07:00

Bush's continued pattern of lies

We are closing in on the first debate, and I think I can safely make one prediction already. Bush will freely spill half truths, exaggerate, obfuscate, and basically lie his way through the debate. Bush is fairly convincing when he does this, until you actually look at reality, and I think it may just be because he is told this stuff so often by his advisors that he actually believes it.

So my prediction for the debates? Kerry will do a passable job, he will attempt to hit Bush with reality, and Bush will simply sidestep the difficult issues by simply insisting that everyone else is wrong, and he must be the only one seeing the way things "really are"

An example? Well just earlier this week, while Bush was making friends with Allawi of Iraq, Bush told the American people that things are wonderful in Iraq, because we have now "fully trained 100,000 police in Iraq. Well someone actually checked, and it turns out that only 8,169 Iraqi police have actually finished their training. When the Whitehouse was called on this, they replied that the numbers are in fact correct, because the White House defines "Fully Trained" as someone who has started their training. I am not making this up!!!

So according to the Bush Administration, every first year intern is a fully trained surgeon. Every first year law student is a fully trained legal expert. Every college freshmen is fully trained already!! Think of the money we could save on education. Why waste all the rest of that time in college when these people could be out working!

Want another one? Bush also claimed that we will spend 9 billion on reconstruction in Iraq over the next 3 months. Well guess what? No one says he can do it, except for the Bush Administration. Democrats and Republicans both have claimed that there is no realistic way this goal can be met under the current circumstances. In fact in this whole year, only 1.2 billion has been spent on reconstruction. So Bush wants us to believe that in the last three months of the year we will spend 9 billion, under the increasing violence that has pretty much halted all such efforts?

But then again, Bush is telling us that things are improving on the ground in Iraq, that real progress is being made. Guess what, another obfuscation. This month looks like it will end as one of the worst months in terms of violence, U.S. deaths, Iraqi deaths etc since the beginning of the war. However Pollyanna Bush wants us all to ignore the reality, and join him in the power of positive thinking.

Want one more? Bush seems to want us to think that the elections scheduled for January will be free, fair and just. Nearly everyone else outside the Bush Administration is a little more skeptical. Even Colin Powell has expressed his doubts, along with Kofi Anan, and most of the rest of the world. Bush continues to insist everything is underway, even insisting that the U.N. preparations for the election are well under way. The truth? Of the 232 million in funds set aside for the election commission, only 7 million has even been received by them. The U.N. is refusing to send the number of Election officials that will be needed because of the deteriorating security situation. And even Rumsfeld is telling people that there is a good chance that some parts of the country may not even participate in the election.

Bush will use these kinds of half and un-truths over and over in the debates. Kerry will try to call him on it, and Bush will simply brush him aside as a pessimist, while telling the American people to trust him. The American people need to wake up, start thinking for themselves, and realizing that he no longer deserves their trust.

Links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6093447/
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=927142&tw=wn_wire_story
http://www.world-crisis.com/news/805_0_1_0_M/

2004-09-23T10:11:00.000-07:00

Hamdi - The name that should make you fear for your civil rights

With all the violence in Iraq, and obsession over forged documents, a news story slipped through the cracks yesterday, but one that has a huge impact on our lives.

Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen who had been held in solitary confinement for 3 years without access to legal assistance or having been charged with any crime, was finally released yesterday. Three years. In solitary confinement. Without any access to the courts, lawyers or family. He was not allowed to challenge his confinement. The Bush Administration had labelled him an enemy combatant, and claimed that he was a threat to the United States. Even though he was an American citizen, the Bush Administration felt he did not deserve the right of due process, because of the threat he held for America.

That was until the Supreme Court stepped in. The supreme court recently made two important rulings, the first was that the United States cannot hold citizens without access to courts, and the the other was that the prisoners in Guantanamo were allowed access to mainland U.S. courts and needed to be given tribunals.

So the supreme court says that the Bush Administration needs to give Hamdi a lawyer, and a trial. Guess what happens then?? The Bush Administration decides that he really isn't a threat any more, and releases him. WHATTTTTTTT!!!!!!

So he was such a threat that he had to be held in solitary confinement for three years, but when the Supreme Court calls their bluff they let him go because he is no longer a threat? What exactly changed? This should frighten every American, as their civil liberties are under attack by the Bush Administration. He was an innocent man, (or at least they were unable to find enough evidence to try him in THREE YEARS) and they would have continued to keep him in custody if the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in. Remember the Bush Administration fought against giving him a trial, I can only assume it was because they knew they would have to let him go if he was given one.

This would be bad enough if it was an isolated case, but it isn't. After the Supreme Court also ruled that the "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay deserved legal access, the Bush Administration also released a number of those prisoners as "no longer a threat" as well. What this means to you an me is that in our names, innocent people have been kept in prison, for three years without anything more than a suspision of guilt. We need to hold the Bush Administration accountable. Next time it could be you, or someone you love.

2004-09-22T10:51:00.000-07:00

Iraq - What do we do next?

I have been traveling on business for a couple of days, so I apologize for the lack of updates. Since I last posted, Bush has appeared before the U.N., and Kerry has come out fighting on Iraq. However nothing has really changed.

The only real change is that the violence in Iraq is getting worse every day. The insurgency is growing, the violence is increasing, and the situation is getting closer to a boiling point. Bush of course continues to insist that "things are improving on the ground" with absolutely no evidence to back up his incredible claims while reality shows him for the liar that he is.

This all begs the question though, what exactly would Kerry do differently than Bush at this time? What can be done?

While the entire fiasco is Bush's fault, (he was the one who made the choice to invade based on hopes that a threat would be found even though intelligence was vague on the issue) Kerry will still need to deal with it when he is elected President. He will have to deal with the issues, bring peace and Democracy, and hopefully leave the Iraqis better off than they were when we arrived. We cannot simply cut and run, as that would now be a human rights disaster, and we would have blood on our hands. Even though we should never have invaded in the first place, we now "own" Iraq, and we have a responsibility to at least stabilize it.

What that means though, is that we will have to find some solutions to some incredibly intractable problems. When Kerry lays out his plan for Iraq, it is basically the following:

Bring in more allies to help shoulder the burden, both militarily and financially.
Increase training for Iraqi security forces so they can support the reconstruction and pacification of the country
Improve spending on reconstruction projects in Iraq
Bring Democracy to Iraq.

While these are all admirable aims, they are pretty much exactly the same thing that Bush is doing. So we are unable to really judge the plan based on its elements, since they are the same elements for both candidates. What we then have to judge it on is who is more likely to succeed in each element.

The first item on the list is the desire to bring in more allies. In this, Kerry clearly has an advantage. Bush has spent 4 years burning bridges, and destroying alliances. He goes to the U.N. begging for help, after having disparaged the U.N. repeatedly in the past as obsolete and unneeded. He has alienated our allies in Europe, and he has even made it politically difficult for leaders who have supported him, such as Blair in Great Britain and Howard in Australia. I believe that many countries are willing to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, but are waiting to do so until after the election. They are afraid to give Bush any kind of victory, because they want to see him out of office. Any help they give now could be construed as support for Bush's doctrine of preventative war, and they are not willing to go that far. Kerry would likely have an easier time extracting this support, as it could then be given without fear that the support would appear to be supporting the initial invasion.

The second item is the Iraqi security forces. This will be tough for either Kerry or Bush, and neither has a major advantage over the other. With recruits being killed every day, joining the security forces is not going to be a popular option for Iraqis.

The third item is reconstruction spending. While neither Kerry nor Bush has an inherent advantage on this issue, Bush has a history of failing that has to be considered. Bush has so far spent less than ten percent of the reconstruction money that congress approved for Iraq. Even Republican Congressmen are calling this reprehensible and indefensible. This money has languished for months, during which time it could have been used to make a real difference in Iraqi's lives, thus reducing the support for the insurgency. However Bush has failed dismally in spending this money, whether because of incompetence, lack of focus, lack of organization, I don't know. What I do know is that Kerry couldn't do worse than Bush on this issue if he tried. We have the money, we need to be spending it.

The final option is Democracy. As with the issue above, neither candidate has an inherent advantage on this issue, but Bush has also done a dismal job with this. Bush is continually insisting that elections will occur in January, while ignoring the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq. I think Bush is so convinced that God is directing his every move, that he feels he doesn't have to do anything substantial in Iraq, because God will make everything Ok. Elections are not going to happen in January, unless the violence is contained pretty much immediately. The Bush administration has even talked about holding the election but simply excluding those regions in the grip of the insurgency. All that this will accomplish is an elected Government with little legitimacy, that has no real Sunni involvement, and will lead to civil war. We need to recognize the reality of the situation, and start resolving some of the security and infrastructure needs of the people, before we even start thinking about the election.

The bottom line is that Kerry probably only has a marginally better chance of success in Iraq over Bush. That is a sad thing to admit, but the situation there is so bad now, that there is little chance of a fully happy outcome. Of course none of this is Kerry's fault, and that is the real bottom line. Bush is responsible for this disaster, and he should be held accountable. That is what we need to do in November.

2004-09-16T10:26:00.000-07:00

Iraq war was illegal, and it is getting much worse.

Back before the war in Iraq, there was some debate as to the legitimacy of the war. Once the war began, that debate died down, as most wanted to show support in a time of war. However the validity of the discussion over the legality of the war never diminished.

Under international law, there are only two valid (and legal) reasons to go to war. The first is self defense, and the second is U.N. Security Council approval. The U.S. tried to get U.N. Security Council backing, but unlike what the Republicans would like you to believe, we never got it. There were resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm his WMD's, and to come out with evidence to support the fact that he had no WMD, but there was no Security Council Resolution authorizing the war. The U.S. actually attempted to get the resolution, but when it became obvious that we weren't going to get it, we withdrew and started planning unilateral action.

That was why the whole idea of WMD and Al Qaida connections were so important, because they gave the only other legitimate rationale for war; that Iraq was an immediate threat to Americans. Well that has of course since be shown to be false, so will not work as a reason for war.

So where does that leave us? Well it leaves us in a position of tenuous legality as regards to international law, which we are of course signatories to. Today however, the stakes raised even higher, as U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan weighed in, stating that clearly under U.N. rules and international law, the invasion of Iraq was illegal. This is an amazing statement from him, but it is fully in line with the reality of the situation. You can argue the merits of the invasion, but it is much harder to argue the legality without severely distorting the facts.

According to Kofi Annan:

If the United States and others were to go outside the Security Council and take unilateral action they would not be in conformity with the charter.
On Wednesday, after being asked three times whether the lack of council approval meant the war was illegal, Annan said: From our point of view and the [U.N.] charter point of view, it was illegal.

So where does this leave the U.S. and its allies (Australia and Great Britain)? Well of course they are strenuously disagreeing, and stating that they indeed had the legal right to invade, because Iraq was not responding to U.N. sanctions. Their argument falls apart however, when you remember that they were U.N. sanctions. The U.N. was responsible for determining the consequences of inaction on the part of Saddam, and the U.S. short circuited that process. An analogy would be a lynch mob. Those lynched may be guilty, and they may have been hanged in any case, but the lynch mob doesn't have the legal authority to do what it does, only the state does. In the same way only the U.N. Security Council had the authority, the U.S. was failing to gain its approval, and so decided to act unilaterally.

That was not the only stunner in Annan's statements yesterday however. He also stated (the pretty obvious) fact that elections are unlikely to be able to go ahead in January in Iraq. If the current instability continues, then the chances of the election being fair and effective are very slim. Now the U.S. could decide to go ahead with elections anyway, and there is some talk of us doing that, damn the torpedoes. However if the U.N. doesn't participate and lend its legitimacy to the process, it will not be effective. We have an amazing amount of work to do in the next couple of months if we want to see the election take place.

How likely is it that things will clear up? Well according to a brand new intelligence assessment, not very. The National Intelligence Council yesterday released a classified intelligence assessment of the situation in Iraq. The contents of the assessment were meant for the eyes of the President and his advisors, but unfortunately for them, they were also leaked to the press.

Bush has been telling us for months, in spite of the obvious evidence to the contrary, that things are getting better every day in Iraq. Well the intelligence assessment he was provided yesterday says exactly the opposite. Basically it states the obvious, that the insurgency is growing on the ground, and that the best outcome would be a tenuous security situation, and the worse would be all out civil war. It was not an optimistic document.

So here we are, thanks to George Bush. We are involved in an illegal war. (which by the way, makes George Bush a war criminal). We have a deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq, which by all indications is going to get worse, costing us more in money and lives. The hoped for elections in January are unlikely to proceed, or if they do, it will be without the legitimacy of U.N. participation.

And Bush has the temerity to tell us he has done all the right things and deserves reelection.

2004-09-14T09:52:00.000-07:00

The War..... But not that War

Last month, the Census Bureau released new figures that showed that poverty in America is increasing. An additional 1.3 million Americans (including 700,000 children) were added to those in poverty, making a grand total of 35.9 million Americans. What is the definition of poverty? For a family of four, it is $18,000 a year. That is very low. Not low enough for the Bush Administration, who want to lower the bar to improve the numbers (that is another story) but still very low.

This morning I read an article by Anna Quindlen of Newsweek, that reminded me of what we should be doing. She reminds us of the war on poverty that was launched by L.B.J. in 1964. As he said, "the richest nation on earth can afford to win it." While we spend so much time talking about the war in Iraq, or the war on terror, or even the war on drugs, we seem to have capitulated on the war on poverty.

One of the problems is that we haven't defined what it means to be poor in the U.S. today very well. Even Democrats I like haven't done the best job of it. Edwards is fond of speaking in his "Two Americas" speech about not having enough to eat, or enough clothing to keep you warm. This isn't really the problem with most of our poor today. Yes there are those without shelter, without clothing, and without good food. And yes it is a disaster and something we need to do something about immediately. However the majority of the poor do have enough to eat, most of the time, and do have clothes to wear, most of the time. What they are most poor in is time and security.

The majority of those considered in poverty have at least one member of the household in a job. The problem is that those jobs pay little, and include no health insurance. For these families, it takes just one financial disaster, (a sick kid, an unexpected expense) and they cannot make the rent, or they choose between food and medicine. They are poor in time, because to make ends meet, the wage earners are working two or three jobs at minimum wage, and have no time for their family or themselves. The impact this has on children is devastating. They are sicker, because they only go to the doctor for medical care when they have no other choice. They are in school districts where their children do not get the educational opportunities other children get. They struggle to make ends meet every month, and never have any savings or wiggle room in case of emergencies.

This is the face of the majority of poverty in America today. It might not fit the classic mold of a family living in a tin shack down by the river (although those families do exist) but it is still a tragedy in today's society, and in our wealthy nation.

The worst part is the children. 12 million children are in poverty today in America. These children are disadvantaged from the start. They are more likely to have poor nutrition, poor education, poor health care, lack of parental involvement, lack of recreational activities, lack of stability, lack of security. These children are getting a poor start in life, and their opportunities are less because of it. We live in a country where the conceit is that everyone can have the same opportunities if they work hard. This is a wonderful goal, but we have not achieved it yet. While it is not impossible for a poor child to reach great heights, the climb is going to be incredibly more difficult.

We have spent 200 billion dollars this past year on the war in Iraq. 200 Billion dollars on a war that was fought on false pretenses, and has likely made us less secure not more. If we had taken that 200 billion dollars and spent it instead on the children in poverty in America, it would have been $16,666 dollars for every child. In one year. We could have paid for all of their access to the best health care we have. We could have improved their schools dramatically. We could have provided quality after school programs. We could have increased the wages of their parents. We could have cleaned up their neighborhoods. We could have made a real difference in their lives.

When people say we don't have enough money to win the war on poverty, they are full of it. We have enough money, what we don't have enough of is will. If we can come up with 200 billion dollars for a war on another country, then we can come up with money for a war on poverty. The problem is that our leaders (and the voters who elect them) value the war more than those children in poverty. Shame on them, and shame on us.

2004-09-09T13:18:00.000-07:00

Lots to talk about today.

Some days it seems like I have to struggle to find something to talk about (although not very often :)), but some days I just feel like talking about everything. Well today, it is one of those days. I read the Seattle Times, and was just flooded with stuff I want to talk about.

- Yesterday, I talked about the new evidence about Bush's service in the national guard. Well today it has been picked up by a much larger number of media outlets. The really important news for today, is that more information is now available. According to this article in the Seattle Times, one of the new memos is from one of Bush's superiors, claiming that Bush directly refused a superior's order to take a physical, and also includes one of his superiors complaining about being ordered to "Sugar Coat" Bush's record. The chickens are coming home to roost.

- The Seattle Times is also reporting that a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, who had been in custody for three years has finally been released after it was determined by a military tribunal that he was not connected to terrorists. Hello!! It took three years to review this guy's case and release him? What you have to remember is that these reviews of status have only started because of the recent court decision in the U.S. that allowed the prisoners review under U.S. law. Before that the Bush Administration insisted that they not be allowed this kind of review. Well now they have started their reviews and have found that this guy is innocent. Wouldn't it have been nice if we had reviewed this three years ago? I know we have to protect our citizens from terrorists, but removing rights from others does not help. How many other guys have been in custody and are still waiting for their reviews? How many innocents have we locked up. Makes me sick.

- Also according to the Seattle Times, Bush has decided to delay his decision on whether or not to re-open roadless forest areas for road building and development, until after the November election. He has consistently supported the reopening of these roadless areas to development, and now he says he needs more time to decide? Well maybe he just doesn't want to give an easy obvious campaign ammunition to Kerry. This way he can say he has yet to decide, even though it is obvious this will be one of the first things he does after re-election. Very smart politically, but it still frustrates me, because most people will fall for it.

- Yesterday also saw the announcement of the Russian adoption of the Bush Doctrine. i.e. we will pre-emptively attack terrorists or those that harbor them where-ever they may be. If I was Georgia, or some of the other former Soviet states, I would be very nervous. The Russians probably aren't likely to mount a full invasion of another country, however they will likely use assassination as a tool, as they have been suspected already of a number of these actions.

However if Russia does decide to invade Georgia, what will we say? We will not be able to criticize them at all, since we did the same thing in Iraq. In fact there is probably more Georgian involvement with Al Qaida that there was Iraqi involvement. The Bush Doctrine sounds great to us when it is US that is making the decisions of who to attack and when. As soon as it is every country in the world, the weakness of the doctrine is manifest. Russia is just the first to take this route, just wait until Indonesia, China, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Turkey etc etc are all using pre-emptive attacks as part of the regular course of their "Wars on Terror".

- The final piece of new news is that Colin Powell today actually used the word Genocide in talking about the Sudanese killings in Darfur. For those of you who might not be fully informed of the issue (not surprising considering the small amount of coverage this has had), there is currently ongoing genocide in Sudan. Sudan is populated by an Arab Muslim population in the north, and a black Christian and Native Religious south. The Arab north has had control of the country, but has been fighting insurgency by the south for many years now. While the government troops have had their share of atrocities, the worst has come from Arab militias (supposedly not connected to the government) who have been actively slaughtering whole villages of black Sudanese. While this is known, and the world has condemned it, the Sudanese government has refused to let in outside troops to stop the genocide, claiming that they are protecting the people there. Well Powell just called them out on that today, basically accusing them of supporting the militias and protecting them so they can do their grisly job.

While the use of the word Genocide might not seem significant, in reality it is hugely significant. By claiming Genocide is occurring, and placing the blame on the Sudanese government, the Bush Administration is now pretty much obliged to do something. Most likely this will be further sanctions against the Sudanese government, but could possibly be more. The hypocritical side of the Bush Administration will likely win out though, and little will really be done. Remember how we invaded Iraq to protect its people from Saddam and his mass graves? (After WMD, Al Qaida connections, immediate threat to Americans etc etc didn't pan out). Well if Saddam was worth taking out because he had killed thousands of people years ago, then why are we not attacking Sudan to stop genocide that is actually happening now!! Could it be oil? Could it be that the victims are black Africans? Could it be that there is no strategic advantage? Maybe yes to all of the above.

2004-09-08T13:26:00.000-07:00

New evidence about Bush's National Guard service

Bush and his campaign have recently made a big deal out of Kerry's military duty, accusing him of exaggerating his wounds and service in order to gain political points. The fact that Bush has a very spotty record himself, doesn't seem to make them cautious. Maybe it should.

The Boston Globe recently reviewed all the documents that are available regarding Bush's National Guard service. Basically they show that Bush failed to fulfill his commitments, and should have been severely penalized, but wasn't.

"Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe
reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when
he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in
mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to
meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.
He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice."

Bush had a commitment to the country. In return for an estimated Million dollars worth of training, he was required to serve his country. He failed to do that.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed
a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to
another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to
do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . "
Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.
But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit.

Also

early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of
understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included
attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend
days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may
be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for
unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.
Yet Bush, a
fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972
and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.

So what should have been his punishment? What was he spared? He was supposed to be sent to Active duty in Vietnam. However I guess the Guard leadership in Texas and other areas didn't feel that it would be expedient to send such a connected young man to the front. So Bush scraped through, not receiving disciplinary action, or the required punishment. Instead he was given an honorable discharge, something that military reviewers have now said was probably not warranted.

Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, says:

"It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable"

Not bad for a guy who says he received no special treatment.

This coupled with the new allegations from Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, who was the guy who pulled the strings to get into the National Guard, as well as other documents coming to like, it definitely appears that this is something that needs to be fully examined, and the voters should expect an explanation from Bush. If he is willing to criticize Kerry's service, then he needs to expect examination and criticism in response. Kerry's service definitely appears to be just a touch stronger than Bush's. :)

2004-09-07T15:56:00.000-07:00

1000 Soldiers now killed in Iraq.

It is now official, the 1000th soldier was killed today in Iraq. I was going to make this a diatribe against the Bush Administration, but this is just too sad to make political hay out of.

To the soldiers, rest in peace. To their families, thanks for making the ultimate sacrifice. And to Bush, how dare you.

2004-09-03T08:52:00.000-07:00

Final Day of the Convention

Well it was the final day of the Republican Convention. After three days of mostly attacks on Kerry and terror mongering, we finally get to hear from Bush himself. After Schwartzenegger telling us all that to be good patriots, we need to be Republicans. After Giuliani telling us that we should thank God George Bush was in power after 9/11. After Zell Miller's rant and red faced rage and hatred of Kerry. After Laura Bush's impassioned plea for us to remember the good her husband has done, even if she had to tell half truths and exaggerations to do so. After the Bush twin's giggly high school performance. After Cheney's outright lies.

Here is the main event. Warm up was provided by Pataki, who did a serviceable job with a noted lack of charisma. He basically repeated a lot of what had already been said, i.e. we are all in danger, 9/11, Bush is decisive, 9/11, Kerry is a flip flopper, 9/11. One of his recurring themes was the phrase "and he did it". So he said things like "Bush wanted to improve education accountability, and he did it." The implication of course is that when he says something, he will do it. Kind of like when he said we would catch Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive. Or when he said he would fight the formation of the 9/11 commission, or the department of homeland security. Or when he said we would find WMD. Or when he said his tax cuts would help the middle class.

The most notable thing about Pataki's speech though was that he actually mention Bin Laden by name!!!! He was the only one I saw throughout the entire week. Enemy number one. The guy who actually attacked us. Actually mentioned. Amazing!

Finally however we get to the main event. Bush is introduced by Senator Thompson (You know, the guy from Law and Order and Hunt for Red October) and a nice biographical movie; a slick production. I am assuming it is supposed to highlight Bush's achievements, but all it actually shows is that Bush is good at organizing photo ops. I am not kidding. The entire 5 to 10 minute movie focuses on three events, 9/11, Bush's photo op with the firemen three days later on ground zero, and then Bush's photo op at the world series where he threw the first pitch. In four years, according to the Republican media guys, that is all he did that was notable.

Now we get to the speech. Actually Bush does a good job, for Bush. He is reasonably articulate, and even gets emotional at one time. I actually think he did a fine job. Too bad the content of his speech was so awful.

I believe every child can learn, and every school must teach -- so we passed the most important federal education reform in history. Because we acted, children are making sustained progress in reading and math, America's schools are getting better, and nothing will hold us back.

This has been a favorite of the Bush camp this convention. And it has mostly been a disaster. Bush has underfunded the act, while providing no additional funds to schools and no additional funds to teachers, and no additional training or tools to help them meet the goals. They are simply told to meet the new standards (which by the way increase every year until they reach the impossible standard of 100% of students passing) or the schools will shut down. Since every school will fail under the impossible 100% standard, we will finally get the republican dream of a fully privatized education system. As for results??? Well some schools have gotten better, some have not. But overall this act simply teaches our schools to focus solely on passing the tests. Not a good way to a well rounded education.

I believe we have a moral responsibility to honor America's seniors -- so I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare. Now seniors are getting immediate help buying medicine. Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage, and nothing will hold us back.

The prescription drug benefit has been a joke. The discount cards that seniors have to buy have already had their advantage erased by drug companies raising their prices. Without some kind of price controls, the drug companies are having a field day. As for the actual drug benefit Bush wants to implement in Medicare, it is confusing, strangely designed, and doesn't really make a big enough dent, in the face of rising health care costs.

I believe in the energy and innovative spirit of America's workers, entrepreneurs, farmers, and ranchers -- so we unleashed that energy with the largest tax relief in a generation. Because we acted, our economy is growing again, and creating jobs, and nothing will hold us back.

Too bad that only 1 out of the 4 groups of Americans he mentioned actually got any reasonable tax relief; the entrepreneurs, and only the wealthy ones at that. As for the economy growing? It is, but extremely anemically, and we are still down nearly a million jobs from when Bush took office, not to mention the fact that in the meantime millions more Americans have joined the workforce. Tax cuts do provide stimulus, and they have had some effect. The problem is the stimulus is generally short lived. Also the tax cuts went to the wrong people, the wealthiest do not spend their cuts, they save them or use them on luxuries if they do spend them. Finally, the deficit we have generated with the tax cuts will be a long term drag on our economy for years to come, not worth any short term short lived benefit of the tax cuts.

Another drag on our economy is the current tax code, which is a complicated mess -- filled with special interest loopholes, saddling our people with more than six billion hours of paperwork and headache every year. The American people deserve -- and our economic future demands -- a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.

This scares the hell out of me. Yes, our tax code is a complicated mess with loopholes for special interests. But the ones exploiting those loopholes are companies like Enron, that didn't pay taxes for 4 out of the last 5 years. You heard that right, NO TAXES. I paid more tax than Enron did. The loopholes and those who take advantage of them are the wealthiest Americans who can afford to invest in tax deferred ways, who can afford the best accountancy advice, who can afford to take advantage of every opportunity for them to save. So why is it such a bad deal that Bush wants to reform this system?

Well because when Bush is talking loopholes, he is not talking about Enron or the wealthy. He is talking about the poor. Bush's economic team have already been quoted saying that the poor don't pay their fair share of taxes, because they "use most of the services provided by the government" and they often pay no tax. Bush's economic team also has indicated they are interested in pursuing a national sales tax. This of course hurts the poor the most, as sales taxes like this are regressive. When Bush says he wants to reform the tax code, expect more of what we have already seen, a shift of the tax burden from the wealthiest Americans to the lower rungs of society.

To stand with workers in poor communities -- and those that have lost manufacturing, textile, and other jobs -- we will create American opportunity zones. In these areas, we'll provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business, and improve housing and job training to bring hope and work throughout all of America.

This is itself is not a bad idea, but with Bush's record, the emphasis will not be on how these zones can improve the lot of the poorest amongst us, it will be on how can Halliburton and other connected companies make more money by hiring cheap labor tax free. It is instructive to look at how these zones have worked in foreign countries. Places like India have these kinds of prosperity zones, and basically the attract businesses they give the businesses all kinds of incentives, like weakened labor laws, like weaker environmental regulations, like lower wages and lower taxes. It can work if protections are provided for the environment and workers, however that will not be Bush's priority.

We will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts, and provide direct help for low-income Americans to purchase them. These accounts give workers the security of insurance against major illness, the opportunity to save tax-free for routine health expenses, and the freedom of knowing you can take your account with you whenever you change jobs. And we will provide low-income Americans with better access to health care: In a new term, I will ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.

In other words we will provide Americans with tax free savings accounts to save and pay for their own medical care. Sounds good in theory, but it really only works for the wealthiest of us. One catastrophic illness, and an account is exhausted and a family bankrupt. It also tends to make families have to make tough choices between health care and other essentials. It also means that routine preventative care usually falls by the wayside, as families try to save for emergencies, but in the process, we end up with an inefficient health care system where we only end up treating people later in the disease, not earlier when more good can be done. Finally, with every American basically purchasing their own medical care, without any kind of group bargaining, medical care costs will continue to go through the roof.

As for the community or rural health centers? Well that is a great example of an empty campaign promise. What exactly is he proposing? Free health clinics? This is an easy thing to say, and then forget.

In this time of change, government must take the side of working families. In a new term, we will change outdated labor laws to offer comp-time and flex-time. Our laws should never stand in the way of a more family-friendly workplace.

Yeah, those pesky laws like overtime laws, and worker protections.

In an ownership society, more people will own their health plans, and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account -- a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away.

This is also very scary. Not only will we be paying our own health care costs, but we will be paying our own retirement costs as well. Young workers will be investing in the stock market instead of contributing to the Social Security trust fund, which is already short of money, which will of course hasten the demise of social security, another Republican hope and wish. As for these wonderful personal accounts, they will be at the mercy of the stock market. All you need is a crash or depression in the value of the market, and all of a sudden millions of retiring workers are on the streets. Or make a few bad decisions and investment choices and watch your retirement going down the drain.

We live in the wealthiest society on the planet. We can afford to take care of those who have served society throughout their lives.

Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

Kerry does not oppose Medicare reform, just the reform Bush wants. Kerry does oppose health savings accounts, for the same reasons I mentioned above. Kerry does not want to "Dilute" no child left behind, he wants to change it enough so that it is not predesigned to fail. He did not oppose doubling the child credit and removing the marriage penalty, in fact he supported these measures. He simply voted against the overall tax package that Bush was pushing that included these items. It is true he opposing lowering income taxes for ALL who pay them, he wants to repeal the tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. As for new spending? Yes he has proposed a lot, but Bush is proposing a very high amount as well, and at least Kerry is showing how he will pay for the increases, repealing the tax cuts for the wealthiest. (By the way, repealing tax cuts that went too far is not the same as increasing taxes, but that is another discussion)

Because religious charities provide a safety net of mercy and compassion, our government must never discriminate against them.

This will make it so that in order to get charity in America, you have to profess a religious belief and attend religious services. This can work, but only if churches are prohibited from expecting any kind of religious proselytizing or religious change in those seeking their help. That is not the case today.

The majority of the rest of the speech was the war on terror. Bush's claims here are nothing new, and while he did give an impassioned speech, which could likely sway some, it was not full of truth and realism.

One more absolute Bush lie:

I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, 87 billion dollars in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it." Then he said he was "proud" of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a "complicated" matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

Kerry did vote for and against the 87 billion dollars. That was because there were two opposing bills that would provide the 87 billion dollars. Most Republicans voted for the one that provided the 87 billion, but gave no way to pay for it, so it simply added to the deficit. Most Democrats voted for the alternative bill, that also provided the 87 billion, but that repealed a portion of the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans to pay for it. So in truth, pretty much every member of congress voted for and against the 87 billion. Kerry was not voting to deny body armor for the troops (which they should have had already by the way) he was voting to provide it in a fiscally conservative way. I wish Kerry had explained himself better, but it is not like Bush and his speechwriters (as well as all the other Repubs repeating this slander) don't understand the reality of Kerry's votes.

Finally I want to make a mention of the MSNBC coverage of the convention. I was appalled at the partisanship shown by the commentators after Bush's speech. Not only did they praise Bush for his speech, his speaking style etc, but they also belittled Kerry! They were basically parroting GOP talking points, saying that Bush is always decisive, and Kerry has not yet had a solid opinion about anything. At first I thought maybe this was Bush's communications staff speaking, but it was Chris Matthews and the MSNBC commentary team. It was absolutely blatantly partisan, and I am so incredibly frustrated with the state of journalism in America.

So that was the Republican convention. We finally had Bin Laden mentioned, but not by Bush, by Pataki. We finally heard some of the actual domestic issues and policies the GOP will be pushing the next four years, after three days of nothing but Kerry bashing, patriotism questioning, and terror mongering. We now see what Bush is running on. He wants us to remember the good feelings we had after 9/11 when we all rallied around him as our leader. He wants us to be scared of other attacks and accept that only he and his policies can protect us. And he wants us to believe that Kerry (the decorated war hero) is a wimp, is unpatriotic, is indecisive and would invite terrorists into our country to kill your children.

Fun huh!

2004-09-02T08:52:00.000-07:00

Day 3 of the Convention

Well we are now three days into the convention. Now granted, I have only watched the main speakers for each day, but I think I can honestly say that not once have we yet heard a policy prescription. Not once have we heard any detail about anything except for the war on terror. I am assuming Bush will address some policy issues, but so far this has been a pretty much content free convention.

Zell Miller was the keynote speaker today, and boy, that guy is about to have an aneurysm. He is obviously a very bitter, angry man. Maybe he wanted to be President by now? Anyway, the basic point of his speech was that (once again) we are in mortal peril, and the Democrats will not do anything to save us. His big zinger line of the night was: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide."

So according to Zell, if the North Koreans were lobbing missiles at us and massing troop ships off the coast, we would be on the phone to Paris looking for go ahead. But I have to give him props for sticking to message. It has been all terror all the time at the GOP convention, and he probably scared people more than most.

The highlight last night though was of course Dick Cheney. Dick gave an impassioned speech, full of optimism, full of excitement, full of life... actually I guess that wasn't his speech. His was the one where he misled the American people time after time after time.

President Bush reached across the aisle and brought both parties together to pass the most significant education reform in 40 years. With higher standards and new resources, America's schools are now on an upward path to excellence and not for just a few children, but for every child.

The no child left behind act was significant, and helpful if flawed. However the fact that Bush then underfunded the act every year since passing, is kind of important. The other important thing to remember, is that with the poor economy and the tax cuts, our schools have less resources than ever. My own kid's school has cut back on field trips, music and art education and many other things, all because of lack of funding. Cheney has a gall to say things are better in our schools.

President Bush delivered the greatest tax reduction in a generation, and the results are clear to see. Businesses are creating jobs. People are returning to work. Mortgage rates are low, and home ownership in this country is at an all-time high. The Bush tax cuts are working.

Businesses are creating jobs? Well yes they are, but at a lower rate than ever. Bush is going to leave office the only President since the Great Depression, to leave office with less jobs in America than when he started. Some people are returning to work, but more are losing it. As for Mortgage rates, they are low because Greenspan and the Federal Reserve have kept them low artificially for years, because of the need to jump start the poor economy. Having low interest rates in this case is nothing to brag about, it is something to be ashamed of. The Bush tax cuts have been a disaster.

Our nation has the best healthcare in the world, and President Bush is making it more affordable and accessible to all Americans. And there is more to do. Under this President's leadership, we will reform medical liability so the system serves patients and good doctors, not personal injury lawyers.

Umm yes, it is the best in the world, if you can afford it, which millions of new families can't now under the Bush Administration. Since he took office, millions more families are now without health insurance. As for affordable???? Is he kidding? Insurance premiums have been skyrocketting. Is this guy on drugs? The only thing they have done with any impact to health care was their prescription drug plan. This plan allowed seniors to buy discount cards that would give them a percent discount off of the drugs they buy. Only problem is that the drug companies have already erased the discounts by increasing the prices of the drugs. These guys are a health care disaster, but they want you to think they have made it affordable and accessible.

Anyway, that was the extent of his talk about domestic issues. Look at all the great things we have done, destroyed education, health care and the economy. Now lets get to the important stuff, you should be afraid, very afraid.

"We are under attack, we are safer today than we were on 9/11 but we will be attacked again, and Kerry will let Al Qaida kill your children. Kerry would rather give back massages to Saddam Hussein, would rather listen to terrorists than kill them. He is a weak pacifist, a girlie man in the words of Ahnuld. He would rather not kill every Muslim, even though that would make the world a safer place. "

I might be paraphrasing, but that was the gist of the rest of his speech.

What we all need to remember, and what the GOP is desperately trying to hide, is that invading Iraq has not made us safer, it has created terrorists, given them new bases, increased their appeal. We went there to protect us from an immediate threat, a man with WMD who was willing to give them to Al Qaida. None of which was true. What we also need to remember is that if we had used all of the resources we have wasted on Iraq in the pursuit of Al Qaida, then we would likely be safer today. If we had committed 130,000 men and women, 200 billion dollars, and our worldwide diplomatic efforts to actually combatting the real threat, we would be safer today. Maybe we would have even caught the real villain of 9/11, most of us seem to have forgotten Osama Bin Laden, but say it with me, Saddam did not attack us on 9/11.

The GOP has forgotten Osama Bin Laden. They moved the focus. They changed the agenda. They expanded the war on terror beyond the terrorists. We are in more peril because of it.

2004-09-01T16:08:00.000-07:00

Bush isn't Hitler. But it appears the Republicans would be fine if he was.

To a Republican, what is the most important aspect of a leader? If you have been watching the GOP convention, then you have your answer.

Arnold: Being a strong leader is "about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind those decisions."

Giuliani: "There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader."

Laura Bush: "He'll always tell you what he really thinks. You can count on him, especially in a crisis. His friends don't change - and neither do his values."

John McCain: "We need a leader with the experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them; a leader who will keep us moving forward even if it is easier to rest."

There is a reason they have emphasized this characteristic, and that reason is Kerry. They believe that this is what distinguishes Kerry from Bush. Bush will make the tough decisions quickly and decisively. Kerry on the other hand will (according to them) spend too much time overanalyzing a problem, and never get to the final decision. When Bush makes a decision, he will stick with it through thick and thin.

Now whether or not this is truly a characteristic of Bush (he changed his position on the 9/11 commission, or McCain/Feingold, etc etc) is this really something you want in a leader? A man who makes "gut" decisions after minimal consideration and then sticks with them forever because he is solid in his convictions? A man who never second guesses himself?

Now as I said in the title of this item, I am not saying Bush is Hitler. But under the guidelines for a good leader that have been parrotted over and over this week by Republicans, Hitler would have been a good leader. He was solid in his convictions, he wasn't swayed by what was popular, or by what the people wanted. He knew what he wanted and he stuck by it no matter how much he was reviled and despised. According to the Republican spin lately, he would have to be considered exactly what we want in a President. The same could be said for Stalin, or for Mao.

Of course, Republicans will say that they are different, because the decisions they were sticking by, and their principles that never changed, were wrong. Well that is my point exactly. Blindly following a leader who is valiantly standing by wrong decisions in the face of all public opposition and new found evidence is not loyalty, it is insane. Making mistakes and then continuing to follow the same path blindly because you already made up your mind once before is not a virtue. Sometimes what you need to do is step back and re-evaluate. Sometimes you need to carefully consider the consequences of your actions. Sometimes you need to understand the issue more that a quick briefing followed by a gut decision will let you. Sometimes you need to change your position based on new realities.

But if you are a Republican this week, you don't agree. All that matters is unswerving force of character, and unchanging principles. All that matters is the ability to stick by your decisions right or wrong. What an amazing principle to follow.

2004-09-01T11:24:00.000-07:00

Ahnuld, Jenna, Barbara, Laura and Ben Barnes

Who the hell is Ben Barnes? I will get to that in a moment.

For now, I want to talk about the second night of the GOP Convention. Lets get this out of the way right up front. Jenna and Barbara are obviously their father's daughters. They were awful. I couldn't believe they were graduated college students, they actually looked and sounded like high school girls. The contrast between them and the Kerry daughters is phenomenal. However we don't vote for first families (thank heavens) but they were just bad, bad, bad.

Arnold Schwarzenegger also spoke. He is THE Republican celebrity, and added some needed star power to their convention. He was animated, had a good origin story, and did a reasonable job making a speech. However his speech was really pretty much content free. His main points were that even if you don't like everything that the Republican's support, if you are a patriotic American, you should be Republican. He also tried to appeal to the immigrant communities, using himself as an example. Of course he is atypical, not typical of the overall immigrant experience, but that didn't stop him.

Laura Bush tried to put a compassionate face on her husband. Remember Compassionate Conservatism? As was mentioned on the Daily Show last night, it is something that comes around every 4 years, kind of like the Olympics. She tied to list her husbands accomplishments. She mentioned the No Child Left Behind Act. This is the same act that her husband has failed to fully fund every year since it was enacted. It is also the same act that is basically a republican ploy to close down public schools so that education can be turned over to the private sector. She also mentioned that home ownership is at record levels. She failed to mention that this is because interests rates have been at record lows, and that is because the economy has been atrocious. She also failed to mention that a lot of the reason more people own homes is because the mortgage industry has lessened its requirements to such an extent that Americans now pay the highest percentage of their income on housing costs than ever before.

She also mentioned the millions now free from dictatorship, and especially the girls in Afghanistan who are now able to go to school. What she failed to mention is that only about 5% of afghanistani children have been able to go to school. The majority live in tribal areas with no rights whatsoever. She also mentioned the Afghanistani runner who competed in long pants and a t-shirt, as someone who has newfound freedom to compete, and still honors the traditions of her homeland. She failed to mention that this girl has also been condemned in her homeland, because she is even appearing.

She mentioned the tax cuts that have helped families and small business owners expand and create new jobs. She failed to mention that the tax cuts went mostly to the very wealthy, and that there are now less jobs than when her husband took office.

So basically she did a nice job, but her speech was full of half truths and deception.

So now, who is Ben Barnes? He is a guy who will be getting lots of press attention soon (at least he should.) In about a week and a half he will be interviewed on 60 minutes. Right now many major news organizations are writing up stories about him. Who is he?

He was the former lieutenant Governor of Texas, and he was the man who gave special treatment to our own dear George W to get him into the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam. Not only is he admitting that he did this, but he is going public and apologizing, saying that it was wrong and he has felt guilty about it for years.

Now the important thing to remember is that the Bush Administration and the Kerry Campaign have so far made this election pretty much about Kerry's military service. Another important thing to remember is that Bush has adamantly denied for years that he received any special treatment in his entrance to the guard. Once again, Bush is about to be caught in his lie.

Expect the Republican Smear Campaign to start with full force against Barnes. Expect to soon find out that he is a homosexual pedarist communist, who eats babies and tortures kittens. Because this will be highly embarrassing for Bush, especially after so much of his effort has recently been spent repudiating Kerry's service. Let the games begin!

2004-08-31T09:18:00.000-07:00

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!

2004-08-30T11:12:00.000-07:00

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!

2004-08-26T08:50:00.000-07:00

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.

2004-08-24T11:10:00.000-07:00

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.

2004-08-11T08:53:00.000-07:00

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.

2004-08-10T10:26:00.000-07:00

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.

2004-08-05T10:53:00.000-07:00

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:

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.
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!"
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.