The Disenchanted Moderate

Highlights of '06

2007-01-11T16:53:00.000-05:00

He's got my vote for best news of 2006.

My Hero

2006-12-27T20:27:00.000-05:00

Oh, oh, oh, oh -
It must have been cold there in my shadow,
To never have sunlight on your face.
You were content to let me shine, thats your way.
You always walked a step behind.

So I was the one with all the glory,
While you were the one with all the strain.
A beautiful face without a name for so long.
A beautiful smile to hide the pain.

Did you ever know that youre my hero,
And everything I would like to be?
I can fly higher than an eagle,
For you are the wind beneath my wings.

It might have appeared to go unnoticed,
But Ive got it all here in my heart.
I want you to know I know the truth, of course I know it.
I would be nothing without you.

Did you ever know that youre my hero?
Youre everything I wish I could be.
I could fly higher than an eagle,
For you are the wind beneath my wings.

Did I ever tell you youre my hero?
Youre everything, everything I wish I could be.
Oh, and i, I could fly higher than an eagle,
For you are the wind beneath my wings,
cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

Oh, the wind beneath my wings.
You, you, you, you are the wind beneath my wings.
Fly, fly, fly away. you let me fly so high.
Oh, you, you, you, the wind beneath my wings.
Oh, you, you, you, the wind beneath my wings.

Fly, fly, fly high against the sky,
So high I almost touch the sky.
Thank you, thank you,
Thank God for you, the wind beneath my wings.

So is this

2006-12-21T04:35:00.000-05:00

This Is A Real Picture

2006-12-12T17:20:00.000-05:00

2006-12-06T16:27:00.000-05:00

Isn't it a little funny?

2006-11-17T03:58:00.000-05:00

That Bush is talking about Iraq during his first trip to Vietnam? Where's a high-powered Republican father when you need one?

Life is Funny

2006-11-15T11:10:00.000-05:00

"In an ironic twist of fate, Iraq brought regime change to the U.S. at the November 7th elections."

Is President Bush Gay?

2006-11-13T04:31:00.000-05:00

This weekend I had to deliver some paperwork to an elderly homosexual couple. After going over the letters I had drawn up, the 3 of us began a conversation about the elections. Before long, one of the men mentioned that George W. Bush was a closet homosexual. At first I thought he was joking. I even laughed. But then this guy (a ridiculously rich, well-educated, Navy-grad) gave me a tutorial on the Bush family's history with male prostitution, payouts, and cover-ups. I admit, I hadn't heard of half of it. But in the past couple days I have looked up everything that this guy told me. And...he has a point.

Continued in Comments

Please write

2006-11-08T13:15:00.000-05:00

Rummy is out... probably going to run for president of Iraq after his dual citizenship takes effect.

Now the election's over....

2006-11-08T09:17:00.000-05:00

...so it's back to the issues - I guess. With the dems seizing the House and possibly the Senate, I think it is safe to say that even less will happen in the next 2 years than happened in the previous 2. The gridlock should be astounding (which is a good thing).

And, much to the chagrin of the far lefties who were so virulently opposed to Joe Lieberman, Lieberman not only won the race in CT, but he may have become the most powerful person in the Senate. If MT and VA hold up like it looks, and the Senate goes to the dems, it will be a 1 seat majority, with 2 independents - Lieberman and Jeffords. Although they will both caucus with the dems on any typical day, they will be courted from both sides for any and all bills that will be moving through the body this term. The Senate was set up by the framers to be more moderate, and that should be fleshed out in the 110th congress. Essentially any bill with any hope will face approval from Lieberman and a handful of other moderates.... RIP Lincoln Chafee.

But, now that we the people have had this "great shift towards change", what changes will be made? Will the Iraq war end? No. Will the Medicare deficit be addressed? No. Social Security solvency (not "privatization" as moveon.org would have us think)? No. The only main policy achievement I can see on the horizon is on immigration, where this legislative environment actually bodes well for Dubya, as his comprehensive plan is astoundingly practical, especially given the admin's history of being bad at most things. Dems will not cut funding for the war as was the case with Vietnam, but they really have to come up with an idea beyond "wait for what Jim Baker says" and/or "strengthen the Iraqi security forces" - as if this isn't a goal now. They got to where they are (if all holds) more by not being republicans/incumbents than by being democrats, and from an electoral strategy point of view, they will need to change this perception. They won the election, now the issues are staring them in the face, and, in winning the Senate, they actually have to do something about them... the problem isn't parties and such... it's politicians and their desire to sit in those marble buildings for as long as possible. Doesn't anyone find it depressing that out of around 400 seats in the congress, only about 30-40, or 10% were competitive? This makes the caveman sad....

Blue Crush

2006-11-08T02:53:00.000-05:00

Everything I said about the electronic voting problems appeared to have been fixed. Unless the George Allen clan finds some machine in Fairfax County that actually counted negative votes for Allen.

An astounding victory for the Dems tonight. As of now, upwards of 35+ House Seats have been lost by the Repubs and a gain of 6 Senate seats appears likely (Allen won't concede and Burns's race is still going on). A phenomenal election. One I will remember as being the first time I actually celebrated on an election night since turning 18. I only wish that Moderates and the like would've gone our way back in '04. We told you the Repubs were taking us down a bad path. We told you things weren't going to get better without change. Why did you wait 2 years to side with us? I want my 2 years back.

But you know how the saying goes:

"Better late than never."

And oh how sweet the feeling is to think that hardcore Repubs like CI and Econ Boy mocked the Dems for electing Dean to the DNC. Not so dumb, huh fellas? How's that robot Mehlman working out?

Huge win for the Dems tonight. A great day for the Western world. Take a hike. It's time for things to finally change in this country.

End of the road

2006-11-07T11:49:00.000-05:00

Vote for whomever you please.

Predictions

2006-11-03T10:03:00.000-05:00

I'm excited. In fact, I can't wait. I've already sent in my absentee ballot, and on Tuesday, I get to see the results of suffrage. I get to see history in the making...

I've read a lot of commentary about how a shift in control of the legislative branch won't bring about any meaningful change. About the "lesser of two evils." In a nutshell, about how futile the whole shit really is.

Blah, blah, blah. I suspect that much of this commentary is coming from, generally speaking, smart people who are just disillusioned with the political party they once believed in. I was one of them too. I believed George W. Bush was better suited to meet the challenges of this new century than Al Gore was. That for all his deficiencies, he was surrounded by immensely capable people, a sort of political dream team (in fact, he is surrounded by a political dream team). But for all of that potential, for all of its lofty claims, this administration has disappointed me time and again. They lost me...specifically; Hurricane Katrina was the last straw, in my opinion.

The trifecta of Republican control in the executive and legislative branches, the "do-nothing Congress," is no longer acceptable. Things WILL change after this election.

Here it is: the Democrats will sweep this election in a landslide, recapturing both houses of Congress, on the strength of an electorate who is disgusted by the almost unlimited powers of the executive and its execution (or lack of, in some instances)of that power.

I cant wait to see the White House have to wrangle with a Congress that actually does its job. To see measures, such as wiretapping and suspension of Habeus Corpus actually debated, instead of passed in a matter of weeks. The Founders did not envision an environment where such monumental measure could pass so quickly and easily.

Prediction: Democrats sweep. Things will change. And for the better.

From Slate

2006-11-02T10:29:00.000-05:00

A CLOSER LOOK
Name: SGT "Roy Batty"
Posting date: 11/1/06
Stationed in: Baghdad, Iraq
Hometown: Yellow Springs, Ohio

We recently returned to a tiny village we'd visited briefly, to take a closer look. Intel suggested it was a stopping-over place for insurgents infiltrating into Baghdad from Iran. We stopped off on the way and picked up a couple of IP trucks full of policemen and machine guns for the "joint patrol". SSG C. had one of the IPs ride in my HMMWV, which is the first time we've done that. A young guy, he seemed pretty cool, but a bit freaked out to be so close to Americans. In Arabic, I asked him how he was doing, "Khaif al-hal?", handed him a bottle of cold water, and tucked him into the seat behind me. He seemed to settle down a bit. Off we went.

We roared into the little village as quickly as the overladen HMMWVs would go. Sure enough, some little Kia vans tried to exit the opposite side of town as we came in, possibly insurgents trying to escape. We split up, and my team backed up SSG C.'s on one of the vans. We got it stopped in a field a couple of hundred meters outside of town, and pulled out five young guys and one AK with seven full magazines of ammo, including two customized 45-round mags.

Story 1, in comments...

ROBBIE
Name: SGT "Roy Batty"
Posting date: 10/30/06
Stationed in: Baghdad, Iraq
Hometown: Yellow Springs, Ohio

I am sitting on my camp chair in the corner of my room, the laptop on my bunk, Ipod inserted deep within my ears. Hedley Moose is asleep next to me, exhausted after another night of avoiding the restless bulk of a snoring ex-Marine. The bed is cluttered with a 1:50,000 scale tactical map of Baghdad, my black cordura wallet, everpresent Camels, a bright yellow Arabic for Dummies book, and Chuck Klosterman's awesome novel, Killing Yourself to Live. After finally putting down Neil Stephenson's bulging Quicksilver for the hundredth time as being brilliant but absolutely unreadable, I picked up Chuck's tome and have been reading it every chance I've had for the past 24 hours. Which means that I am about halfway through it. He writes almost exactly the same way as I hope to, except for the fact that he is actually funny.

Peter Gabriel surfaces on the tiny scratched screen of the Nano, singing quietly about Mercy Street. I close my eyes and the white-tiled ceiling disappears as I slowly rise through it and drift away to somewhere vaguely Celtic, full of dark rain clouds over coal tailings, thick with the wet smell of distant sheep. Amber scotch-colored water pours over my hands as I dip them in a cold Northern loch somewhere in the memories of my childhood in England.

I don't have anything to write about. We'll have to see what happens tonight on patrol. Baghdad has a way of throwing inspiration into the path of your HMMWV, either with the wet plop of over-ripened fruit, or with something considerably denser and unfortunately louder in volume.

Story 2, comments...

Kim Jong-Il Interprets Sunrise As Act Of War

2006-11-02T09:06:00.000-05:00

Kim Jong-Il Interprets Sunrise As Act Of War

2006-11-01T15:13:00.000-05:00

2006-11-01T14:46:00.000-05:00

It's a Civil War, Stupid

2006-10-31T03:45:00.000-05:00

Former CIA Director John McClone once said that "Sometimes there is only one answer and you thank God when it's so clear."

There is only one answer when it comes to what to do in Iraq. I used to think there were two. But I believe that Operation Overlord Part II (aka Bombing the shit out of them and overpowering the insurgents) is no longer realistic. So that just leaves one: Leave.

I know, I know, I want to "Cut and Run," right? Idiots love to label. But "Staying the Course" could be, and will likely be proved in the history books, to be one of the dumbest ideas in our country's history. In the past week alone, I bet that 50,000 Americans slapped their foreheads and whispered something along the lines of "Damn, what the fuck are we doing there?"

And it's a good question for regular Americans to ask. Why are we there? I understand that Iraq-supporters have a hundred dumb reasons. I understand that profiteering is occuring. But after so much death, and so little to show for it except some ink-stained index fingers, no intelligent American can really believe that staying there is good, right?

(continued on Comments)

2006-10-30T14:12:00.000-05:00

Who's next in the dunk tank?

2006-10-28T02:20:00.004-05:00

Here's an excerpt from a WH-released interview on Thursday:

Interviewer: And terrorist interrogations and that debate is another example. And I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives. Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do agree. And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that's been a very important tool that we've had to be able to secure the nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided us with enormously valuable information about how many there are, about how they plan, what their training processes are and so forth, we've learned a lot. We need to be able to continue that.

Question: Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President "for torture." We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.

But thanks to the leadership of the President now, and the action of the Congress, we have that authority, and we are able to continue to program.

Is it just me? Or was there a slip of tongue from Uncle Dick? It kinda sucks to be an American these days, doesn't it?

John McCain's new title: "The Capitulator"

2006-10-20T10:33:00.002-05:00

The "War on Terror" is being waged in response to various attacks on US interests by non-state actors. The initial attacks carried out on WTC, USS Cole, et al. can and should be viewed as reactions to policies. In the same vein, the War on Terror can and should be viewed in this same light.

The prosecution of this "war" is one that will be effective if and only if there is a rather seismic shift in popular opinion of US policies in certain regions. I am not going to argue here whether it matters if any perticular Jordanian, Syrian, etc like America, because it really doesn't matter if anyone likes the US or not. It only matters if they tolerate us and our culture (and, that of the entire western world).

American invasions and permanent military bases typically do not garner a ton of support in the Middle East, and for good reason. But, again, this is not the discussion I am seeking.

I am disappointed with John McCain and his caving into the administration on detainee policies in this ongoing "war." There are already a series of articles and papers on the topic, but I will link to the WaPo's from today. Habeas Corpus is one of the central tenets of a free society. And, while it can be effectively argued that the right is foregone when one brandishes a weapon towards the US, regardless of state affiliation (and, not necessarily in the name of a state per se), I hardly think that detentions (jailings, essentially) at a military base without legal recourse is an effective deterrent against more of these hapless souls picking up the Kalishnekov against the infidels.

We are constantly told that this is "a different war, with different rules" - which is true. So, if that is the case, we should, instead of arbitrarily putting people in internment like we did with the Japanese, be a little more keen on practicing, and thereby projecting, the US as a rule of law based society, no matter to what ends of the earth that may take us.

Many if not most of the detainees at Guantanamo are NOT in the maximum security facility there, which, in my view, speaks to the relative strength or weakness of case against them. However we are to prosecute a war without borders, we have to remember that we are a developed nation with borders, and rules that govern the body therein. If we are holding people in custody, those people, regardless of citizenship (because, if they are in our stead, they are our responsibility, and therefore de facto citizens) deserve to hear the evidence against them.

This is not about setting an example or anything like that. It is about the US Constitution, and the powers it so rightfully strips from the government. The document does not give the government very many rights, but it spells out explicitly what the government cannot do... there is something to be said for that.

Light years ahead of you

2006-10-18T12:57:00.000-05:00

I had no idea the US of A was also the "Space Decider". This just seems weird.

CNN Poll

2006-10-18T11:42:00.000-05:00

Apparently, 74% of Americans think Congress is generally out of touch the American reality. The 26% responded with, "what the hell is a congress?"

The Worst Administration in the History of the United States of America

2006-10-17T22:38:00.000-05:00

The following analysis is based entirely on the most consequential foreign policy decision of the 21st century:

A war of choice based on false pretenses and extraordinary and misguided ambitions (and worse still, grudges).
\ /
\ /
Suppression and punishment of information and opinion to the contrary.
\ / \ /
A complete lack of postwar planning and understanding of regional politics/history (and undeniable belief in nobility based on “liberation”).
\ /
\ /
Disregard and subsequent irrelevance of essential international institutions.
\ /
\ /
Hubris
(“Bring ‘em on”).
\ /
\ /
The unwitting dissolution of a country’s most important security institution.
\ /
\ /
“To work for the ambassador, you had to pass a political litmus test. Job seekers were asked whom they had voted for in 2000 and what their position was on Roe v. Wade. "The hiring process...involved questions that would have landed a private-sector employer in jail."
\ /
\ /
Bremer's staff [was] "a children's crusade of former Republican campaign workers." Hammes recalls working with a 25-year old strategic planner assigned to the Iraqi Ministry of the interior. When Hammes questioned him about the small size of the staff, the young man replied, "Yes, but we're really tight because we're frat brothers." Hammes concludes glumly, "I never in my life thought I would encounter 'frat brothers' and strategic planners' in the same sentence."
\ /
\ /
Abu Ghraib.
\ /
\ /
A Defense Secretary responsible for equipping his personnel with insufficient assets to perform the requisite obligations.
\ /
\ /
Political infighting between key departments and agencies. Widespread ineptitude, directly resulting in death. Of American soldiers. Of Iraqi civilians.
||
||
Denial
||
||
Criminal negligence, lack of oversight, and incompetence in the use of federal tax dollars and execution of contracts to rebuild infrastructure, and by extension, security.
||
||
That same Defense Secretary still calling the shots.
||
||
The precipice of failure.
\/
\/
George W. Bush

I dare you to challenge my assertions.

Tax dollars well spent

2006-10-16T01:12:00.000-05:00

The secret service is now interrogating 14 year old girls with hearts on their backpacks about possible death threats to President Bush.

www.sacbee.com/111/story/38768.html

Bush says "history" will judge him as a great man and President.

I don't teenk so...

Re: SOL's essay

2006-10-13T02:02:00.000-05:00

Unlike SOL, I think things have changed since then. A nuclear North Korea isn't a big deal anymore. I think the missile test they "undertook" this past summer was the period on the end of this sentence:

Nobody really takes North Korea seriously. Period.

Think about it. They said they performed a bonified nuclear test and it got less than one day of airtime on the news and 1 day of headlines in the papers.

Sure, China came out said they were discouraged at its Commie neighbor to the southeast.

Oooooh, "discouraged."

If you ask me, the missile test was probably an elaborate display of hogwash just as their missile test was. They don't have an intercontinental missile and they don't have nuclear bombs. The seismic activity was probably a bunch of conventional weapons underground.

North Korea is not as close as Iran is to a bomb. Much more focus should be on them. Fu** North Korea. They are a waste of time. Deal with them or don't, World. I could care less anymore.

Where do I sign up?

2006-10-11T13:17:00.000-05:00

Hey, at least we know that we won't "have to fight 'em over here."

Atom on the eve

2006-10-11T08:42:00.000-05:00

David Ignatius has an op-ed today in the (com)Post regarding the face of nuclear weapons and the proliferation thereof.

As he says, JFK figured there would be 20 nuke states by 1975, but, before Sunday, there were but 8. Whether that number is now 9 remains to be seen. But, the damage is done with NK's test. The problem with dealing with a regime like this is that by tightening the noose again and again we end up with a desperate situation, not a resolvable one. Similar to how we have dealt with Syria, we ("we" is the US, etc.) we have backed NK into a corner from which it has no possible recourse other than to lash out. This is certainly not to say that the "west" is really to blame here, as NK and Syria have done their fair share of belligerent and irresponsible things over the past 3 decades or so (see Hezbollah, AQ Khan, Yellow Sea missle tests, Hariri assassination, etc.).

But, with the number of trouble states ever on the decline, it seemes that there is a need now more than ever to rethink the "squeeze 'em til they pop" diplomacy model. NK, whether they detonated a nuke or not, has the technology on at least a minimal crude basis, to make a weapon of some utility - this is plainly obvious. It is also plainly obvious that weaponry and war scares are the only form of bargaining that NK can capably engage in, we need to lessen the chances that the existing nuclear technology in the North stays there. Instead of crushing the economy and killing the citizens of NK - the "international community" should build the north a light water reactor so that it can power the country and offer jobs. There is no reason, now that we are nearly sure the NK's have the technology, we cannot press and press them into a state of further desperation where they will actually act in a beligerent manner rather than simply just talking about doing so.

The situation in Iran is a bit different, but not all too much. If they have nuclear plants and centrifuges, they can and will enrich weapons grade fissle material - this is a historical fact. Instead of forcing the program underground where it is more likely to be proliferated, we need to make it transparent and bring it to the surface. If there truly is an international community (a very debateable point), then we should be able to agree that rogue or somewhat rogue states should not possess elicit nuke programs - a point seemingly agreed upon at the present time.

It's time to get the UN (and, moreso the IAEA) some teeth, and instead of forcing states into fits of nuclear desperation, we need to welcome the inevitable with pragmatism.

The Korean Issue: A Case in Nuclear Proliferation and U.S. AntiPower Projection

2006-10-10T11:10:00.000-05:00

This is a paper I wrote, on October 27, 2003. Amamzing how little has changed since then...

Although the current American administration has been reluctant to admit it, the Korean situation is becoming increasingly perilous, if it is not already a crisis. Events that have transpired on the peninsula in recent years have such far reaching effects and implications for U.S. policies that it is naïve, indeed dangerous, to marginalize the importance of what is taking place in north-east Asia. The issue of nuclear proliferation in North Korea is undeniably the most hotly contested topic in U.S. and international debate, but even beneath this issue rest a plethora of others. Addressing one or only a few can lead to serious repercussions down the road, a case best exemplified by the negotiations between North Korea and former President Clinton, in the Agreed Framework of 1994. And even beyond the immediate concerns of North Korea’s menacing posture, the issue of America’s future role in the region is a crucial matter as well. It is important then to understand both the short and long-term challenges the United States must face in Korea and north-east Asia in the coming months and years.

North Korea is classified as a rogue nation. Actions the regime has taken in the past several years have indicated that Kim Jong Il, the regime’s current dictator, is more concerned with pursuing his own agenda than with compliance of international rules and regulations. North Korea’s withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, massive military expenditures relative to GDP, and declared nuclear weapons ambitions suggest that the D.P.R.K. is bent on chaos and destruction. While this may seem to be the case on the surface, it is quite far from the truth. The regime has not launched a single offensive action against South Korea, or any other nation for that matter, since signing the armistice with the United States calling for a cease-fire and halt of military operations on the peninsula. More important than engaging in wars he will ultimately lose, Kim is more interested in preserving his regime and increasing its leverage with the United States. In their article, The Korea Crisis, Victor Cha and David Kang state, “Dictators generally want to survive, and Kim is no exception…He has not launched a war, because he has good reason to think he would face fatal opposition from the United States and South Korea.”

The DMZ, or the 38th parallel separating North and South Korea, has been called the “scariest place in the world.” Huge forward deployments (particularly on the North Korean side) of men and artillery are stationed all along the line. Both sides have been prepared for combat for many years, with plans of action already formulated. But it takes more than forward deployments to grab the international community’s attention. North Korea’s most threatening action is its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Despite former President Clinton’s success in freezing nuclear programs in the D.P.R.K. for nine years under the Agreed Framework, Kim Jong Il has again announced his intention to implement a nuclear program. Under the framework, the U.S. supplied the North with aid in return for the freezing of its program. Whatever the reason for its failure, as Cha and Kang note, “Clinton’s carrots have become Bush’s sticks, enabling the latter to pursue a harder-line policy by threatening to withhold what was once previously promised.” This brings us to the current problem at hand. North Korea is seeking a mutual nonaggression pact and insisting on direct, bilateral talks with the United States to discuss its options, while the U.S. maintains that negotiations are impossible until the regime ceases its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and that talks must be multilateral including the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea.

And while both parties continue to disagree over terms of negotiations, Kim continues to pursue the nuclear technology. “North Korea has engaged in a coercive bargaining strategy designed to ratchet up a crisis with the United States.” Although the North is using a seemingly belligerent strategy, in all likelihood, it wouldn’t dare use its nuclear weapons against the U.S. or the South offensively, but instead as military deterrents. The implication of a North Korean nuclear arsenal, however, has drastic consequences for the United States, the R.O.K., the entire northeast-Asia region, and the world itself. Evidently, the USFK and South Korea must now contend with a nuclear neighbor, which places a great deal of limitations on how to react to whatever North Korea might come up with next. Furthermore, North Korea continues to sell missile and weapons technologies to parties unknown; who is to say they will not do the same with nuclear technologies? Certainly, granting North Korea immunity from the use of force is out of the question, and yet actions must be taken to prevent similar nations from employing Kim Jong Il’s strategy. Henry Sokolski argues that, “If Pyongyang’s violations prior to its NPT withdrawal are ignored or rewarded, many of these states will conclude that proliferation pays or that, at least, if they acquire or help others get strategic weapons, they will not be penalized.”

Regional players have a great deal to consider as well. China is most often cited as the nation with the greatest influence over the D.P.R.K. Though China has no interest in seeing a nuclear North Korea, they have been hesitant to pressure Kim Jong, due in part to old alliances and Cold War relationships. Japan has a vested interest in the issue, as old animosities would result in disastrous consequences in the event of war. Russia also seeks to play its role in the crisis, and secure its own influence (and of course security) in the region. China, however, is the most important actor if any negotiations are to take place. These regional players must all apply pressure on North Korea to at least compromise. In the meantime, Sokolski argues that better policing in the region, by the United States, like-minded countries, and the U.N., would end illegal practices by the North, such as sales of certain weapons and illicit drugs. These profits help fund the North Korean military and nuclear programs. He goes on to argue that while these steps will not eliminate the regime’s military threat, they would alert other nations that there is a price for violating the NPT, and would not rule out diplomacy and negotiations. Failure to demonstrate this, as Sokolski notes, would,
Result, 10-15 years hence, [in a] world crowded with not only hostile, suspected nuclear states but also with nuclearized friends – who, when the United States needed their help, would tend, like France, to go their own way. Rather than stability, this would foment more diplomatic and military intrigue than any bureaucracy could ever hope to reign in – a global 1914, spring-loaded to go nuclear.

Avoiding such a future depends on how the United States will influence the region, and to understand this, we should examine relations with one of our traditionally staunchest allies in Asia, the Republic of South Korea. The U.S. and R.O.K. have enjoyed positive political relations for half-a-century. Since the Korean War in 1950, South Korea has developed a thriving economy and flourishing democratic political system. The South Korean “miracle” was not entirely miraculous however: it was due in no small part to the security provided by, and the economic assistance of the United States (amongst others). Were it not for U.S. forces that were and continue to be stationed throughout South Korea and along the Demilitarized Zone, the R.O.K. might have fallen victim to ambitions of its northern neighbor. Attitudes, however, are changing in the South. In his article, Focus on the Future, Not the North, Victor Cha writes, “A confluence of security and political trends, including the emergence of Korean concerns about the U.S. military presence and the need to prepare for the contingency of Korean unification, argues that changes in the status of U.S. Forces in Korea (USFK) and the direction of the U.S. – R.O.K. alliance are inevitable, if not imminent.” South Korean news agencies, and in turn, the public are questioning the necessities of U.S. forces in their country. Younger generations in particular wish to see a significant reduction of the USFK, and increasingly believe that the American military presence is only escalating tensions with the North. They (the “3-8-6” generation, as Dr. Lee observed) believe in the ideals of Kim Dae Jung’s Sunshine Policy, and are more anti-American than older South Koreans, who directly experienced the 1950 Korean war, and thus remain suspicious of the D.P.R.K.

Though it is highly unlikely that the United States will completely pull out of Korea anytime soon, these issues present serious problems for U.S. policy makers. What kind of specific alterations, or more accurately, reductions, can the Pentagon implement in Korea that will appease the South Korean public, while maintaining a viable deterrent capability in the event of a North Korean invasion? Furthermore, what implications will these changes have on U.S. influence not just in Korea, but in the entire region as well? Though pertinent and important, policy-makers in both South Korea and the U.S. have been hesitant to address these questions. While the cliché of crossing one bridge at a time does apply here, Mr. Cha notes that, “Details, not vision, have driven the dialogue on the USFK in Washington and Seoul.” He also suggests that the United States’ unwillingness to implement any change in the USFK while the North continues to pose a threat may be “too inflexible.”

Whatever happens between the United States, and North and South Korea will depend on the situations at hand. The question of America’s role and influence in the region will in turn depend on the results of these aforementioned “situations.” Regardless of the outcomes however, U.S. interests in the region are far too important to ever entertain the possibility of completely withdrawing form Korea. For one, the U.S. would lose influence in one of the most dynamic economic regions in the world. Moreover, withdrawal would pave the way for Chinese regional dominance, and risk isolating Japan as the last U.S. “outpost” in northeast Asia. To insure against these consequences, the U.S. must consider what shape its alliance with South Korea, and possibly a united Korea, will take, and to what ends. Cha asserts that beyond the traditional Cold War raison d’etre of the alliance, it must be expanded to include several new issues.
“History shows that the most resilient alliances share common ideals.” Instead of claiming that alliance is necessary solely for regional stability, as it once was, its characteristics should be broadened to include “nontraditional security activities such as humanitarian intervention, peacekeeping and peacemaking, and counterterrorism operations.”

These objectives can be defined as “antipower projection,” where U.S. presence prevents the use and/or misuse of power by other regional and national actors. The successful projection of anti-power by the United States would ensure, at the very least, continued influence in the Asia-Pacific corner of the world. It would also prevent the potentially dangerous scenario of a standoff between a united Korea and China alliance against Japan, and consequently the United States. Nuclear weapons in this case would conceivably proliferate far beyond a single rogue nation. Prevention of such an environment in Asia would indeed be favorable to the U.S., and the world. Cha cites three specific courses of action to successfully implement American antipower: 1) the promotion of continued Japanese-Korean security cooperation, 2) the fostering and strengthening of Japanese, R.O.K., and U.S. relationships, beyond simply regional stability necessities (which could include the pursuit of open economic markets and nonproliferation for example), and 3) allowing for increased responsibility and thus greater equality on the Japanese-R.O.K. end of the partnership.

It will be interesting to see what will happen on the Korean peninsula within the next decade. So many different factors are at stake that the U.S. must proceed very carefully in the coming months and years. How the situation with North Korea is handled, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, will serve as an example to the rest of the world for years to come, and will highlight the pros and cons of any implemented strategy. What is certain however, is that U.S. policymakers will pursue whatever strategy that will maximize American influence in the region while, hopefully, defusing the North Korean situation.

Ted Turner on North Korea

2006-10-10T10:20:00.000-05:00

Ted Turner, foreign policy expert

Pop, pop, fizzle...

2006-10-10T09:52:00.000-05:00

Doesn't sound like it. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, holder of fair elections and lover of human rights, tested some sort of explosive device on Sunday in a mountain. Whether it was a successful nuke test remains to be seen, but thus far, skepticism seems to be the name of the game.

Registering below a 4 on the Richter Sclae, the blast, by many accounts, seems to have fallen short of the nuclear threshold. This could prove to be a large miscalculation for the North, as it caused both Russia and China (nuke states) to rail the regime - a rarity these days. Also, Japan will in all liklihood amend its constitution to allow for a bolstering of defense forces... lord knows they won't have a strategic imperial strike team, but an army nonetheless.

I wonder, though... what will sanctions do to the North? It has essentially no economy aside from the opulent imports of Kim and his pals. It appears that once more, the citizens (voting and non-voting alike) will pay for their "leader's" hubris.

Now measure it

2006-10-04T08:44:00.001-05:00

Now Foley has said that he's an alcoholic who was molested. But, I have to admit, I have never been drunk enough to do this.

ConspiracyTheory.com

2006-10-03T14:56:00.000-05:00

Maybe it's just me, the Democrat, being paranoid. Maybe it's just the fact that the left gets their asses kicked at the polls every election (even though most intelligent polls say they shouldn't). Maybe I'm just simply tired of losing. Maybe it's all three. But because of one or all of these reasons, I am going to throw out another conspiracy theory that I believe to be true.

The Right Wing uses computer-operated machines to win elections.

I know, I know, I have talked about this theory before. But the more I keep reading about this issue, the more and more I am convinced that it's not simply a theory.

For instance, Congress recently admitted that its voting machines could be hacked into by a hacker on the other side of the world. And not only that, they estimated that it could be hacked into within 60 seconds or less. Votes could be changed. Names could be erased. Votes could be discounted. So upon hearing this, I wondered if it was possible that Right Wingers - who consistently dominate at the computer-operated booths - are hacking into these machines and changing votes for their favor. And my answer was - it most certainly is possible. And without a reciept for the vote, there is no paper trail that could link such mischief to the Republicans.

It's not you, it's us

2006-10-02T10:07:00.000-05:00

The Palestinians are at it again, this time striking a sort of masturbatory tone with some inter-party violence.

Before Israel's incursion into Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, the Palestinains' two main non-corrupt, totally functional bodies of psuedo-authority, Hamas and the PA, were fighting. Now that Israel has pulled out, again, the two parties are getting back after it. Obviously they haven't seen the Roadmap.

"Do I make you a little horny?"

2006-10-02T08:09:00.000-05:00

There's a lot going on in the news. But everytime I hear a news story about a politician getting caught being the true degenerate they all are, it grabs my attention.

It seems as though the GOP members tried rolling up a newspaper and swatting Rep. Mark Foley square in the nose saying "Don't be a mincing pedophile. Bad!". But as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus -- how could he resist? I understand the delicate balance in the house and senate, but KNOWING one of your own might be a pedophile and covering it up -- well, it's disgusting. I'm hoping some GOP heads will roll for this.

Time for Change

2006-09-30T22:24:00.000-05:00

From a law student friend...

"our congress has passed an unconstitutional law. they have stripped federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from enemy combatants. they have given the president power to label anyone an enemy combatant at his discretion. our elected officials have chosen to ignore article 1 section 9 of the constitution. goddamnit what is our recourse!?!"

A scary thought to live under a government that can accuse you of being a terrorist, imprison you indefinitely, and claim that it has enough evidence to satisfy itself without need to prove it to anyone else.

Survey Says...

2006-09-27T09:17:00.000-05:00

The White House has graced us with a truncated version of the NIE that has consumed the back pages of some of the nation's most prestigous (if they can be called that) newspapers.

It seems pretty empirically obvious that the Iraq War has not helped relations between the "west" and the "muslim world" which finds the latter accusing the former of a war on Islam and all of that fun stuff. Alhough this accusation is not likely true, its truth or falsity is really irrelevant as the driving force is perception.

And, since all these moderate Muslim leaders we hear so much about never seem to find their way to a microphone - sounds familiar - Americans are left with images of Arabs burning effigees of the Pope in the street with the most extreme view surrounding any crisis.

Let's face it... we have not been attacked again, which is a good thing. But, we seemed to mired in the same wave of anti-Americanism that has always existed.

Is there a way to reverse the trend?

Damn Those Outspoken Byzantines

2006-09-18T13:44:00.000-05:00

I know the subject I’m about to dive into is perhaps a bit taboo, something akin to pointing out that “native Americans” can find their way to the bottom of a bottle of fire water better than the average American, but, alas, I can’t help myself.

What is faith? What is reason? And, how does one maintain allegiance to both in the modern world? These were the topics the Pope wanted to discuss during his speech at University of Regensburg on Friday. He wanted to hold a forum with academics, as he had been privy to as a student, to help them understand the foundations and principles of faith, religion, and the nature of their unique intersection. Okay, so here it is, here is the proverbial Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand for World War III:

‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’
The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....

Agreed, that perhaps this reference was a bit odd, and the Pope may have needed to exercise better discretion, but when taken in the context of the entire speech it is apparent that the Manuel II quote was simply a point of departure to develop the primary theme that has a much broader context, a calling for faith and reason to come together in a new way. The Pope was seemingly trying to pull the Islamic intellectual community into the fray, trying to illicit a call for reason and temperance from within the Islamic faith.

It is hard to argue, especially in the rash of violent and destructive acts perpetrated over the weekend (not to mention the “cartoon riots” witnessed earlier this year) that there is a certain proclivity within the Muslim faith to spread the word of Allah with the sword, or at least threat there of. Furthermore, it is growing increasingly hard not to accept a current of modern religion which sees the Christian West more apt to believe not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature, while more and more Muslims believe God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.

While nobody outside of God himself can understand the Pope’s thinking I view his remarks as an invitation to Muslim intellectuals to the table of reason. There is constant talk of “moderate Muslims” disgusted by violence be carried out in Allah’s name, so perhaps this is the spark they need. Let us pray that they are rational enough to accept.

RAMIFICATIONS:

In the religiously psychotic world we live in, in a Europe cowed into silence by cartoons, the Pope may have begun a dialogue that will drastically improve Muslim-Christian, Islam-“the West” relations. Perhaps the Muslim world will see their community’s knee-jerk reaction to the Pope’s words, and thinly veiled excitement at the opportunity to violently and destructively protest as a litmus test of nature of Islam worldwide. Perhaps those Muslim clerics and intellectuals who respect the Pope’s faith and devotion and actually read and ponder the full text of his speech will see a rising sentiment of hatred and exclusion within their ranks; an irrational understanding of Allah’s teachings promulgated by the scorn of a bitter few within a peaceful mass.

Hopefully, these remarks will begin a convergence of Islam and Christianity back to their common theme of temperance and understanding. As I understand these religions they are both founded on a principle similar to that of the golden rule: “To do unto others as you would have done unto you.” While there are thousands of years of violence perpetrated in the name of religion separating Islam and Christianity we must remember that in all those years there were moments of peaceful coexistence and even remarkable relationships that transcended the fighting of time to set an example of how “God” would have us all treat one another.

There needs to be outcry within the Western world against common misconceptions of the Muslim world and for our, perhaps, heavy-handed treatment of Islamic states. Conversely there needs to be outcry against Muslim states that comport themselves on the international stage with deception and guile. Arab states need be called out for there double standards, for there proclivity in noting the apparent exclusionary practices of the west, while preventing freedom of religion in their own countries (largely under threat of violent repercussions). This conversation needs to happen, and it needs to be conducted without “pulling any punches.” Everything needs to be aired, what they don’t like about us, what we don’t like about them…to rationale thinkers this interaction would not be violent, and would in fact be seen as a way to prevent violence.
In order to prevent any misguided slander let me be clear, I have no allegiances to any faith or religion other than that of reason. I don’t understand how one can willing decide to put one’s life into the hands of God you can neither see, nor hear, nor touch, nor feel. I am neither a pacifist nor a man-at-arms. I respect those who fight for a cause, but do not be a coward and hide your cause behind the mask of a God who instructs you not to kill, but to teach compassion and brotherhood. Do not tell me God told you to fight and kill, tell me your reasons, tell me your terms, and then let us move on from there as men, as humans. Do not invoke the supernatural as a way of justifying personal angst.

Read, think, discuss...http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

"I'm 27 months worth of innocent"

2006-09-15T11:14:00.000-05:00

Bob Ney, innocent human being, was sentenced to 27 months in prison for bribery and political awesomeness today (assuming a federal judge ratifies the plea deal struck for the innocent former representative.

I would venture to guess that Ney is the only corrupt politician in the House or Senate - and, I'm glad we got him outta there.

A Moment for 9-11

2006-09-11T10:29:00.000-05:00

I thought I had seen and heard everything about 9-11. And I thought it was far enough in the past, not forgotten, but not nearly as painful. I thought wrong. All it took was an article mentioning something about co-workers, friends, holding hands and jumping from the burning towers. I avoided looking at footage or images of the jumpers...I guess to repsect their last moments. But in my mind I saw something new that I didn't associate with that day. The intense fear of knowing that your going to die, and not wanting to die alone. I'm not going to go into what the significance is of holding hands, etc, but I'm just sharing something that was new to me and that harshly brought that day right back into my mind.

WSJ Op by Gingrich

2006-09-07T16:50:00.000-05:00

Clearly one's point of view changes when they are no longer holding office....however, my take-away was that democracies give up a lot of cards to the enemy when they spend more time fighting among each other rather than defining and working toward clear goals.
M770
------

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. . . . As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves."-- Abraham Lincoln Annual message to Congress, Dec. 1, 1862* * *WASHINGTON -- Five years have passed since the horrific attack on our American homeland, and, still, there is one serious, undeniable fact we have yet to confront: We are, today, not where we wanted to be and nowhere near where we need to be.In April of 1861, in response to the firing on Fort Sumter, President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to serve for 90 days. Lincoln had greatly underestimated the challenge of preserving the Union. No one imagined that what would become the Civil War would last four years and take the lives of 620,000 Americans. By the summer of 1862, with thousands of Americans already dead or wounded and the hopes of a quick resolution to the war all but abandoned, three political factions had emerged. There were those who thought the war was too hard and would have accepted defeat by negotiating the end of the United States by allowing the South to secede. Second were those who urged staying the course by muddling through with a cautious military policy and a desire to be "moderate and reasonable" about Southern property rights, including slavery.We see these first two factions today. The Kerry-Gore-Pelosi-Lamont bloc declares the war too hard, the world too dangerous. They try to find some explainable way to avoid reality while advocating return to "normalcy," and promoting a policy of weakness and withdrawal abroad.Most government officials constitute the second wing, which argues the system is doing the best it can and that we have to "stay the course" -- no matter how unproductive. But, after being exposed in the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, it will become increasingly difficult for this wing to keep explaining the continuing failures of the system.Just consider the following: Osama bin Laden is still at large. Afghanistan is still insecure. Iraq is still violent. North Korea and Iran are still building nuclear weapons and missiles. Terrorist recruiting is still occurring in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and across the planet.* * *By late summer, 1862, Lincoln agonizingly concluded that a third faction had the right strategy for victory. This group's strategy demanded reorganizing everything as needed, intensifying the war, and bringing the full might of the industrial North to bear until the war was won.The first and greatest lesson of the last five years parallels what Lincoln came to understand. The dangers are greater, the enemy is more determined, and victory will be substantially harder than we had expected in the early days after the initial attack. Despite how painful it would prove to be, Lincoln chose the road to victory. President Bush today finds himself in precisely the same dilemma Lincoln faced 144 years ago. With American survival at stake, he also must choose. His strategies are not wrong, but they are failing. And they are failing for three reasons.(1) They do not define the scale of the emerging World War III, between the West and the forces of militant Islam, and so they do not outline how difficult the challenge is and how big the effort will have to be. (2) They do not define victory in this larger war as our goal, and so the energy, resources and intensity needed to win cannot be mobilized. (3) They do not establish clear metrics of achievement and then replace leaders, bureaucrats and bureaucracies as needed to achieve those goals.To be sure, Mr. Bush understands that we cannot ignore our enemies; they are real. He knows that an enemy who believes in religiously sanctioned suicide-bombing is an enemy who, with a nuclear or biological weapon, is a mortal threat to our survival as a free country. The analysis Mr. Bush offers the nation -- before the Joint Session on Sept. 20, 2001, in his 2002 State of the Union, in his 2005 Second Inaugural -- is consistently correct. On each occasion, he outlines the threat, the moral nature of the conflict and the absolute requirement for victory.Unfortunately, the great bureaucracies Mr. Bush presides over (but does not run) have either not read his speeches or do not believe in his analysis. The result has been a national security performance gap that we must confront if we are to succeed in winning this rising World War III.We have to be honest about how big this problem is and then design new, bolder and more profound strategies to secure American national security in a very dangerous 21st century. Unless we, like Lincoln, think anew, we cannot set the nation on a course for victory. Here are some initial steps:First, the president should address a Joint Session of Congress to explain to the country the urgency of the threat of losing millions of people in one or more cities if our enemies find a way to deliver weapons of mass murder to American soil. He should further communicate the scale of the anti-American coalition, the clarity of their desire to destroy America, and the requirement that we defeat them. He should then make clear to the world that a determined American people whose very civilization is at stake will undertake the measures needed to prevail over our enemies. While desiring the widest possible support, we will not compromise our self-defense in order to please our critics.Then he should announce an aggressively honest review of what has not worked in the first five years of the war. Based upon the findings he should initiate a sweeping transformation of the White House's national security apparatus. The current hopelessly slow and inefficient interagency system should be replaced by a new metrics-based and ruthlessly disciplined integrated system of accountability, with clear timetables and clear responsibilities.The president should insist upon creating new aggressive entrepreneurial national security systems that replace (rather than reform) the current failing bureaucracies. For example, the Agency for International Development has been a disaster in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The president should issue new regulations where possible and propose new legislation where necessary. The old systems cannot be allowed to continue to fail without consequence. Those within the bureaucracies who cannot follow the president's directives should be compelled to leave.Following this initiative, the president should propose a dramatic and deep overhaul of homeland security grounded in metrics-based performance to create a system capable of meeting the seriousness of the threat. The leaders of the new national security and homeland security organizations should be asked what they need to win this emerging World War III, and then the budget should be developed. We need a war budget, but we currently have an OMB-driven, pseudo-war budget. The goal of victory, ultimately, will lead to a dramatically larger budget, which will lead to a serious national debate. We can win this argument, but we first have to make it.Congress should immediately pass the legislation sent by the president yesterday to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision. More broadly, it should pass an act that recognizes that we are entering World War III and serves notice that the U.S. will use all its resources to defeat our enemies -- not accommodate, understand or negotiate with them, but defeat them.Because the threat of losing millions of Americans is real, Congress should hold blunt, no-holds-barred oversight hearings on what is and is not working. Laws should be changed to shift from bureaucratic to entrepreneurial implementation throughout the national security and homeland security elements of government.Beyond our shores, we must commit to defeating the enemies of freedom in Iraq, starting with doubling the size of the Iraqi military and police forces. We should put Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia on notice that any help going to the enemies of the Iraqi people will be considered hostile acts by the U.S. In southern Lebanon, the U.S. should insist on disarming Hezbollah, emphasizing it as the first direct defeat of Syria and Iran -- thus restoring American prestige in the region while undermining the influence of the Syrian and Iranian dictatorships.Further, we should make clear our goal of replacing the repressive dictatorships in North Korea, Iran and Syria, whose aim is to do great harm to the American people and our allies. Our first steps should be the kind of sustained aggressive strategy of replacement which Ronald Reagan directed brilliantly in Poland, and ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet empire.The result of this effort would be borders that are controlled, ports that are secure and an enemy that understands the cost of going up against the full might of the U.S. No enemy can stand against a determined American people. But first we must commit to victory. These steps are the first on a long and difficult road to victory, but are necessary to win the future.Mr. Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" (Regnery, 2005).

Iraq; Quit Stalling

2006-09-02T04:48:00.000-05:00

Sometimes the most obvious answer is right in front of you. And you thank God when it's so clear.

Iraq is a BAD WAR.

Now I understand that there are one or two (namely CI and SOL), who believe that decisive action in Iraq is...what was it they said?..."bad." And I am sure that TDM wants to put his witty, moderate spin on his idea of what makes a "good or bad war." But let's be truthful. They can not really stand on those legs any longer.

Iraq War = BAD.

So...as I said months ago...we have two options. We can either kick the shit out of the country. Or we can leave it and become nothing more than a stategic option. Which is it?

Take note...Option C) "Staying the course," is a really bad idea. It's been eliminated as an option. So you have only two.

Which is it?

A story from Palm Springs, CA

2006-08-25T01:33:00.000-05:00

So my mom runs a hospital ward at Eisenhower Hospital in Rancho Mirage. Eisenhower is the 2nd largest Hospital in southern California. It's where Betty Ford Rehab is located. My mom has treated Bob Hope, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Gerald Ford, Ben Affleck, and my favorite, Darryl Strawberry in the past. Needless to say, it's a somewhat famous hospital that is no stranger to media coverage.

The media swarmed Eisenhower again this week. A 24-year old undocumented, illegal immigrant was drunk and on meth at his landscaping job. He fell out of a palm tree and fell twenty feet to concrete. He had a head injury and is currently on a feeding tube. He has been there at the hospital for over a month. But he's now stable and needs to be moved since he obviously doesn't have insurance and has already cost the hospital almost $500,000 in medical costs which they will never see again.

Now my mom is in charge of relocating patients to outside facilities. Whether it's to their homes, or a nursing home, or to a private nurse, etc. Well obviously she can't move an illegal to anyone of those places without getting in trouble with the INS or the government. So a spanish-speaking radio station tried to interview my mom at the hospital about what she was going to do about the patient. My mom's response to their questions were not only broadcast, but also re-printed in spanish-speaking newspapers in our valley.

"We're going to see about sending him back to Mexico," was her response. "The hospital can't keep him here anymore and he needs to think about going back."

A totally reasonable response in my opinion. But the mexican press got angered. They responded, "So you're just going to kick a sick, dying man out onto the streets because he is an illegal immigrant? (translation from the spanish article)" My Mom responded with (and I was kinda proud to get mentioned here), "Hey I would do this to my own 24-year old son if he didn't have medical insurance. The hospital can't digest hundreds of thousands in medical costs just because someone is from another country. That makes no sense."

I went to my mom's for dinner tonight and we talked about the situation. She was stressing a bit about tomorrow because the press will be hounding her again. But boy did she not have a lot of pleasant words to say about illegals. She brought up the immigration of the Vietnamese in the 60s and 70s. About how the melted into our society with respect and dignity. She said that "border jumpers" have little or no respect for anyone. She said that the only people who value them are the rich because they can use them for cheap labor and housekeeping. While meanwhile the rest of the population hurts because of their presense and has to support their presense.

Now I, of course, disagree with my mom. I don't think that you can judge an entire population because of some losers who think they should have the same right as every one else even though they get paid $10/hour to get drunk and high and fall out of trees.

Anyway, that is all I wanted to say during my triumphant return to TDM. Thought nothing would stir a political atmospher more so than a blog about the effects of illegal immigration.

A New Middle East

2006-08-16T14:52:00.000-05:00

The past month in the Middle East shows me - in the event that the "truce" holds - that now is the time to really re-think our enagement with Syria. Syria is a a strangely desperate country politically, especially after surrendering Lebanon last year to the Lebonese. That said, it seems irresponsible to back Syria into a corner (with Iran) and just continue to recycle the same anti-American/Israel/Western attitudes that are fueling current strife.

I suggest that we attempt to crafty a free trade agreement with Syria - based largely on the US/Jordanian FTA - in exchange for Syria's playing as a peace broker in the Arab/Israeli conflict, especially in regards to Hezbollah and Hamas. Jordan's economy is growing at 6-7% with a per capita GDP of $4700 (bear in mind that an economy at $5000 per capits GDP is said to posses a "middle class") since signing into the FTA with the US in 2001. The only way to calm extremeism in the Middle East is to not kill kids' uncles right in front of them with rockets shot from helicopters. Rather, a firm and committed economic engagement, the fruits of which are currently being felt in Amman and were being felt in Beirut on account of its reborn tourism industry. Obviously Jordan is not perfect, but the tangible signs of improvement are there, not to mention their positive influence over the PA.

It's time to look at the facts on the ground and understand that we simply cannot continue what is essentially a sin curve of active war with itermitten psuedo peace. It's time to make a serious attempt at isolating Iran, and Syria would be a great place to start.

Interview with God's Earthly Spokesmen

2006-08-15T10:35:00.000-05:00

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The human embodiment of the enormous challenge facing the Western world and quite possibly America's most grave enemy. He was interviewed by Mike Wallace from 60 Minutes, which aired on Sunday. It is the first interview he has granted a Western news source in over 6 months (when he was interviewed by a USA Today reporter).

Some thoughts on the interview:

1. Mike Wallace was completely unprepared. At times, he asked questions of the Iranian leader in an almost casual way. He fumbled when Ahmadinejad responded to his questions with other questions, and utterly failed to corner or coerce the leader into providing revealing answers to tough questions. In fact, Wallace shied away from asking many of the “tough” questions, like what Ahmadinejad thought about the unprovoked kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers on Israeli sovereign territory, or about his belief that the Holocaust is a myth. Or why a country with the fourth largest oil reserves on Earth needs to spend billions upon billions of dollars to construct nuclear facilities against the wishes of the vast majority of the world. Or if he believes that Iran is currently waging a proxy war against the US in the Middle East. Etc., etc., etc....

2. Ahmadinejad presented himself as a rational and actually quite capable leader. He proved his “worldliness” by citing many current events (including W.’s low and dropping approval ratings – at least he reads the newspapers). He kept his calm and responded to Wallace’s awkward and weak attempts to control the interview by keeping the conversation focused on the message that he wanted to get across: that Israel and the US are the one’s responsible for the current chaos in the Middle East, and that the US is out of touch, and not willing to admit mistakes in the arena of foreign policy.

3. The letter Ahmadinejad mailed to W. was talked about. He used the White House refusal to respond as further evidence of why the Iranian nation should not negotiate or even consider the demands of a hostile administration that has labeled it clumsily as a nation of “evil-doers.”

All in all, an excellent opportunity to put an arguably insane man on the spot on the world stage was completely and utterly lost (insane being someone that considers himself a messenger of God on Earth and is willing to kill an infinite number of human beings, including his own, to do the work of God). If anything, the interview probably bolstered the image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the leader of a nascent 21st century Islamic Caliphate.

See for youself.

Ironic Ad Placement

2006-08-10T14:18:00.000-05:00

UK just stopped another possible 9-11. US just started marketing 9-11 movie.

What we won't do to sell, sell, sell.

Just Because...

2006-07-31T12:42:00.000-05:00

I'll Take an Elastic Loaf with Mushrooms

2006-07-31T11:11:00.000-05:00

In an effort to suppress encroaching "modernity", the Mullah's in Iran are banning foreign words, among them, 'pizza', which is now referred to as 'elastic loaves.'

What a world...

Elastic loaves by the slice

Can't Wait till Summer Vacation!! - Oh Wait, I'm NOT in Grade School Anymore...

2006-07-27T07:44:00.000-05:00

But if you're European, you don't have to be in grade school to enjoy as many as eight weeks off from work!!! (At least in some EU countries - a paltry four is more the average)

Some capital cities come close to shutting down as denizens head off to the beaches and resort areas, or simply stay home and enjoy their super-subsidized vacation time.

Well at least we can count on the old Europeans to be faithful allies in a chaotic world...

And if you're European and reading this, here are some helpful and fun tips to enjoy the super-subsidized vacation guaranteed by your government:

"Silly Americans - shouldn't you be off keeping the world from falling apart" - Stavos from Greece, while listening to techno/house music and sipping on bottled sparkling water at the beach

Israel and some UNfriendly fire.

2006-07-26T15:04:00.000-05:00

Okay, accidents happen.

I thought Anan was crazy to say Israel shot at the UN intentionally (killing four UN peacekeepers), but now I’m not so sure. They can’t be that arrogant to send a message to the UN in the form of a missile. Can they?

The UN outpost in Southern Lebanon has been there for 18 years. The UN peacekeepers on the grounded pleaded at least 10 times for Israeli military and air force to stop firing nearby. The missiles were precision guided.

But, alas, Israel can do no wrong…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5216230.stm

History

2006-07-26T09:03:00.000-05:00

Max Boot has a nice op-ed piece today reminding us that, no, the USA is not to blame for every single thing that has ever gone wrong on the planet.

Iran's state newspaper is spouting off on the exclusion of Iran and Syria from the negotiations (term to be used VERY loosely) taking place in Rome among a bunch of parties with no direct stake in the Middle East crisis. I seem to remember a time before when countries got together and decided what other countries should do without consulting them. It went pretty well, I think.

MALIKI's WSJ Commentary

2006-07-25T23:42:00.000-05:00

His commentary appears to lay the ground work for more requests as it clearly makes effort to argue the United States' investment in Iraq is starting to produce clear performance.

'Iraq as a Sovereign Nation'
By NOURI AL-MALIKIJuly 24, 2006; Page A14
BAGHDAD -- I am proud to witness a historic milestone in a new Iraq. Al-Muthanna just became the first province to assume complete responsibility for its law enforcement and security, independent of multinational forces.
Nestled in southernmost Iraq, the province covers 20,000 square miles with 550,000 inhabitants. Iraqi forces there are now not simply operating independently, but have replaced 1,400 Coalition troops. This is a crucial first step in a sequence of events ultimately leading to Iraq standing entirely on its own.
* * *
The transfer of security responsibility in Al-Muthanna shows the success of the efforts by Iraq and the multinational force. British, Japanese and Australian forces, who provided economic, political and security-related assistance to Al-Muthanna, have now withdrawn from all urban areas, with transition teams provided to assist. Iraq gratefully acknowledges the support and dedication of the multinational forces in their efforts in rebuilding Al-Muthanna. They now leave the families, tribes, sheiks, police and government of Al-Muthanna to stand together in moving the province and the country forward.
As the first of 18 provinces to transfer security responsibility, Al-Muthanna is a test. And it is one with real potential to succeed.
The central government in Baghdad will stand by the local government, and Coalition forces remain ready to support my call for assistance if needed. But we believe the Iraqi local forces in the province will shine as an example to their colleagues nationwide as other provinces prepare to assume their own security responsibilities.
Several other provinces are close to reaching required security levels. While current estimates envision half of Iraq's provinces transferring security responsibility by the end of 2006, provincial security responsibility is not driven by a timeline. The Iraqi government will take control of more provinces when conditions for transition are achieved. In coordination with multinational forces, a ministerial committee chaired by me will base each decision for future transfers on four measures: a provincial threat assessment; readiness of Iraqi security forces; governance capabilities; and multinational force posture.
This first transfer of provincial security control is a tangible advance toward developing the capabilities of a free nation, one moving from tyranny to democracy with civil defense forces capable of maintaining order, a people committed to supporting the democratic process and a government accountable to the people.
We must be realistic in measuring success and setbacks. There are serious challenges facing my new government and my people. But Iraq as a sovereign nation must stand on its own, and find solutions unique to our sensibilities. Many other initiatives are contributing to this solution set. The death of the terrorist and criminal Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has severely disrupted al Qaeda. Yet our society remains fractured. As such, the dialogue toward reconciliation will be an arduous but crucial process.
Security plans to quell the violence in Baghdad, our capital and most populous city, face serious challenges that must be overcome. The international compact is the beginning of a five-year initiative to rebuild Iraq's economy. With God's help, and continued assistance from the Coalition, our regional neighbors and the larger international community, our people will unite and prosper. Together, we can and will succeed.
Mr. Maliki is the prime minister of Iraq.

Deciders need no laws

2006-07-25T09:39:00.000-05:00

Laws are words printed on paper by men. Dubya knows this, and thinks that laws are very cute, but, as chief decider, he can circumvent them when the war on terror deems it ok.

The American Bar Association, those "law-yers up there yonder in Washington", seem to think different.

There is also a very good article on this in the last issue of the American Conservative.

I though you were on our side

2006-07-25T09:23:00.000-05:00

The NYT is reporting today that Iraqi President al-Maliki is going to make some requests of Dubya today that will be "in sharp contrast to" US foreign policy. These include trying malfeasant American soldiers under Iraqi law and calling on Israel to cease fire.

It's funny that the admin. must now construe a foreign policy for a nation that it is currently occupying, and moreso that the wills and aims of that country may really be in contrast to what the neo-cons thought they were going to get from the democratization of the Middle East. To quote a famous movie line, "talk about your all-time backfires."

It will be interesting to see how this administration deals with Iraq diplomatically, especially given the ever-worsening situation on the ground over there. More interesting, however, will be how the next administration handles Iraq - especially if the next admin is - GASP - of the left party (I give 'em 5-1 odds at this point, watch out for Barack, though). I wonder just how much pull inside the White House the Iraqi Pres has...

Thoughts on Maliki's visit?

A 100%, Unadulterated Hypothetical

2006-07-21T09:43:00.000-05:00

What if the President of the United States of America announced, today, that he would be making an immediate official state visit to the President and Prime Minister of Lebanon – in Beirut. In a show of American force AND influence, he would arrive in Beirut, say tomorrow morning, by sea, accompanied by a massive security detail. Picture a US aircraft carrier group entering the bay of Beirut to deliver the American president to engage in an unprecedented meeting of democratically elected leaders.

Israel would have no choice but to order an immediate ceasefire against Beirut and its surrounding suburbs – a strong message right off the bat. The IDF would even have to consider halting its entire northern campaign, albeit, temporarily. The meeting would also lend tremendous credibility to Lebanon’s weak government leaders, and prove our interests lie not just in unconditionally supporting Israel, but also in acknowledging and seeking to alleviate the plight of innocent Lebanese, and in turn, Arab-Muslims. The president would reaffirm his commitment to Middle East peace, and to the rebuilding Lebanon’s destroyed infrastructure and economy. In return, he would state as a condition of negotiation and American support a deadline, say 48 hours (sound familiar), to return the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. This would serve to alienate even further Hezbollah, and show that we stand by democratically elected governments.

From there, the President, and his massive detail, would travel directly to Jerusalem to meet with the Israeli leadership to discuss the terms of negotiation, including an immediate cessation of offensive action for 48 hours. The terms would be made public to the Israeli people, along with a plea for calm and patience: to give peace one last try.

From there, the onus would completely be on Hezbollah.

Imagine reading about that story in the Sunday morning papers...

Dusting off the veto pen

2006-07-20T10:00:00.000-05:00

Our faithful leadership here in the beltway has once again shown its teeth - its naturally grown teeth, not those grown through the harvesting of stem cells from frozen embryos, thereby killing babies. Foregoing the will of a majority in both the House and the Senate, Dubya dusted off the ol' veto pen and vetoed a measure allowing for federal funds to be used in stem cell research.

We can debate the stem cell stuff, but I don't see there being a whole lot of debate on the subject. I want to focus more on the decider. It took him 5 1/2 years to veto a bill. To put it in context, the number of vetoes (and how many were overridden by a 2/3 vote in Congress):
Clinton: 38 (2)
H.W. Bush: 44 (1)
Reagan: 78 (9)
Carter: 31 (2)
Ford: 66 (12)
Ike: 181 (2)
FDR: 635 (9)

This is not to say that the number of vetoes issued is an indicator of really anything substantive, but the fact that Bush had NEVER used his veto power before is interesting. It also dove-tails in to his use of signing statements, by which he cites the "unitary power of the executive" to read the law as he sees fit. Interesting.

Citizen to US Federal Gvt.: Talk to Me

2006-07-18T11:11:00.000-05:00

"A new phenomenon called 'Arab democracy' was born — that is, a democracy in which the militias are part of the government and in which the government is too weak to control the militias."
IS "ARAB DEMOCRACY" WORTH ALL THIS CHAOS?

From an article by Shmuel Rosner (Jewish??) in Slate.

Should we take a less forceful approach at promoting democracy, allowing it to evolve more naturally and organically, and thus legitimately, as our boy Ras would have us believe? Should we continue supporting strongmen, such as the self-proclaimed descendent of Pharos in Egypt, in the name of stability? Is democracy promotion really a credible path towards (haha, ready for this?) world peace?

Answering yes to either or both of the first two questions would require a monumental shift in American foreign policy from the course it is on now. In either case, the current situation does beg these questions, and many more.

I wish someone could provide or explain to me the answers, or at least the outline, to these questions. Like our elected leaders, perhaps. Perhaps...

Here Comes the Boom

2006-07-14T08:02:00.000-05:00

I don’t know why there isn’t already a discussion around this subject, but I know we all have thoughts to share on the current “war” between Israel-Palestine-Lebanon and associated factions but let this serve as an icebreaker for an imperative dialogue.

Honestly, I’m not quite able to grasp what all is going on over there. To me they all seem crazy and willing to chance a full blown regional war when there still seems a chance for diplomacy, or at the least “hostage” negotiations through intermediaries.

The way this is how the situation breaks down: Hezbollah, Hamas, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran are more than willing to engage in armed conflict with Israel. They are willing to do this because they operate under the belief that any killed fighting the Zionist dogs will raise to Heaven (or the Islamic equivalent) as a martyr and will receive Allah’s blessing. On the other side, Israelis don’t elevate their soldiers to martyrs; rather, they reduce them to lowest common denominator, Israeli children. Over 90% of Israeli families have at least one member currently serving in the IDF. With such a demographic within the IDF the “kidnapping” of a single Israeli solder puts essentially the entire population on edge, hoping and praying and vehemently supporting retaliatory action to protect their sons and daughters from being kidnapped. This dynamic does not bode well for a peaceful resolution. Perhaps its time to allow the pot to boil over; to allow war , arguably a natural human instinct, to scorch the land and give way to new growth? I say this with full understanding that the timing of such a “wildfire” is bad for US interests and ongoing operations in the mid-east, and the broader “war on terror”. Just because its bad for us doesn’t mean its bad for the development of the mid-east, or the world, though wars are unpredictable and often have undesired reverberations.

Anyways, I think the collection of minds contributing to this page should reflect and share some thoughts on this issue. To help…how will this situation impact current diplomatic efforts to deter a nuclear Iran; Should US troops blindly support are Israeli allies; Does the US hold the ear of Israel enough to deter a strike on Iran or Syria; If violence escalates further should the US seriously consider pulling troops from Iraq? This is the first legitimate threat to the regional security of the middle east since 1967 (Saddam had neither the support or means to challenge neighboring countries in 1991) and, unless we are willing to roll the dice and allow the “wildfire” to spread, we need to get off the bench and provide some leadership and creative routes to a resolution.

Driving The Bush.....

2006-07-13T06:24:00.000-05:00

Hilarious video explaining how the country is run....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3934788900154749704

Homeland Security protects Petting Zoo

2006-07-12T11:50:00.000-05:00

I wish this was from The Onion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12assets.html?ex=1152849600&en=5310cc6e79a61fdf&ei=5087%0A

Only the Rich Can Read Stupid!

2006-07-12T10:15:00.000-05:00

I read this and had to share my thoughts

From an op-ed in today’s Washingtonpost:

"But the biggest problem with summer vacation today may be its impact on the academic achievement of low-income kids. In scores of studies, researchers including scholars at places like the Johns Hopkins Center for Summer Learning and the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory -- have reported that these students lose significant academic ground in the summertime, while their more advantaged peers -- those more likely to read and attend pricey summer camps -- do not."

…So apparently there is a direct correlation between family income and the propensity of an individual to read a book??? I don’t know about you all but I feel this comments is just bit off the mark. I agree with the general premise of the piece, and even the comment about less privileged (can we just say poor?) kids losing significant academic ground to their more advantaged counterparts in the summer. But to categorize the "more privileged" as more likely to read just seems like a complete fallacy to me. I ride two forms of public transportation everyday and regularly see "less advantaged" people reading trashy novels with Fabio on the cover, comic books, porn, Maxim, the newspaper, and even a legitimate piece of non-fiction every now and then.

The authors effort not to call the "disadvantaged", "under privileged", "less advantaged" and everything else but poor juxtaposed with their complete lack of couth in implying they are unable or un-wanting to read because of said position is hilarious. Might as well have said they’re all lazy and ignorant also.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071100871.html

More of the same

2006-07-10T16:45:00.000-05:00

Nearly 200,000 Mexicans lined the streets of Mexico City in protest this weekend after it was declared that Felipe Calderon was the winner of Mexico's presidential election. Calderon, former Energy Secretary and Uncle Vincente's handpicked successor, narrowly edged out leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador by 244,000 votes. It was a somewhat surprising win since Calderon trailed Lopez Obrador by 6 to 8 points in nearly every reliable pre-election poll. In fact, in southern Mexico, where Calderon and his party (the National Action Party) are often compared to "dogs," it was believed that he was a 3 to 1 underdog to Lopez Obrador. So when word spread throughout Mexico that Calderon was the winner, many Mexicans hit the streets in anger.

Lopez Obrador greeted them on the streets of Mexico City.

He called for cries of corruption, election fraud, and suggested an immediate recount of 50,000 polling stations. Mexico uses computer-operated booths as most of the United States does. He called Vincente Fox a failure and the leader of computer-operated voting fraud in Mexican politics.

Now maybe it's just me, but I believe that Lopez Obrador is right. I think there was corruption and fraud in that election. There is corruption and fraud in every election. The US had it, the Ukraine had it, and of course, Mexico has it.

The only question is, how do we get rid of it? And why are politicians so against making every vote count correctly?

Stop, or we'll issue a press release

2006-07-06T09:53:00.000-05:00

So, let the debate begin. Is multilateralism, if it can be called that, the most effective way to reign in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea? Is Kim Jong-Il rational (most likely)? What about the Russia-China wall in the Security Council? How does this relate to Iran?

Forgive me if I don't shake hands

2006-07-05T09:42:00.000-05:00

Enron founder and destroyer Ken Lay has died of a "massive coronary." I have no idea what he was like as a person, but they way he ruined tens of thousands of lives will go down in history as one of the largest corporate frauds of all time. There is a saying that, "nobody was an asshole at their own funeral," that may be up for debate in the next week.

Happy Birthday, America!

2006-07-04T17:23:00.000-05:00

230 years. Don't they go by in a blink...

Athletes = Heros

2006-06-30T15:12:00.000-05:00

http://www.startribune.com/511/story/525140.html

My God. This is the worst way to get caught masturbating.

Supreme Smack-Down

2006-06-29T10:59:00.000-05:00

Looks like the courts finally checked the W admins executive powers.

About time someone did...

Just the Facts From Our Friends at CNN

Commentary From Slate About the New Conservative (whatever that means) Court

Applause

2006-06-28T04:03:00.000-05:00

If any American feels the need for an "example" country to aspire to their whole "War Own Terrorism" idea towards, that country would be Israel. Of course it would be Israel. This country is the valedictorian of the school of fighting terrorism. Their actions towards Hamas extremists yesterday and their actions to save one of their own soldiers/kids was awe-inspiring. As an American whose country was thrust into the "War on Terrorism" after 9/11, I found myself watching this coverage of Israel's anti-terrorism might and saying ,"Now that's how you fight terrorism."

For the first time in a long time, I remembered why we gathered our soldiers to fight the war on Terror. For the first time in a long time, I remembered why I was glad Saddam, Uday, Qusay, Richard Reid, Mohammed Attah, Khalid "Da Shaikh," and Al-Zarqawi were gone. For the first time in a long time, I actually believed that (despite the lies and claims of WMDs), I was happy that we were fighting Terror in Iraq.

I just thought it was funny that watching the Varsity Squad (Israel, Mossad, etc.) showed us how "green" the JV Squad (America and our military) is as far as eliminating terror. I mean, at least compared to them. American soldiers have occupied the same country where our serivemen and women- as well as our journalists -have died during their occupation. Maybe we should simply ignore our own politics in America and simply look to how Israelis handle things?

I understand the "cultural" differences, the "geographic" differences, the "historical" differences, but in the end, why don't we just focus on making our foreign policy towards to terror as effective and as "reactive" as that of Israel?

America can barely armor our troops in Iraq. We, according to our defense budget, can't afford to strap kevlar or other materials around our troops or their vehicles. Israel, however, straps protective gear around their soldiers' shoes...even their toes!

Meanwhile, Isreal's anti-terrorism units have an arsenal complete with 1) Guns that can bend around corners; 2) Robotic bomb defusers 3) Pilots that can't miss; 4) Dogs that can electronically transmit the smell of an enemy to a gunner 3 miles away; and, as well as many other things...5) Reliable intelligence.

If America wants to fight this war, we really shouldn't the politicians try to help. Instead, we should adopt a patriotic rule when it comes to fighting these a-holes:

"Do as the Israeli's do."

Don't blame us

2006-06-21T22:32:00.000-05:00

The two US soldiers who were tortured and killed in Iraq this week seems to have sparked the latest reason for Republicans to hate on Democrats. Republican columnists and analysts are yet again spouting that the Dems and the liberal media should be jumping out of our chairs, screaming profanities at our television sets after hearing this story. Newt Gingrich put it best, "I am ashamed of my Democratic countrymen."

Okay, okay, if Republicans want to know why most of the country isn't talking about this, I will tell you. It's because of a serious lack of leadership.

I think I can speak for most liberals on this. We can't do what you want us to do. We can no longer get pissed off and angered and show our support for this war the way you Repubs want us to. And it's because of the lack of leadership of the Bush administration.

Most of the time I see George Bush speak about Iraq, he'll crack a smile or even laugh at least once during his speech. I actually saw him laugh when a reporter asked him about the high number of civilian deaths during the month of April.

And it's not just that he cracks a smile when talking about Iraq, it's the entire policy. The Dems already disagree with the war, the false precedents, and we want to get out of there. Are we upset about the deaths of the two soldiers? Yes, of course. But we aren't going to rally around any flags. Not with George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld at the helm.

So Repubs, stop blaming the Dems and the liberal media for everything. According to you guys, the liberal media is as guilty as Osama. You sure speak about it with as much abhorrence. Instead of pointing fingers all the time, why don't you take a look at yourselves in the mirror. You guys have really screwed things up.

Nagin's National Guard

2006-06-20T10:34:00.000-05:00

After hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans last year, leaving thousands homeless, hundreds dead or dying, and tens of thousands scrambling to get out of the city while contending with freed criminals, looters, and general chaos it seemed like an appropriate response to call on National Guard troops to help restore order. National Guard troops undoubtedly played a critical role in restoring a sense of calm to city, aiding in clean up and rebuilding efforts throughout the city. In all nearly 15,000 National Guard troops were deployed to New Orleans, some 2,000 staying through February before finally heading home.

Now, after less than six months without National Guard “chaperones” New Orleans’ newly re-elected major, Ray Nagin, has asked for National Guard troops to return. Nagin’s request came in response to the drug or revenge driven murder of five teens over the weekend, something of a regular occurrence in New Orleans these days. This year alone there have been 53 murders, with 36 coming in the past three months, hardly a cosmopolitan city. But why bring in the National Guard, why put a contingent of SOLDIERS, some of whom are recently returned from Iraq, on city streets with M16s? Nagin and other New Orleans official claim the troops are needed to fill security gaps left after the departure of nearly 400 police officers (1,375 vs. 1,750) in the wake of Katrina. This is utterly confounding to me! New Orleans openly certifies that the cities population, post Katrina, is nearly 50% (465,000) less than before the disaster (930,000). If you do the math the ratio of police officers to citizens is better in the aftermath of Katrina, so it would Nagin’s ascertain is just flat out wrong.

But, the numbers and ratio of police to citizens is simply not the issue here, well at least not for me. It’s the precedent that set by using National Guard troops to police an American city in response to a raise in violent crime rates. I live in the nation’s capital and, going by the statistics, approximately 10 homicides have occurred in my city since the New Orleans teen slaying occurred and I haven’t heard any cries for the National Guard to intervene? I see no correlation between increasing National Guard levels in the city and lowering crime rates. In fact I bet there is no historical evidence to support Nagin’s plan. Yet his plan is moving ahead full bore, and will likely receive the additional 200 hundred guardsmen he’s requested.

I see in the New Orleans a microcosm of our missteps in Iraq. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco should ask Nagin if he has an exit strategy for these National Guard troops, if there is a larger “reconstruction plan” and where these troops fit into the plan. He should be required to outline a plan to stamp out violent crime in New Orleans through CITY initiatives like urban gentrification, after school and summer programs for at risk teens, through increased police training and general urban outreach. Simply putting guys on the streets with machine guns in hopes of quieting the criminals on the street with machine guns will not work.

Nagin won his re-election by playing up his roots and connection with the “chocolate city”, by saying how serious he was about rectifying the problems in New Orleans that became so apparent in the aftermath of Katrina. He now must deliver on those promises, and he must find a more sustainable way to solve the raising crime problem in New Orleans than by transforming the city into one controlled and regulated by the National Guard.

This is a Test....

2006-06-19T09:28:00.000-05:00

For the past decade or so North Korea has annoyed the United States (and the broader international community) like a bad case of poison ivy. Every few months DPRK (that’s the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for those who still though they were rules by a military “strong-man”) does something, be it a missile test, boisterous claims about their “military deterrent” capabilities, or the starving of a million people so Kim Jong-Il can throw a banquet for himself to really agitate the “West”, particularly the United States. Then, like a five year old with poison ivy, the United States insists on scratchy and rubbing the irritation consistently spreading and inflaming the infection.

The recent developments on the Korean peninsula are not unexpected. In 1998 DPRK launched a missile over Japan and has steadily pursued advanced missile technology since, despite American surveillance and intelligence gathering efforts. Yet, while this inevitability must have been expected and possible frameworks for debate and diplomacy studied the impetuous hand of the U.S. is preparing for another frenzied round of starching, irritating, and inflaming.

To be fair, the worries of Japan, Korea, China, the U.S., and the rest of the international community are warranted but the responses, thus far, ring a familiar tune: sanctions, resentment, isolation, and recommendation to UN Security Council…none of which have quite the same effect and calamine lotion. The Japanese are worried about missiles flying over their country, the Koreans are worried about anything DPRK does, China might care (but probably sold DPRK the fuel for the missile), and the U.S. doesn’t want to have L.A. constantly targeted yet, none of these nations are prepared to take a hard line against the North Koreans. Now, I’m not about to propose an invasion of North Korea, but we cannot continue to be blackmailed by the militaristic aspirations of a tyrannical dictator. The man already believes he has the West by the “short and curlies” because of his “military deterrent” program (a.k.a. nuclear program), after having the West promise cold water reactors, economic incentives, and the like since the Clinton administration. For us to continue to show weakness in the face North Korea’s fledgling military is to undermine the power and influence of the West. There comes a point when the answer must be NO, when the community of international democracies comes together and says, “No, you can’t launch a missile through a sovereign nation’s airspace, and towards a leader of our community.” There must come a point when those nations that enjoy the relatively peacefully and stable international order stop allowing their system to be undermined by the actions of isolated actor, seeking only to “upset the herd.”

There comes a point when even the impetuous five year old realizes if he pours bleach onto his poison ivy it will go away.

Death and Taxes...Oh and Gay Marriage

2006-06-18T22:23:00.000-05:00

I'm against gay marriage. Believe it or not, I don't think they should be allowed to get "married." Why you ask? Because it's wierd. Because it gives me the willies.

I have nothing against gay people. My aunt is a lesbian. My boss is gay. I have been to gay parties where I was the only straight person there. I think gay couples should be allowed to adopt kids or find any means to create their own. I think they should be allowed to obtain a civl union so they can receive the same tax breaks as married couples. However, I don't think they should be allowed to get "married" as those couples of the opposite sex can.

Why? Because, as I said, it gives me the willies.

I honestly believe that's how most of the country feels about it too. That's why, as CI so lovingly pointed out, Americans tended to vote against it in 2004. Not because they really care if they get married or not. Not because they really think God would kill them where they stood if they allowed gays to marry. No, no, that's not why. It's because it gave them the willies.

But listen, let's be honest, banning gay marriage will never become a Constitutional Amendment. Just because an issue gives someone the "willies" doesn't constitute banishment. Because along with the "willies" comes the slightest forma of bigotry. And acts of bigotry will never again be part of the Constitution.

So the only alternative to the issue of gay marriage is to simply let it pass. It will pass one day. One day there will be enough people in this country to outnumber people like CI and myself. All forms of "the willies" and our quiet bigotry will banish.

The only question is when?

The World Cup

2006-06-17T17:28:00.000-05:00

It's a simple thing. Just a ball and a goal. But once every four years that simple thing drastically changes the world. It closes the schools, closes the shops, closes the cities...stops a war. A simple ball fuels the passion and pride of nations. It gives people everywhere something to hope for. It gives countries respect where respect is in short supply. It achieves more than the politicians ever could. Once every four years...a ball does the impossible. And if history means anything, the world as we know it is about to change.

'W' is for Winning

2006-06-16T10:05:00.000-05:00

Meanwhile, Back in the District....

2006-06-16T08:34:00.000-05:00

This one is just funny...

I Came, I Saw, Iran

2006-06-13T08:21:00.000-05:00

The Economist this week has a leader on nuclear disarmament that makes a couple pretty good points, especially regarding the seeming inherent exceptionalism of being 'powerful'. I want to focus more on international treaties - and internationalism as a whole - such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and NPT.

First and foremost, however, I want to offer that, somewhere down the road, Dubya's presidency (at least in name) may end up being the regime that will be known as the savior of the United Nations. This would be ironic for more reasons than we could possibly list. But, in the event that the UN is tangibly reformed - a set of actions that the UN, as a body, must accomplish on its own - Dubya's administration, by invading Iraq may well be looked back upon as having brought the Security Council back (from where?) to prominence.

The UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, dissolved for many reasons, not the least of which was its inability to pass binding resolutions. The UNSC passed nearly 20 resolutions (all of which can be read on the UN's website) warning Saddam Hussein of the consequences of his non-compliance with UN mandates on weapons and regional beligerence. While the US invasion was at best unprovoked, and at worst irresponsible in its manner, it has brought the UN back into the fray, as is evidenced by the multilateral efforts with Iran and North Korea (who is testing a missile in the next couple of weeks, one that can reach the US).

Is this multilateral approach legitimate? Does it work? Does anyone in the 3rd world care if a bunch of rich western democracies say something is a good idea?

Death Cab for Musab

2006-06-08T07:52:00.000-05:00

The Iraqi government has announced that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the "leader" of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has been killed. I would be willing to take some bets on this one, but I just don't really think this event will weaken the insurgency in that "country." For historical reference, I would point to such events as: "Mission Accomplished"; capturing Saddam; taking Baghdad with overwhelming force and NOT being welcomed with parades; etc.

That said, this would seem to indicate an improvement in human intelligence in Iraq, a very good sign. I am not a defeatist or anything like that, nor am I trying to sound like one, as there have been many marked improvements in Iraq in the last year. Let's hope this event is a catalyst for an insurgency of governance from the elected Iraqi national government.

Cookoo for something

2006-06-07T23:06:00.000-05:00

LCI sent me a link to an article today. It was about the most recent Ann Coulter story that makes one slap themselves in the head.

Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060607/us_nm/life_coulter_dc_4

And now, here is my response to his email:

"My goodness.

Coulter is amazing. She constantly becomes crazier and crazier. She calls the widows of 9/11 victims "harpies" and "witches?" This woman is a true nutball. She isn't even in touch with the right wing anymore. She's simply just a nutball."

Now please. Do we have any Ann Coulter supporters on the blog?

Smell That? That's Democracy

2006-06-06T12:09:00.000-05:00

Read this article...

http://www.publicintegrity.org/powertrips/report.aspx?aid=799#

Desecration and the Gays

2006-06-06T10:14:00.000-05:00

So, the Senate this week is taking up the hard-hitting issues that affect this country right at its core. Immigration/Border security? No. Pensions? No. Medicare? No. Medicaid? No. Deficit spending? No. Mounting deaths in Iraq? No. Darfur? No.

Gay marriage and flag "desecration."

Yes sir, we are in the first stages of an election year and the most exclusive club in the world is acting like it. So, as they debate AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION to keep marriage between a man and a woman, we get to continue to care about actual issues. Not only is this debate absurd, it should result in our guy, Russ "The Pit Bull" Feingold, offering a censure to everyone in the Senate who takes the pulpit to argue about this. I think we all need to keep in mind exactly how difficult it is to amend the Constitution of the US as we ignore these jokers this week. Amending the Constitution with regards to individuals' private affairs is a terrible terrible idea.

Also, flag desecration... another fantastic issue around which everyone can huddle and sing Kumbaya. The amendment, offered by Mark "get the hell outta the office" Dayton, says that any "physical desecration" of the American flag is a federal crime. This includes writing on a flag, as many people did after 9/11, and do whenever they want to commemerate something. Strangely enough, I would swear that we live in a free country where free speech is not only protected, but encouraged in some circles. Frankly, I think people should be able to burn the flag in the street if they want to - hell, they can leave any time they want, and if they choose to stay in a country they hate so much, that's their problem.

So, wake me up when it's over.

Taxing Death, or Estates?

2006-06-05T09:20:00.000-05:00

This week, Congress will be voting on the future of the Estate / Death Tax. This tax, put very simply, is a tax on the wealthiest families in America / the world (only 2% of households are subject to it): a tax on, as Teddy Roosevelt once said, "fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits."

A majority of Americans seem to believe this tax should be abolished. As it stands, the tax was set (by our fearless, decision-making leader) to gradually phase out by 2010 - but also slated to return the following year, in 2011.

Its funny to think that if I and a wealthy American both died tomorrow, I would be saddling loved-ones with debt, while my compatriot would bequeath loved-ones with estate. This is definitely and entirely the governments fault...

But seriously, much of what I know about this issue was learned today, from two very good editorials in the Washington (Com)Post. Take a read:

For the Estate Tax

Against the Death Tax

And then comment. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Hayden Confirmed - NSA already knew that

2006-05-30T09:47:00.000-05:00

General Hayden was confirmed on Friday to be CIA Director. I think this pretty much puts to rest the NSA wiretapping as a "hotbutton" political issue. Although the debate, I'm sure, will rage on in academic circles (much like the one found right here on these very pages), MSNBC, CNN, and FOXNews will just have to find another cute white girl who got drunk and disappeared to talk about.

The Gettysburg Address

2006-05-29T16:09:00.000-05:00

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

- Abraham Lincoln
Dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg
November 19, 1863

Your move...Good one

2006-05-26T02:47:00.000-05:00

There is a Shakespearian quote that haunts me whenever I see George Bush speak about his plan for immigration reform:

"Something is rotten in the State of Denmark."

I am beside myself whenever I watch Dubya talk about his plan for immigration reform. I wonder, "How can this be?" "I agree with EVERY SINGLE WORD HE SAYS." For 6 years, I have called this man a "moron," a "douchebag," a "robot," I have called him these things primarily because I disagreed with virtually everything he did.

So why now? Why with this issue? Why am I agreeing with him? I am astonished. I don't know what to think of him now.

Before I start clapping and yelling, "Yeah, Dubya, yeah," think to myself: "Politics must be involved with this move...somehow." So I have to double-check myself. Because I KNOW that Karl Rove is still behind all of this. There HAS to be a strategy to this political play. There must be a strategy.

And then it dawns on me.

Red, White, and Blue Republicans are never going to vote Democrat on the issue of immigration reform. I mean, why would they? Democrats want what Bush has been spewing when it comes to immigration reform. So why would they vote for a different candidate for Congress this Novemeber? Honestly, most Republicans, despite their disapproval for Bush, are going to vote Republican anyway. If immigration is their major issue...the Democrats and Bush are side by side on the humanity of it.

No reason to change a vote here. Republicans will still vote Republican.

And it is a major issue. People will vote solely based on it.

But Rove and Co. know it's an issue. Which is why this move by Rove and Bush is BRILLIANT! It's brilliant.

Because he has saved the Hispanic vote for the Republicans.

(continued on Comments)

Bush Gets "Fun" on Immigration

2006-05-24T15:25:00.000-05:00

What's the first thing that pops into your mind?

A Breakthrough?

2006-05-24T09:25:00.000-05:00

The Iranian leadership has followed up Ahmedinejad's letter with more specific item to discuss, in attempt to foster direct talks with Washington.

Our administration is weary of the proposal, and says that the letter contains "nothing new." Now, given the Iranian president's past remarks on Israel and other subjects, coupled with his state's sponsorship of terrorism, one can see why Pres. Bush and his team will not want to engage in direct talks. Furthermore, the case can be made that by engaging in direct talks, you would absolve the international community from handling this crisis as just that--an international problem.

But I believe that this can be a breakthrough. We have engaged in talks with Iran when we secured there noninterference in the invasion of Afghanistan. We have talked with them in hopes of stabilizing Iraq a bit quicker.

There is no doubt that Iran desires to be the region's superpower. This latest overture suggests that they are not hoping for a war, but rather, are looking for a way to avert it while saving face in the international community.

I think we should really take this seriously. Whether we like it or not, the Iranians wield great influence in the region. We already eliminated their sworn enemy and increased their presence, consequently, in Iraq by our invasion. By at least attempting to sit at the table with them, perhaps we can begin to regain our credibility in the region. I believe that such a move will go a long way to improving the situation in Iraq, because Iraq, if we can successfully avert a US-Iran showdown, will increasingly become a "shared" burden, and not ours alone (under the assumption that Iran wants the stabilize the region as well).

I would endorse engaging in direct talks, but probably with two caveats. First, we receive a pledge from Iran that they will no longer be hostile towards Israel and promises to be a partner in the stabilization of Iraq. And second, we will only initiate talks in extreme privacy. In other words, it would be exactly the atmosphere we are in today, where senior public officials are dismissing direct talk notions, but are already engaged in them--us none the wiser.

Dumb jocks v. Smart guys

2006-05-19T03:34:00.000-05:00

In recent days I have been challenged by CI to deliver reasonings for "what it is to be a Democrat." As I attempted to convey in the comments section of his most recent blog, being a Democrat means belonging to a factually-based, responsive party. The Republicans, as I stated in my comment, are a reform party -- not a factually-driven party. However, they are a reform party of "bad ideas."

In this two-party system we have in America, you can belong to one or the other. The party of bad ideas. Or the party of no ideas, only responses based on fact-based decision-making. That's the reason you Clinton-haters feel the need to focus on Monica Lewinsky -- rather than Bill's 8 years in office . Because Clinton was the poster boy for making fact-based decisions that made average Americans richer, avoided wars, turned a deficit into a surplus, etc., etc., etc. What else but sound, fact-based decision making make a country love a politician so much that they never waned in support of him despite his admittance to having a blowjob in the oval office? It's because he made good fact-based decisions that turned a country around.

And that's exactly what our country needs right now. A Democratic party that could make different, real, sound, fact-based decisons for us. These past 6 years of right-winged leadership has created quite a mess. Ever since Bush v. Gore, it has been bad decision,after bad decision, after bad decision. If you have a problem with our country right now, don't blame the Democrats. The law of the land has been Republican for years now. In both foreign and domestic policy.

America deserves a majority party to make fact-based, well-reasoned arguments to pull us out of this mess. To put it another way: We need to remove control from the jocks, and give it back to the smart guys in the lunchroom.

So I'm not sure we are reformative as you want us to be, CI. After all, we have no new, original ideas. Other than we want to stop the enforcement of the bad ones.

So yes, you are right, our biggest weapon is George Bush's administration. It's hard for us not to bash Bush. In fact, it's second nature fore us. But that's just because he has been THAT BAD. It's because he does everything wrong. Every idea of his is a bad one. They have led to a war that we can't win. They have led to higher cost of livings. They have led to deficits. They have led to fewer students in higher education (for the first time in decades, more people can't afford to send their kids college than they could in the previous administration). They have led to a number of programs being cut in high schools. My God, they have led to huge gas and energy prices. Do you honestly believe that had Gore become president...these prices would be what they are anyway ecause of the market? If so, wake up and smell the coffee!

True, being a liberal also means we love to show our love to people. If we can afford it, we'd love to cure poverty; send every deserving kid in America to college; we'd love to make health care as universal as it is in every other well-respected country. We're a party who doesn't care if you're gay, lezbo, immigrant, black, brown, blonde, or blue. As long as you're breathing, a lot of us would like to give you a ladder to pull yourself out of any hole you might find yourself in. We are definitely the party of the needy in this country.

But that's just idealism, don't believe that we don't understand realism too. We're a party of really smart guys who uses our minds to make the best of a situation. We like fact-based, responsive decisions that try to help everyone involved -- not make a mess. I mean, we're a free people. For us, all we want from our government is to just make everyone's lives better by using your heads...that's what we pay your for. And you'd be surprised. We have a lot of smart guys. Guys a heckuva lot smarter than Rummy, Uncle Dick, Bushie, and to be frank...most of the Republican leadership. We could do a heckuva lot better than what this Republican-led government has put us through these 6 years. I mean...if you look back, don't you see a lot of "fuck ups?"

So that's your salesman's pitch, CI. Which would you rather be part of? The party of no ideas, who only tries to enforce fact-based responses and initiatives? Or the party of bad ideas? Who don't think things through, and continuously makes a mess of America.

Without a 3rd party, it's really just a choice one has to make in his life. Democrat? Or Republican? Try not to get too involved with anything that might confuse you. This is a simple question come November. Who do you want?

The dumb jocks? Or the smart guys?

Leadership in Action (We're Screwed)

2006-05-18T15:10:00.000-05:00

A heated exchange (not verbatim) between Arlen Spectre and Russ Feingold at a hearing on Capitol Hill today over same-sex marriage:

Russ "The Rothweiler" Feingold - "I love America and the Constitution, and gays are a threat to both!"

Good ole Arlen (god bless him) - "How dare you lecture me!!! I'm just as important as you are! The nerve."

Russ - "I hate it when you yell at me!" - gasp - "I'm LEAVING!"

Arlen (verbatim) - "If you want to leave, good riddance."

Russ (struggling to maintain to composure) - "I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman." - wimpering, and barely audible - "see ya."

For the actual story (just as farsical):

Leadership

Chronically Unfulfilled In Washington, DC

2006-05-18T09:56:00.000-05:00

"Liberal Elitists"...like most other recent initiatives by the democrats the one undertaken by our own resident DEMOCRAT was half-assed, and easily derailed. (see the comments sections of the 29’ers Post)

I asked for a simple overview of Democrat platform, what they stand for and how they propose to lead the nation (other than being anti-Bush, anti-republican, and dare i say anti-American b/c those curry public favor). What did i get: Immigration reform in the form of throwing tons of money at the 'securing' the border (seems like they now want to build a wall you can't see? what’s the difference b/w a wall you can see and one you can't?); Iraq and Troops, followed by a return to Kerry's attacks on troops not being adequately supplied, armed (not about getting them out, or finishing the job); the wire-tapping!

What kind of platform is that, where are the ideas, the calls for American's to realize we all need to change and embrace the difficult problems we face or else we won't find solutions for any of them!

This is why the Democrat party is hurting...this is why Democrat party can only make headline when the Republicans fuck up. Now I’m not here to recruit voters for either party (I’m about ready to try socialism at this point), I just want a leader who’s in politics for the right reasons, to heal, to educate, to LEAD. I want to understand why supporters of both parties are content with the bland brand of politics being practiced today. Why do we accept a political dynamic in this country that has no passion, romance, or vigor?

Where are the leaders (republican or democrat) who can evoke emotion and passion as JFK, RFK, and FDR? Where are the charismatic leaders in the mold of Truman and Reagan? And most troubling of all...where are the leaders whose genius lies in their dedication to liberty, justice, and the ideals of our forefathers (those leaders cut from the same mold as Washington, Adams, Madison, and Lincoln). Sure we live in "different" times but our governing doctrine remains the same. Why have we (the people, the voters, 'their' bosses) allowed the american political system to be hijacked by marketing professional, consultants, and pollsters who, with the flaccid acquiesces of the politicians, have turned the american politics into a sterilized contest who can regurgitate the best focus group tested language?

Why?

'Ethics' - The Four Letter Word

2006-05-18T07:52:00.000-05:00

As Congress tries to pass "ethics reform" measures, which are far from reforming any practices tangibly, there are a few prbes starting up. Bob Ney and William Jefferson lead the charge this week, as the House Ethics Committee begins to delve into various acts of malfeasance by the best and the brightest our nation has to offer.

Interestingly, the reform package includes a measure that mandates members of Congress and their staff to go through ethics training courses... and all this time I thought our elected officials were to be at the top of the ethical food chain in first place. Isn't that why we are supposed to vote for them? To be fair, though, most are just spineless, not unethical.

Spy On This

2006-05-16T10:49:00.000-05:00

You know, I cannot BELIEVE that people are so acquiescent to this "surveillance" program! Especially under the extremely loose pretense that it will "protect us and make us safer".

I cannot BELIEVE that people have become so willing to sacrifice their civil liberties.

LIBERTY defined:

1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
4. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
5. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

The right to privacy is arguably THE MOST IMPORTANT liberty we know. And yet 63% of the public accepts this brazen breach of LAW??? I am really shocked, and even disappointed. Perhaps people do not understand how difficult it is for liberties to be protected, and how easy it is for them to be taken away. If we, as a nation, accept this program, its practice will be justified for the duration of the “war on terror,” or as the Pentagon now refers to it, the “long war.” That means the program will go on indefinitely, during which time the opportunity for further government abuse and mission creep increases EXPONENTIALLY.

Clearly, the administration knows that they have grossly manipulated this breach. Remember that when the story was originally leaked, they went to great lengths to assure us that the surveillance program was only monitoring international calls. Last week's revelation CLEARLY shows that they were attempting to COVER UP the unfortunate TRUTH:

OUR GOVERNMENT IS SPYING ON US.

I am not willing to sacrifice my right to privacy, MY CIVIL LIBERTY, as a tactic to wage this extremely ambiguous "war on terror." I find it extremely hard to believe that monitoring phone calls and e-mails will make us safer than securing our ports or mass transit systems (where in both cases, virtually nothing has been done).

Never in my brief voting career have I insisted on voting along party lines. In fact, as a registered independent, I have always voted for solutions, rather than titles. But the revelation of this program, and its magnitude, is the deal-breaker for me. I will vote blue in November, across the board, in the hopes that the Democratic Party will be as vehemently opposed to this program as I am. If they stand up on this issue, then I vote Democrat.

Sincerely,

The Sons of Liberty

Hugo Hugo Hugo Hugo...Another Outburst From Our Favorite South American Dictator

2006-05-15T11:33:00.000-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/15/britain.chavez/index.html

I hope Chavez is just confused on the meaning of genocide...regardless of you're stance on Bush's policies and actions over the past 6 years its hard label him as, "the biggest genocide person alive, in the history of humanity." I mean sure, he retaliated to an "unprovoked" (another debate for another time) by starting 2 wars...though, to his credit he's conducted those wars in a more humane manner than our adversaries. He has no sought the extermination of an entire race, people, ethnicity, or culture as the government's of Sudan, Turkey, Bosnia, or Iraq under Saddam did.

I will admit, from a certain point of view, a case can be made that the cumulative affect of US economic, foreign, and military policy post WWII has adversely impacted the world and caused deaths throughout the world. Even from this point of view, however, its certainly a stretch to dub any US President as "genocidal".

Nonetheless...if Chavez is so worried about genocide and helping the poor, underprivileged, and down trodden of the world then maybe he should divert some of Venezuela's oil revenues to Sudan, or maybe even help in the peace talks there (which, ironically, are being led by the United States, at the direction of BUSH). Or, since he appears so concerned about impact of oil consuming vehicles on the environment maybe he should remove Venezuela from OPEC, stop exporting oil, and make the market adjust.

What will the 29ers say next?

2006-05-14T20:09:00.001-05:00

Well once again it appears that liberal elitists were right after all. For some reason it just takes the rest of the country a little while longer to understand that tax cuts for the wealthy, wars that make no sense, paying more attention to credit, oil, and insurance companies (rather than the average American) really is a bad thing. It turns out that everything we liberals have been spewing for the past 3 years was true. The only difference is that now the rest of the country finally gets it. It's like they've finally realized that Bruce Willis was actually dead in the movie "The Sixth Sense." For some reason, they didn't understand until years later. You can almost hear the rest of the country going, "Ohhhhhhhhhh....."

However, you gotta love the tenacity of those hardcore Bush-backers -- or as I call them, the 29ers (named after Bush's latest approval rating). Even though they often look like they're trying to sell a ketchup popsicle to a woman wearing white gloves, they are convinced they're right and they are sticking to their guns. They refuse to believe that Bush has done anything wrong. Heck, some staunch Republicans are still insisting that the dreadful poll numbers for Republicans are only because George W. Bush is against building a wall along the Mexican border. One conservative talk show host insists that Bush's approval rating would be back above 50 percent if he would only change his stance on immigration reform. He forgot to mention Iraq, the Medicare crisis, high gas prices, wire-tapping, and Dick Cheney, among others.

Now come on. Does anybody on this blog really believe that Bush would garner a 22 percent bump in the polls if he came out and said that he would start kicking out immigrants? If he came out and said that he would be building a 2,000 mile wall from California to Lousiana?

I sure hope not.

Now come on, 29ers. You have to give us something better than immigration and immigration alone to explain why over 70 percent of the country is against Bush. Maybe if you can think of something legitimate, you might be able to save yourselves in November.

"No one likes you, and I'm crazy. Write back soon, BFF." - Mahmoud

2006-05-12T13:06:00.000-05:00

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/world/0605/transcript.lemonde.letter/index.html

Take a read of the Persian Prince's letter to "his excellency", a certain President Dubya. I wonder if the NSA knew about the letter before his excellency... I wonder.

All in the Family

2006-05-08T12:43:00.000-05:00

Dubya has selected Michael Hayden to head the CIA, thus replacing the very forgettable Porter Goss. If Hayden is confirmed, that will mean that every intelligence gathering organization in the United States (of which there are 13, I believe) will be headed up by an active member of the military.

Personally, I like the idea of the CIA remaining civilian, but that is not really my main objection to this nominee. Currently, Hayden is John Negroponte's deputy within the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), which means that Bush is still unwilling to go out of house for a little change, Tony Snow being the sole exception during this time of great "shakeup." I am all for stirring the executive pot, but I would also welcome some new ingredients.

The confirmation hearing should be interesting, though, as Hayden was head of the NSA when they "we're wantin' to know if y'all were talkin' to Al Qaeda." I suspect that he will be confirmed, and probably relatively easily, but there will be some nice pot shots during the hearing(s).

I look for Joe Biden to talk for 73 straight minutes, take a drink of water, continue talking for another 55 minutes, then say something like, "I don't agree with that, but I like you, and I think you're qualified for the job. Just don't make us have to call you back here to explain why you screwed up."

Feliz Cinco de Mayo

2006-05-05T08:46:00.000-05:00

By the way, the 5th of May is celebrated by Mexicans for the victory of a small Mexican force against who? You guessed it! -- A much larger French army.

Enjoy the photo. Bush with Mexican singer Graciela Beltran, yesterday at the White House.

(You may now proceed to Google her).

"America, You Lost"

2006-05-04T15:45:00.000-05:00

The words of one Mr. Moussaoui. Did we really lose Moussaoui?

NOPE! America, we won. The verdict was one that he, I am sure, was extremely disappointed in. No martydom for you buddy. May each and every day of your life be miserable for what you tried to do, and may the 7 virgins that you thought were waiting for you kick you in the nads before Allah sends you to hell.

A defeat for him, a defeat for Al-Qaida, and a victory for the US. Despite prosecutions' attempt to actually make him a martyr and glorify his cause, which in turn would be a golden propaganda tool for extremists to have used, the jury said 'nope.' No easy way out through execution, and no glorification of your name. You will wake up every day of your life knowing that you will one day die here, and you will have no solace as to knowing when that day will come.

3 cheers for the jury, they got it right.

Sanctions and a Handshake

2006-05-03T08:57:00.000-05:00

As the "stand-off" with Iran continues, the UN has finally decided to talk more about the issue with groups of delegates. Now I feel better.

In the real world, imposing a sanctions regime on Iran would be making the same mistakes we (other countries with a vested stake in the world at large) have made time and time again in regards to rogue states. I do not really think that Iran is a rogue state in the first place, but rather a relatively developed natural resouces state with a score of irrational actors at its helm. To impose crippling sanctions would only serve to drive the Iranian economy into a state of stagnation, thus "punishing the son for the sins of the father."

(continued in comments section)

The Cost of Being a "Western White"

2006-05-02T15:19:00.000-05:00

For the past fifty some odd years America has possessed the most dominant fighting apparatus ever to grace this earth yet, over that same period we have managed to effectively lose two wars (on the verge of a third) and numerous skirmishes with foreign troops. There is no debating (even within the ranks of the Iraqi insurgency) that the American military has the power to devastate and obliterate any foe, without using the nuclear option. With such power how can we be such poor administrators of war you ask, because America has adopted and practiced a policy of minimalism war, a policy that inherently leaves room for the enemy.

Why you ask has such an absurd policy been accepted by America….penitence for the legacy of white supremacy and imperialism… (continued in comments)

Apologies to the Admistrator

2006-05-02T02:12:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago., TDM expressed that the #1 issue that needs to be addressed in Immigration reform is Mexico itself. I disagreed and said we should open our arms with smiles on our face for all willing workers. Although I am all for the Mexicans and latinos coming into our country to provide work, today's protests proved me one thing: That the escalation of these immigrants would not be as high had it not been for the corruption of the Mexican gov't.

Half of Mexico lives below the poverty line. It will take Mexicans 20 years or longer to make what they deserve in their own country. Perhaps dealing with the Mexico gov't first is the #1 most logical idea on the table. Otherwise, even if we do start a guess worker program, the number of applicants won't be 11 million...It will be 50 million.