Productivity is the American Way

One of my favorite little sayings is that "I'm so productive Greenspan would be proud", or conversely, "Alan Greenspan wouldn't appreciate that." I think productive, productivity, and productiveness are all terms synonymous with the American Spirit. Not the definition of patriot or patriotism, but awfully close, perhaps even more relevant as to the true American identity.

One could be a patriot but not be entirely too productive, or vice versa. I think the American Spirit is a perception earned from years of commitment to a socially universal trait. Each nation earns its Spirit, some become not at all flattering. Think the Soviet Union or France.

I think a core element of the American Spirit is our productivity. We even measure our productivity, and by comparison to other countries its one of the last remaining areas of dominance Americans still enjoy in the global workforce. Innovation is another area we still dominate. Americans are productive and innovative. That is the measure of the American Spirit.

In fact, my biggest gripe of this Iraq War is the lack of progress, its productiveness. We are all upset about this. Sure there are a slew of truly peaceful people out there that were and continue to be against the war. But mostly the discontent comes not from fighting Saddam, but not securing the peace after the fight and that this war has dragged on in its current phase for close to 5 years. Too long. Too Unproductive.

Just about everyone approved of the war in the beginning, except for the hard core peaceful. Most Americans are upset at how un-American it has become.

However, there are the people who are saying that we shouldn't be there in the first place. These are people who are unproductive. That debate was settle a long time ago, and to just deviate briefly, its ironic how they support the people who voted for the war continuously. Without hesitation it seems. Read Kerry and Clinton.

Right, I always say to them. What's the use of debating with someone living in the past? The reality is its 2007, right?

Those people just bought into the hate machine. I'm not saying they aren't Patriotic, that they've lost the love of their country. I'm not saying that. They have lost the American Spirit. They let that spirit die and supplanted it with a virulent anti-Bush spirit.

With that being said, when today I heard President Bush categorize the Democrat resolution in congress to condemn Turkey for events almost a hundred years ago as unproductive I thought Alan Greenspan would approve.

When you find someone who disagrees with the President today, we don't have to smear them as unpatriotic. They've only lost the American Spirit.

This resolution can harm the progress in the war as Turkey has threatened to run military missions into Iraq, which they had been restraining from doing out of deference to the U.S. mission in Iraq.

I'm not here to convince anyone of the value of continuing the war, but I think its awfully important that elected representatives of the U.S. Government not do anything that would incite ours allies to abandon us.

This can lead to American deaths. Isn't that what the Peace movement is trying to prevent?

It just seems that not only is this resolution counter productive, but its also a hypocritical position to take from anyone who slandered Bush for alienating the world and killing American kids for no reason.

It shows terrible judgment. Consider that they can just de-fund the war and end it all. Instead they do what they condemned Bush for.

The Pressure is On

click


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/washington/12memo.html?ei=5065&en=1c7066d2e0c64e4e&ex=1192766400&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1192215841-VBVU5OCbgJ9SYHO4SCs8AQ


While I'm ranting and raving about how liberals are not pressuring their heroes in congress, I've come across a few articles that belie my opinion.

One was anti-war activist camping out at the Pelosi's, another was in Fortune Magazine and dealt with the real change in the Party in regards to free trade(it seems that some have actually worked toward preventing free trade agreements rather than just complain and then turn a blind eye to acts like Clinton's signing of NAFTA way back when).

And now this article above.

Honestly, transgender issues are of no concern of mine, but apparently this is one issue where liberals are going to stand strong on!?!

In the mean time Congress is alienating our allies with more of their silly resolutions.

I was told Bush was ruining our standing in the world, but I don't recall any ambassadors being recalled because of his actions, unlike what the Democrats just caused with Turkey.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, this is where I don't provide a link just to show you that I too can control the information you receive.

In other words if you don't know what I'm talking about then your being fed what "they" only want you to hear, and stories about Democrats straining our international relations aren't for your digestion.

Funny also how despite Bush's attempts to piss everyone off in the world, both Germany and France voted for pro-American leaders this past couple of years. . . .

That isn't suppose to happen.

A Candidate's Test

click


http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460


This links to a quiz that will match your preferences on certain issues to the candidates.

These are great.

Of course Hillary's positions are updated daily as her positions change that often.

She already dropped the child's saving bond idea.

Yet Another Capitulation

click

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/washington/09cnd-nsa.html?ei=5065&en=5614405c7a9db3a5&ex=1192507200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


Another Capitulation.

I don't get tired of presenting these, I feel duty bound in some respect.

You see, I want something in America that hasn't happened in a while.

I want to see Democrats be held accountable.

I want them to do what they promised. To not behave in the way they criticized Bush and Republicans for.

I may be asking much, but really conservatives do it all the time.

I especially want a choice next election. Beyond the Republican candidate and my usual third party choice.

I don't want another Presidential candidate taken from the 'most electable' stack.

I want one with ideas and issues and a track record. Again, that may be asking for much from liberals today but it wasn't always that way.

If we start expecting more from them, then maybe they'll start delivering.

Don't you get tired of all the complaining about how 'things' are with no true efforts to change them despite promises to do so?

Questionable Judgment

click


http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html


What am I missing?

She disparages Bush and his administrations perceived shadiness, even gets the ball rolling in condemning a Bush blunder or back room dealing, and yet she hires Berger.

It's actions like this that I can't dismiss.

You can, your free to dismiss or buy into whatever you want.

My judgment is he's a crook, I'd be in jail if I did what he did.

Her judgment is questionable.

But she has a 'd' and the right last name preceding that 'd'.

That's all that matters.

Plame/Wilson/Novak/Rove

click
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/novak-wilson-did-not-forcefully-object-to-naming-of-cia-wife-in-column-2007-10-06.html



This was just an incredible abuse of power.

But not the way its conventionally viewed.

It was so much a story to keep controversy on the Bush Administration, to keep negative coverage going, just in case Bush couldn't bumble his way into any himself.

I had people emailing me about how criminal Karl Rove was! Like they knew all the facts.

What I took from it was the juxtaposition between the way the Bush Administration handled a Special Prosecutor and the way the Clinton Administration did.

Fitzgerald never had his reputation impugned, not once. But everyone knows how dastardly Ken Starr was. That speaks to the kind of person Bush is versus the type of person Clinton is. Even if it was lackey's who did it to Starr. Clinton didn't put a stop to it.

But this story kept voters who needed something, who wanted something, to hate in hate.

These people are so easily persuaded. That's a problem. If you're getting riled up to hatred from inner D.C. politics then your not clear minded. Further more, if your only mad at one side, all the time, then you're so far gone that you've become a cartoon.

I had people emailing me all the time, like I said, about how bad Rove was. Do I actually expect them to feel remorse today about how they slandered Rove? No. I don't even expect them to get this news. They get the first impressions and that is enough, to correct the news with facts is beyond their needs.

Its not important to get the news right for many people. Its important that their world view is preserved. Regardless of the reality.

Politicians love these people, love them for being easily swayed to serve the side that instigates ugly politics.

We are stuck with them. You gotta love them like children, they know no better, and want no better either.

They are the same people complaining about the same issue for years and years and years. They would never expect the side they don't hate to perform, they expect to be fed reasons to hate the other side.

Secede!

click

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_us/secessionist_movement_1

Can we really be considered a free society if what these groups aspire to is regarded as unconstitutional?

What happened to the tenets of the Declaration of Independence? Are they invalid now? We have no rights to form a new government anymore?

But we go about the world imposing democracy when we won't honor it here?

Its one of those issues where the question arises within myself, why should I care if Vermont secedes? Or similarly, why should I care if two guys marry?

This country is all about talking freedom but when it comes down to brass tacks we are no worse than sheep.

Vote for the same bland politicians named Bush or Clinton, get riled up to vote because of a constitutional amendment that would ban something, voice anger and hatred at talk show hosts that rehash the news.

But there is still some life left in the old idea of liberty. Maybe the internet will nurture the spirit.

This next election will be an indicator I think. Can a Ron Paul get serious consideration? Who's the indie darling of the left? Kucinich?

Is liberalism dead?

John McCain

click

http://www.miamiherald.com/367/story/256844.html

Chinese water torture comes to mind.

Who's giving this guy money?

Send it my way instead, I'll do something productive with it.

Rush Limbaugh

I'm just glad that although this nation faces many severe issues, the leaders in Congress can find time to attack a radio talk show host.

This is why we kicked the GOP out and voted for the Democrats. To stand up for America.

It's about time.

Ironically, its harder to find out what he actually said than to find out what the Democratic Leaders say about him.

I wouldn't even of heard of this if it wasn't for Harry Reid. Thanks Mr. Reid for allowing Mr. Limbaugh to rehash all the unpatriotic words that you said.

Only in America.

I'm not linking to any sites on this story. I spent enough time on this silliness. But I'm on record as to where I stand on this crucial issue facing America, this most important topic that has demanded the attention of the Senate Leader, and that is down with free speech, unless its a liberal calling Bush the devil. Then that is o.k. and patriotic.

There is a Difference

click
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-consider-third-party-effort/


I ran across this article and to me its highlights the contrast in the differences of two major movements in politics.

One the right, Christians do abandon the GOP, and non-christians as well, when the candidates aren't aligned with the cause.

On the left its all about the party.

It's highly unlikely, damn near never going to happen, that a moveon.org or a "A Million Blogs for Peace" group is going to wake up and ever entertain the thought of not voting for a Democrat regardless of whether the candidate aligns with the cause.

Its not healthy. But that is the way it is, been that way for decades. They got KKK members, man-slaughter Senators, and assorted other seedy characters described as liberal and they are cherished by virtue of the 'd' next to their name.

Askthe senior Bush how quickly he was abandoned by the Right after he abandoned the Right.

Its Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RVD28G0&show_article=1


I like what Obama says when he confronts Camp Clinton. I think he's right. Hillary says what she needs to say and flirts around the edges of issues.

I don't know much about Obama, he seems progressive and a doer before a talker. Obviously there is something amiss if he is a Democrat, but what you gonna do?

Though its his talk that suggest that he'd be a courageous choice for president from the left side.

However, at present they think Hillary is most electable. . . odd they don't consider that around half the voters wouldn't consider her at all.

Issues aren't important. Just ask those who have the Hillary '08 and the Million Blogs for Peace icons on their blogs.

The Newest Resolution!

click

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27congcnd.html?ref=world

What's to make of this? A Senate Resolution urging the branding of "terrorist" upon the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps!

That isn't a step on the pathway to peace? Or is it?

What I took away from this is the Resolution put up by Joe Biden. Here's a guy running for President and he isn't waiting. His stance is to partition Iraq. OK. His Resolution urges such. Great.

I always wonder that about politicians. If they got such a great idea to justify their re-election, or promotion, then why wait? Like him or not, he's must really believe in what he says if he is already acting upon his words.

Anyways. Its another hollow resolution. Those Democrats. . .So resolute.

Incredible Idea

click

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RULMJO0&show_article=1

While this idea isn't novel, its still great.

Third party candidates have suggested this type of bond for years, and I've always liked it. I'm not about to change my mind now.

What's great about this now is that if someone with a 'd' next to their name has finally embraced the concept, then so many millions of Americans are going to buy into it without a thought.

Hell, they're bound to give Hillary so much love for championing the little guys with these bonds that I'm going to get sick all over again, like when I see the peaceniks with the Hillary '08 bumper stickers.

What is bad about the idea is that I already had my kids, within the last six years. But unlike the folks who don't like tax cuts if a Republican suggest them, I still support this plan, even though my kids miss out and a Democrat is on it first this year.

Of course, I heard promises from her and others like her in office before. . . .

She is a Senator, get it going on now Hillary. Why wait till your President?

There is no debate about it. . .

click

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTI22O0.html


As time goes by, its becoming increasingly obvious that the rhetoric of the last 6 years was only that. Talk.

No serious candidate for President on the Democratic side is going to end the War in Iraq.

Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

Now the question is what are voters going to do? Go with a Democrat who has been less than honest about this issue, go with an evil Republican, or couragously vote third party and dishonor generations of democrat-lever ancestors.

It's probably going to come down to who in their judgment is the most electable. Issue don't matter on the left.

That's history, not my opinion. My opinion is that their judgment is horrible. Doesn't make them bad people, just not helpful when its time to pressure politicians to get things done.

Elections are great, it reinforces my disdain for the two party system.

Hillary Does Appeal to Republicans!

click

href="http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/23/clinton_says_she_can_appeal_to_gop_voters/7476">http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/23/clinton_says_she_can_appeal_to_gop_voters/7476

I could consider voting for Hillary Clinton. There are just certain benefits to having her as President.

Like having positive stories in the paper for a change.

Also, if I like how things are, she'd be a safe vote.

Only the GOP watches Big Brother 8

I've caught most of the Big Brother 8 reality T.V. show this summer, and all kept through it all iI concluded that only Republicans watch this show and only Republicans vote in regards to America's player.

Gosh, every task that Eric was to do followed the quaintest of paths. Give a kiss to someone, ah Jessica. Give a childhood toy to someone, yep Jessica.

Anyways, its over now with two episodes to go.

Thanks America and the Evil Dick.

Evil Dick. Just typing that seems like a sinister act on my part.

But he beat the Republicans. Go figure.

Mexican Truckers and the Teamsters

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/trade/2007-09-12-mexico-trucks_N.htm?csp=34

Just some thoughts on this much ado about the Mexican trucks that are about to imperil everyone on the Nation's highways.

To me, and I'm a Teamster Local 264, it seems like more of a symbolic issue than a real issue. It's an issue because Democrats have to repay the Teamsters for their support year in and year out.

Otherwise it doesn't seem like much of an issue. The column above cites that its probable that Mexican trucks are marginally safer than U.S. trucks! This is made mention because that is how the debate is framed most often -- Unsafe Mexican truckers & safety standards aren't on par with U.S.

If there is parity on safety, as mentioned in the USA Today story, then the real issue is how to give something to the teamsters as a quid pro quo.

I'm not ignorant of the job issue and herein lies another symbolic battle. This one is for my benefit.

If you go to the Teamsters.org web site you'll be greeted by an array of flags on the bottom of the site from different countries in the world. While I realize that those flags are placed by the translation service, the Teamsters themselves are an international brotherhood.

If that is correct, as it is, and if they proudly print in their monthly magazine international union triumphs, as they do, then its a tad bit odd to see them fighting their international brethren.

Obviously, not all the truckers are Teamster coming up out of Mexico, but wouldn't the ones that are benefit from longer hauls?

But no, I don't buck the Teamsters position on this issue, they are suppose to be fighting for my selfish benefit. . . .

The rub I do have with the Teamsters is this, they only pay off one type of politician. This isn't good. They are susceptible to emotional arguments. Example given.

This NAFTA/trucker issue is 15 years old. The politicians they pay have no threat of losing the money they gladly take, so they have taken 15 years, so far, to really confront this issue. Lets settle this and put it to bed.

Let the Mexicans drive in, or not. Then lets move on.

The smart money in business pays off both sides and you never hear them gripe, one sided organizations always seem to gripe, and often get little in return from their investments.

Want more proof that the Teamster/Democrat relationship isn't healthy? Bill Clinton, Democrat, signed NAFTA. Yet he continued to receive the support of the Teamsters. As does his wife.

But, for my benefit, the Democrats and Teamsters have chosen to vilify Mr. Bush's NAFTA, never Mr. Clinton's, and for this I repay them with my vote?

Marvel at the thought of Change

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/giuliani-clinto.html


Seen a Hillary 2008 Bumper Sticker today,

I marvel at the thought that someone has the thought that Hillary is the change we need.

She'll be good for controversy and the continuing of the polarization of America.

Yet she's the best they got on the Left!

Incredible.

What am I missing? What suspension of disbelief it must take to support her.

and piss poor judgement.

I hope she wins, obviously.

The Hsu Cha-Ching Trail

Leading Clinton Donor Stays Below Radar

Here is one of those stories that in the end will be much ado about nothing.

A Clinton receiving monies from dubious sources, from people with a shady past shouldn't be a surprising bit of news to anyone by now, and its unlikely to change a thing in her presidential election campaign. Maybe she'll give the money back. Big deal.

It would be a bigger deal if this story actually harmed her career, if the media in general will ask her one tough question regarding just this one money issue, if people who bleed blue were actually spending a moment in reflective thought about her character and ability to effect change in America.

Democrats outside the Beltway do not judge the politicians who have a 'd' next to their name the same way they do of those politicians who have an 'r'. Its true, much is said about this on the right leanings airwaves, but often times those radio heads are angling their tirade at the biased media and the DC crowd. Yet its all those common people who turn a blind eye to transgressions by Democrats who are really the problem.

There is no nicer way to state it.

You expect people with power to eventually get corrupt and you expect people who are giving us the news to have a bias. You can expect the two covering each other's back.

What should not be expected, or accepted is blind loyalty to a party. Yeah, its cuts both ways. However, for every one Democrat that has walked away from power in disgrace from a unflattering scandal there are handfuls of Republicans to match.

I'm not writing to attack Hillary Clinton, Mr. Hsu, or the biased media. At this point I've come to expect nothing better from her. This isn't her first suspicious donor.

I'm attempting to stir a civil dialogue with the people who only care about scandal when its a Republican in the wrong. That's not defending Republicans.

The people who nominated John Kerry because he was the most electable. The voters who deeply care about the environment, but shunned Ralph Nader. The lazy chair economists who are against a tax cut, but not when a Democrat proposes one. The peaceniks who don't flock to Dennis Kucinich. The class warriors who hate Republicans because they are for the rich and the Democrats are for the poor.

These people exist and they are the enablers of the corrupt culture of D.C.

When they are polled by Gallup their judgment comes to represent millions of Americans and then the media has their acquiescence to continue the bias.

Most troubling, generally speaking, its many of these same people who clamor for change. All the time.

In the meantime, I hear that Senator Larry Craig(r - Idaho) is getting his dose of toxic news coverage for acting like a gay man? Email me and I'll tell you how William Jefferson(d - LA) stole hundreds of thousands a couple of years ago and I bet you never heard of him.

Considering all the sensitivities on the left that gets those on the right in hot water, wouldn't it be a great show on election day if the rest of America judged all politicians equally?

Change isn't going to happen until then. . . .

Gonzales Resigns, and this matters to what?

Embattled Gonzales Quits As Last.

Today Alberto Gonzales quit as Attorney General. For some life will never be the same. For others, they'll party through the night. I plan on getting some early sleep.

The only curiosity for me is that generally speaking the Congressmen and women who were pressuring this man to resign where eerily silent when a previous AG went about killing Americans.

Oh, well.

Its a big boy sport in D.C. and lawyers will protect their own, but outside the beltway the generalization also holds true.

Some, believe it or not, will act like they've won something today. As though a nefarious plotter has been laid away and liberty is yet again the word of the day.

Isn't it odd?

Janet Reno not only survived more disturbing scandals directly involving her, but to this day she is held in high regard by those who actually gave a hoot about this Gonzales getting away with firing a slew of attorneys.

How is this judgment balanced?

Likely left to be one of those great mystery of American politics.

Brzezinski, Clinton, and the Obama Option

Brzezinski Embraces Obama Over Clinton

Its rare that I've agreed with such powerful Democrats, but its true, lately I've been agreeing with Obama, Clinton, and now Brzezinski.

Of course, all write ups about Democrat politics must include a Bush bash, so you'll enjoy that here, at the end when Brzezinski says the world hates us.

I guess Germany and France may not be on that list, considering the recent election of pro-American heads of state, but read into that what you will.

In any event, yet another mindful analyst who doesn't see much change coming from a Clinton, as if change came from the first one!

This is Hillary's Time to Shine

Video of Mrs. Clinton at VFW convention.

Writeup of Mrs. Clinton at VFW convention.


Well it didn't take long for Hillary Clinton to come over to my way of thinking did it? The problem for her loyalist is that my way of thinking isn't exactly what they have clamoring for for years.

I've been saying that we can't just pull out of Iraq and leave a blight on the U.S., especially after all the precious resources we've spent, in terms of life and money. Also, in the larger context of the War on Terror, we can't just hand a victory over to the enemy -- what we face in Iraq is not such a big hurdle, we can possible face much more dire and catastrophic attacks any day.

I've have argued for victory, and yet I'm open for the interpretation of withdrawal as a necessary movement based on the squandering of the opportunity the Iraqi's were given and that they are squarely to blame for any such short comings in their stability.

Its seems Hillary is moving toward my position.

However, much of Hillary's support is, and no doubt will be, from voters who like to fancy themselves as peaceful Americans who wanted the U.S. troops out of Iraq as of yesterday.

Its usually these people who like to sermonize what the future holds in Iraq, i.e. civil war, eventual defeat, another Vietnam, they can't understand Democracy. Today, I'll do a little sermonizing.

Hillary Clinton will be the next Democrat nominee for President. She'll get 45-51% of the vote. She may win, she may not. But she will get the support of most everyone of the these Americans who have a placard in their front yard or a bumper sticker on their automobiles that proudly states, "Support the Troops. End the War."

It its these American's who when polled in 2004 said the main reason they were voting for John Kerry was that he was electable. If you recall, this reason for voting for Kerry was the top reason. Above the war, taxes, social security, health care, the environment, deficit, debt. Above everything.

Is it any wonder why Bush won?

Its not to Ralph Nader, nor is it to me.

In 2008, whether the republican wins or not, one thing is almost certain, Hillary Clinton will get the support of the peaceniks despite the fact that she'll speak in terms of not ending the war immediately.

Exactly what they condemned Bush for.

Obama. A Kindred?

Obama Says Bush Not Solely to Blame

I'm not for any politician at this point, in fact I've just about convinced myself to go back to my third party roots in this next go round, but what Obama say in the first two paragraphs tickles me.

To be sure, he's probably just sealing his fate as a footnote in this race by saying Bush isn't to blame for everything -- those who hate Bush just can't see clearly anymore to acknowledge that there were problems before Bush. They'll rail against Obama and enjoin Hillary to change the country hereafter.

Obama is right about one thing, we can't just change the party in the White House and expect change.

All these Peace advocates are gathering around Hillary? I've personally experienced it with acquaintances.

If we intend to keep our military in the 100 other countries where troops are stationed, then peace ain't coming anytime soon.

I don't hear Hillary talking about that kind of change, so she's a vote for the same old same old.

To hell with change, more of the same!

On Betrayal and the Causes

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years - New York Times

I have this acquaintance whom I run into on just about a daily basis. John is about as loyal a Republican as you can get, and there is nothing else keeping him up at night than the thought of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

I do not at all share his concern over this matter. It's not that I don't think that she has a chance, for I think she has a tremendous chance of winning election, its that I don't think she'll change anything once in office, if she indeed does claim a victory.

I ask John, are you worried that she'll get the nation into a war? No, he says. I could of pointed out she did vote for war. I ask, John? Are you worried she'd spend more money than the government brings in, the classic big spending liberal? No, he says. I could of pointed out that she voted in favor of most Bush proposals during her terms.

He's worried that she'll raise taxes.

And that has nothing to do with the NY Times story I linked to, other than to point out that 'they' are on both sides of the isle.

But I tell John of why I think he'll get his worst fear realized anyways.

It's because roughly 40-45% of the population is going to vote for the Democrat in the election regardless of who it is. If not more this time around due to the real discontent with the Bush Administration.

Loyalty to the little 'd' is one of the persistent characteristics of life in America over the last 60 years.

Obviously, it cuts both ways. Many people will vote Republican, almost as loyally.

However, with a little help from a conservative third party candidate, and just the right blend of voter turnout, a Democrat would be assured a victory. Without a third party candidate, its still more likely than a republican winning, no matter who that is.

No doubts, Bill Clinton can testify, and who could question his integrity?

But as I said, I don't think she'll change a thing, and considering the leftist special interests are already quietly accepting betrayal of their causes, this only further convinces me that a democrat administration, regardless of who it is, will not only retain the loyalty vote but will also experience not a squawk from the corners of the liberal nation.

Without this pressure from the interest who expect change in federal government, its probable that the new President will do little. Why stir the basket when all the discontented are so at ease?

We only have to look at her husband's 8 years to understand how this plays out. About the only thing he changed were gays in the military and funding of overseas abortions, yet he sure made a lot of promises on his road to the White House.

Its horrible. All these people have been complaining for years. Since the first days of Bush's Administration, and yet they are already muting themselves for the benefit of a party. To hell with the ideals and principles.

Look at the environmentalist. Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance" in 1992. By 2000 Ralph Nader stood up and ran for president, as a Green Party candidate. He got about 5% of the vote. Al Gore got 50%. Thanks for nothing.

So I don't fear a Hillary Presidency, and I expect a full 8 years from her. I just don't expect her to change much, which is what is sorely needed anyways. Its simple logic, if the squawkers are lacking the courage to vote for someone other than a democrat, who they always vote for anyways, then they sure aren't going to do something that takes a lot more courage than that -- standing up to betrayal.

But voting for Hillary Clinton is a betrayal itself, if you've been against the War in Iraq, or a slew of other issues you have with the Bush Administration.

But considering what an act of betrayal to our allies is by quiting the War in Iraq abruptly, this indicates to me that some are very comfortable with the concept.

Eerie Atlas Shrugged Parallels

I've been reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and while I'm not nearly finished with the book, I can't help but have this feeling that reality is mimicking the book.

All these goods from China are bad. I can't began to tell you the stories behind all the things lately that I've bought, that are imported from China, that have had to be returned. I can't because I don't have the time, and its really quite aggravating. A short list of items include a handful of 18 inch girl bicycles, a garden hose(s), a pepper grinder, and a coffee maker(s).

But anyways, I just wanted to put that out there in case anyone else has had similar experiences. However, if you're going to lay it all out on Bush, we'll I can't do that. I could blame him for a lot, but I'm not going to blame him for us buying Chinese, and I won't blame him for hurricanes either.

One Should Only Hope

Newt Gingrich.

Already someone reading this name is pissed.

So anyways,

enjoy these thoughts, you may actually smile.

As to a candidacy, I can only hope at this point.

link:

http://www.examiner.com/a-842080~Newt_goes_nuclear__May_enter_race_to_foil_pygmies.html

link:

http://www.examiner.com/a-842076~Newt_unplugged.html

What Matters Most Next Time

With the 2008 Presidential election upon us, many people will start considering issues again in a more serious analysis than what a headline would give you. One stance that will get much attention is how a candidate will steer the war on terror. In my opinion, the next President will lose his or her freedom to act rather quickly and as I elaborate on why this is, you may realize along with me, that choosing the congress is perhaps the more important choice to be made next year.

History suggest that shortly after the next president takes office someone or some group will challenge the office holder with an attack on our national interest and/or pride. Obviously some will blame Bush first, that's well within their rights, but for the more sober observers of history whatever event this turns out to be, it'll be viewed as a natural course of events. Ridicule me for my flippancy about this, but Presidents have been challenged in one way or another for decades, I'm not that naive to think that Hillary's cult of personality, for example, will deter or pacify our enemies thirst for American blood.

If your own recollection of history doesn't convince you of this, I'll give you another nation's history to look into for a lesson on uncivilized receptions from the more malicious global community. Israel. However, there maybe something attractive to you about living like the Israelis do, with the threat of attack palpable everyday. To each his own.

In any event, every time Israel elects a new leader, someone bombs a cafe in Tel Aviv. Again, I have no reason to doubt it will not happen in 2008 or 2009 somewhere in the U.S.

At that point, considering no one wants to be a one term president, even Dennis Kucinich is going to respond in a manner more forceful than what he would have had you believe in 2007. Because regardless of what you believe about the American people today in terms of desiring peace, when faced with the choice between a wimp who doesn't respond and a candidate who at least argues to fight back, the choice isn't going to the wimp.

So you have that pressure on the next President to react, and it may very well be more aggressive than personal preferences would like.

Another pressure on the next President is the congress.

I must lay bare that I don't hold very many of these politicians in high regard. Recent history shows that very many of them will vote for a course of action today, but by noon tomorrow will have changed their mind and will be demanding the 180 degree opposite of what they voted for.

Take the recent surge in Iraq. The new generals held few secrets when it came time to explain themselves to congress on what they intend to do in Iraq and how long it will take. After
confirming these men, Congress is now anxiously attempting to pull the plug on the plans months before the the agreed upon time table.

Rashness my quell the impatient, but it isn't useful to quell the unrest in Iraq, nor will it lend strength to the people we want to win, rather to those we want to defeat.

So what is a new President to do? Faced with the realities of being attacked by deadly enemies wherever they can and thus eroding the public confidence and/or being attacked by the less deadly but every bit as effective in emasculating a Commander in Chief congress, I bet the new guy gets tough real quick. There will be little freedom left to him to do otherwise.

In this situation I don't think it will make much difference who wins the next election for the White House. To be sure, there will be plenty of time to attempt dialogues or approaches that Mr. Bush didn't attempt, but a reputation of strength works in the real world, unfortunately we have squandered much of that reputation recently.

Things will be different in many ways, but if we don't collective make a better decision on who is in congress, I think our external enemies will have an unwitting accomplice from a place where our next president and ourselves are expecting better from. We need to consider the reasons why we vote for someone for congress maybe a little bit beyond the letter next to their names. I haven't seen much 'r'esolve or 'd'etermination from our present congress and while the lack thereof from congress may not lose the war, it certainly isn't helping. Which is a change I'd like to see.

I get it. Do you?

Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace said the U.S. "can do whatever it is we want to do to have a dialogue about how to fight this enemy. But the bottom line is that as long as our enemy is sworn to destroy our way of life, we are going to be in a war."

I get it. Do you?

Much Ado About Nothing

link:

Valerie Plame Lawsuit Thrown Out

About the only thing that got done in D.C. in 3 years.

While two fine men sit in a jail house because they shot two drug smuggling illegals.

link:

Choose your read from a Google Search Results for this story.

Why can't these guys get a pardon?

So I ask the left, if you impeach Bush and Cheney will Pelosi free these men?

'cause I'd be cool with that.

What is really sad, a commentary on our press too, is that Valerie Blame has gotten more headlines and justice.

NO, what is really sad is that there is no real pressure on Bush to free these two men. I recollect one congressman speaking out and I'm sorry I don't have his name.

I guess they're all too busy running filibusters, or what they would have us believe are filibusters, all night long.

Its a joke of a label

In recent news,

Freshman Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Its well understood that many on the left have a vicious hatred of Mr. Bush.

But it seems to me quite low class to just call someone a Hitler or a Nazi so easily, but they do it.

Maybe someday they will do some research and learn the truth about the differences between evil men and men who have tried some unpopular tactics and have in the course of events found themselves on the wrong side of the image makers.

A real fascist wouldn't allow Keith Ellison and his ilk the liberty to voice such vile comments, duh.

Isn't this Fascist?

http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011

I've written in the past about fascism, so I thought it my duty to inform you of possible fascist traits in the current presidential field.

Limiting speech, named in case it wasn't obvious to you, is a big warning sign of a fascist. If they want to stifle debate amongst their fellow party members, you'll never know what they do once they get power.

Renaisance of States Rights

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070706/pl_nm/climate_emissions_nj_dc

This event transpired late last week and I had some thoughts on it. It's really a good thing, and I'm so proud of the liberal Governor and his state.

While many reporters like to frame this signing within the anti-Bush balloon, i.e. he wants to harm the environment, he doesn't care about the environment, he's done nothing--so the states have to lead the way; I frame it as a terrific(regardless of whether it becomes a terrific law) example of the tenth amendment breathing free(regardless of the Nazi paranoia surrounding Bush doctrine).

One thing I believe that historians will unemotionally discern about this enigma that is the Bush Administration is that the idea of state's rights has experienced a renaissance.

All the while that many have incessantly and unsparingly criticized Bush for all the ills of society and the world, he has quietly(all too so) oversaw, nor even volleyed back criticism of, his critics attempts to right his alleged wrong.

Stem cell research -- while the feds have stepped back, individual states, led by California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have funded their own programs of research.

Environment -- while Bush has kept the conservative approach of the Clinton/Gore era, New Jersey and California have created their own laws and initiatives to cut back on green house gases and similar evils of the new church of the environment.

Health -- Trans fats in NYC? Not anymore. Smoking anywhere? Not likely, and the Feds haven't even got involved in either case.

Education -- While criticized as an unfunded mandate, the No Child Left Behind bill(written by Ted Kennedy) allows states to come up with their own solutions. As an aside, like many other criticism of the Bush Administration, unfunded mandates were so prevalent during Clinton/Gore that politicians from the right campaigned for the presidency on this issue alone.

State's Rights, an idea derived from the Tenth Amendment which says that any rights not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the states, is a concept that is presently a truly conservative idea. Conservatives are drawn not only to wisdom of checking the power of the federal government which is the heart of the tenth amendment, but they are also keen on the idea that with 50 states working individually, or in concert, the best ideas will ween their way through the nation, while the bad ideas wither on the vine.

Liberals have always looked to a top down approach for solutions to national problems. Unfortunately, the track record of the federal government isn't so good at solving problems. Its a good place to make a living if there are problems to be solved, but I just haven't seen the one size fits all approach bear fruit.

With the help of someone they viciously hate, liberals on both coasts are enjoying the freedom to experiment with solutions to epic problems. Oddly they love Clinton and Gore, but never had the liberties back then as they do now. . . .

It's All About the Positioning.

There is an old saying, "Perception is reality." In Iraq, its never been truer.

In conversation with one who is rabidly anti-Bush/Iraq I was attempting to position my colleague to accept the notion that we should pull out of Iraq and claim victory, but this person would have none of that. For him, Iraq is a debacle in ruinous progress with no end in sight and a selfish murderous ambition of the President who himself is a colossal failure.

OK, you can have your grapes and eat it too. Mr. Bush doesn't show any inclination to defend himself, and I don't feel any obligation either.

However, I do think that there is a perception of events that the President's domestic opponents refuse to entertain, and in so denying this position, all the while unable or unwilling to provide an alternative reality that would herald the achievements of this war for and towards our nation's advantage, they expose the shallowness of their words of "I am a patriot, I support the troops. But not the war."

They can't have the War end with an elevated Bush! They'd much rather lose in Iraq, than accept the idea that our troops have done enough to claim victory, and thereby allow George Bush to claim achievement.

In fact this is putting pressure on Bush to continue until there is that moment when his critics turn and acknowledge success, its at that point that leaving Iraq is at its most appropriate. But it will never happen because Bush would gain platitudes, something his domestic opponents have never done since day one. That's the outcome we all should want however, expect, and require from the politicians -- Victory. But it seems unlikely that this will ever happen, and what good is that?

You or I may have doubts and opinions about all things Iraq, but the elected officials should be thinking a little deeper about national security, prosperity, and relevance. Quoting NBA Commissioner David Stern on this, "I'm going to wrestle with you on this," if you think the domestic opponents of Bush in D.C., who were elected to national government, have in our nations best interest to continue denigrating the administrations handling of affairs(to a point) and the success of the surge even.

Surely they have opinions, but if they think things are going wrong, do something more than snipping in the press, its harmful. Certainly.

Here is one truth that is, at this writing, undeniable. As goes Bush, so goes the country. The two are intertwined for the immediate future.

Bush's repute is tied directly to the success of the Iraq War, and thus the outcome of the Iraq War is either going to diminish or strengthen the United States in the world. Also this marriage will persist beyond the President's last days in office. Its reality, its true.

I suggest another truth, as defined on Dictionary.com, being a patriot is marked by the love and support of the nations interest.

So like it or not, insisting on supporting the troops, but not the war while claiming to be a patriot is logically unsound.

If its unacceptable for Bush to win anything, neither will the nation. That's not a patriotic position and the only people who win are our enemies on the battlefield and the politicians who prosper at the cost of the country.

I'm not here to tell you your wrong in your position, I'm just trying to incite some thought. One can be against the war or not. Support the troops, or not. Be patriotic, or not. Or any combination of the three. Its your video, watch it however you want.

My perception of events is that we did what we had to do, and what we could do in Iraq. If we can't civilize or democratize these people, then we ought not to waste more resources on doing so. Our military did what its trained to do, and what it was asked to do originally. We have demonstrated strength where it matters most and its should be a trumpeted as a triumph. Frankly, we ought to be scaring the shit out of other rogue nations with the truth.

But here's the rub of the position that those who can't see Bush winning excrete on reality. The message of retreat and defeat that the domestic opponents of Bush are pushing only damages the nation. Consider this -- in an ever devolving effort to secure an unattainable recognition of triumph from the left, the President has to continue to put our resources to uses that are becoming increasingly unreasonable.

With every step down that sinkhole, or resolve weakens and the enemies of our state grow more emboldened. We are reaching the point where our strength becomes our weakness, our military will have to face the consequences on the battlefield, not the politicians who incite and encourage the perception that it is unpalatable for Bush to win.

Of course its not that easy to just pull out, and I have admittedly over simplified the message of claiming victory all the while laying an onus on the Iraqi's to act civilized. There is just too much investment in Iraq right now to expect total withdrawal, with or without a banner of glory.

But for the benefit of us all, I think some people ought to start seeing things in terms of the good of our nation, and what accolades come to Bush, so be it.

I'd like to see one of those politicians with all the criticism and fervent desires to quit the war, stand up for our interest and claim a victory first, then talk of withdrawal.

But they won't do that, because if the nation wins the war, then Bush will too. Oh what patriotism.

The Many Faces of Al Gore

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Al Gore has fascinated me for quite a while now. Not too long, and not obsessively, but since he lost the 2000 election he's been everywhere, minus the teaching semesters following that November/December 2000 loss, so it really hasn't taken much effort. Which is good, because otherwise that effort would be wasted.

There is quite a lot of fascinating words, actions, boast, business endeavors, etc. surrounding him that he is an unqualified walking hurricane of global change. Honestly, I can't find fault with some things he does, and in particular the global warming crusade, despite the religious-esque intolerance of dissenting opinions, has much value for all of us. I don't buy into some of the hysteria surrounding global warming, but I feel that the goals of reforming how we use and re-use the Earth's natural resources are an absolute necessity for our progeny to maintain the "good life" that we enjoy today.

I wouldn't trust him with the real power to change that is the Presidency though. Not because I'd be especially nervous of what he'd do, but because I don't think he be effective at all, his track record in politics demonstrates that. He's great at media relations, and he is quite apparently driven to change the world, but his track record, when compared to his own words and promises doesn't give me anything to elect him for.

In fact he seems a little too political for his own good, and that clip above re-proves it.

I'm not getting into the reasons for war, let the politicians rehash that history, this is all about Al Gore laid bare.

Have you ever wondered what happened to all those students who took his journalism class?

Coincidentally, he manages to get good press coverage most times doesn't he?

In regards to this clip I've provided, you'd think that some industrious & hungry young journalist could of found this address years ago when Gore first began to undermine foreign policy and influence innocent democrats who admire him.

If Al Gore thought this way then, then why did he not influence policy when he had the chance? His criticism of the younger Bush seems odd now doesn't it?

So back to the environment. Its the same story. At about the same time this speech was being made, the ever phrenic Al Gore wrote and publish a book entitled Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit where he proceeded to continue his bashing of Bush, only this time, naturally, on the environment. At the end of the book, he gives us his solutions.

Then he became Vice President and did nothing. Well, o.k., as is always the case with these politicians, their cronies could list quite a lot of accomplishments in the form of resolutions, legislation, or spending bills.

I'll take Ralph Nader's impression of his accomplishments, he seems independent, and he ran for President under the Green Party because he said there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush on the environment.

Its great that Al Gore has another Bush to bash, its easier for him to update his schtick.

Remember he claimed to have invented the Internet too.

He's great. I don't expect most anyone to abandon him on the left, they don't do that sort of thing over there. They hold onto dishonest politicians and disingenuous arguments. Besides, he's putting on a good show. What's the worse he can do? Be elected? We've wasted a long time in solving some of our problems, I suppose another 4 or 8 years tacked on couldn't hurt too much, could it Al?

Please, take a look and listen for yourself and do hear him out entirely, its worth the effort.

These Are Our Democrats?

What an exciting group of Democrat candidates for President we have been gifted! Where do I start in extolling the glories of such worthy politicians. If ever such a noble and unselfish group has gathered before, I know not. A collection of statesman minded individuals that without question any would be an improvement over our current occupant on Pennsylvania Ave.

Hardly. Their almost uniform position on the Iraq War is so betraying to the grand traditions of America that it should not only be an embarrassment to us, but should rouse the ire of unfulfilled expectation. Since when did we become a nation of losers?

Perception is reality. My perception is that all these Democrats would want us to retreat from Iraq and take the loss. Is that an accurate assessment?

That's crazy. What good comes from that?

Oh, without a doubt, Bush has mismanaged this war and its his war, and most of all that criticism heaped upon him. But I got old news that is still relevant, we are all in this together.

Although many would like to have it otherwise, America is in Iraq as one America, there is no George Bush vs Iraq and the terrorist, its all of US. When Terrorist target our citizens and landmarks, they don't discriminate between the doves and the hawks.

If Bush would resign tomorrow morning or if this war persist past his last scheduled day in office its makes no difference. The endgame in Iraq is important and we are in this together, and that is a serious consideration, and its high time the outcome is taken seriously.

I hear more and more people lament the tragedy in Dafur. They want to do something, they think the US should do something. Dafur is the epitome of what international liberal ideology had been designed for -- to stop senseless human tragedies.

For liberals sake, what have you considered will happen in Iraq if the US should pull out? Is this what liberalism has devolved to here, thoughtless retreat?

I'm not even treading on new arguments to combat this thought process that thinks our withdrawal from Iraq is all that is needed for a more peaceful world. Its an old argument, but one that not any of the candidates from the left for President has addressed as yet. I mean seriously address.

What's their endgame plan? What is the message we send the world? Having witnessed the Bush Administration allow his opponents to define his endeavors in the world , I'm not too keen on repeating that again, and also compounding the problem by heaping a self-inflicted defeat in Iraq and a humanitarian crisis there into the mess. That seems senseless to me.

Maybe its a generational difference in perceptions. I didn't experience Vietnam, so perhaps I should count my blessings. From my point of opinion, anything less than victory is unacceptable. America is about strength and getting the job done, not leaving problems, but cleaning up problems. I don't like us being the policeman of the world, but we have an obligation to finish what we started. Who's going to clean up for us?

I think defeat is too readily palatable for too many of my seniors. Having Vietnam imprinted in their world view, they are too ready to quit when the going gets tough, or sadly, when the going gets going by a Republican.

I can take redeploying our troops in Iraq, but its a non starter for me to begin that end by succumbing to political pressures. We lifting some heavy stones over there, we paid a dear price. I think we can make a statement and stand on those accomplishments while at the same time putting the lead ball of failure on the Iraqi people and government for not taking advantage of the gift they have been given.

Some say liberals want America to fail, it does make me wonder about that when we are in this unenviable position of working toward cleaning up a mess we created in Iraq but the left just wants to walk away, while at the same time they are clamoring for intervention in Dafur, intervened in Yugoslavia, and would free Tibet.

William Jefferson Indicted

William Jefferson Indicted.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PI5SRO1&show_article=1

Above is a link to the story on the indictment of William Jefferson. This is really old news, if its news to you, I'd would take that as a indicator of needing new news filters. In the meantime, I'm waiting with bated breath the response of the institutional Democrats who have always been quick to call for a resignation when a conservative or GOP congressperson runs afoul of the law, or even polite company.

Collage of Criticism

"Exhaustion steals over the country. Confidence and hope are dying. . .The slumber of the army [..]is eating into the vitals of the nation. As day after day has gone, my heart has sunk and I see greater peril to our nationality in the present condition of affairs than I have seen at any time during the struggle."
--Quartermaster General

"Alas my poor country! It has strong limbs to march and meet the foe, stout arms to strike heavy blows, brave hearts to dare. But the brains, the brains -- have we no brains to use the arms and limbs and eager hearts with cunning? [..] I am sick and tired of disaster and the fools that bring disaster upon us."
-- New York Corporal

"Money you have expended without limit, and blood poured out like water. Defeat, debt, taxation, and sepulchers -- these are your only trophies."
-- Ohio Representative

"His soul seems made of leather, and incapable of any grand or noble emotion. Compared with the mass of men, he is a line of flat prose in a beautiful and spirited lyric. He lowers, he never elevates you. You leave his presence with your enthusiasm dampened, your better feelings crushed, and your hopes cast to the winds. You ask not, can this man carry the nation through its terrible struggles? but can the nation carry this man through them, and not perish in the attempt?"

"He is wrong-headed, the attorney not the lawyer, the petty politician not the statesman, and, in my belief, ill-deserving of the sobriquet of Honest. I am out of all patience with him, is there no way of inducing him to resign. . . ?"
--Orestes Brownson, author

"You cannot change the President's character of conduct. . .surrounded by toadies and office-seekers, to persuade himself that he was specially chosen by the Almighty for this crisis, and well chosen. This conceit has never yet been beaten out of him, and until it is, no human wisdom can be of much avail. I see nothing for it but to let the ship of state drift along, hoping that the current of public opinion may bring it safely into port"
-- Senator William Pitt Fessenden, Maine(R)

"Can nothing be done to reach the President's ear and heart? I hear he is susceptible to religious impressions; shall we send our eloquent divines to talk to him, or shall we send on a deputation of mothers and wives, or can we, the conservators of liberty, who have elected him, combine Congress in beseeching him to save the country?"
-- J.M. Forbes


I came across all these and more in reading Shelby Foote's Civil War.

So you see, even today history is repeating itself. All these criticism have been leveled at President Bush is some manner recently.

I'm not here to fight on behalf of the President, but I believe that there is much hysteria on the side of his domestic opponents, many would do well to take a deep breath at times before going off on a vulgar laden tirade. This nation has been through tough times before, and we gotten though alright.

We also should bear in mind that those in power in D.C. and who oppose Bush are also subject to human frailties and as such they too rush to judgements and positions that may not be in our nations best interest.

My opinion is that embracing defeat is so contrary to long term prosperity that I can't accept that position in an elected office holder. It maybe a notion held by a citizen, but I think the congress should have a longer view of history. I expect better than defeat out of leaders.

Conversely, I don't think that our soldiers should be nation building either, which it appears they are doing too much of right now and that's getting them killed.

If only someone would step up with the right message, the message that our military has demonstrated its capabilities superbly and without blemish, that the Iraqi's and Islamic Terrorist have failed to show civility and other modern traits of evolved society.

America may not be able to leave all together though, we would likely need to establish some sort of base there for the foreseeable future, but we ought to be massaging a better message than the one reaching the world now.

We Americans ought to be more upset with the failures of our government to ensure victory than with the failure of our government to assure defeat. . . more on that later.

Worse Than Water Torture.

If I had a nickle for every time Joe Torre was going to lose his job . . . .

I dunno what's worse, the dozen of years the Pittsburgh Pirates haven't fielded a winning team, or my routinely crushed spirit that longs for a day when the Yankees get serious and let Joe go. . . .

If Barry Bonds' memorabilia is desired in Cooperstown, then why doesn't Baseball Inc. embrace the race. Or is it all race?

For all the Barry haters I question, how should the breaking of Aaron's record be handled in regards to my children? I never mention steroids allegations to them when updating the count down, why should I?

If we asterisk the HR record, then shouldn't we fairly asterisk all the accomplishments, titles, and records? Barry certainly was not the only juiced player. . . let it go. Go Barry!

I'm thinking of getting a pink Yankee hat and wearing that. Symbolic of Steinbrenner's lost cajoles.

With all the steroid allegations through the years, and even currently, how does a Steeler fan credibly deny Barry's accomplishments while at the same time smug about Pittsburgh's five Lombardi trophies?

I'm hearing now that GM Brian Cashman of the Yankees may get fired first. . . argh. If they hadn't taken 2 out of 3 from Boston last weekend. . . .

On Compromises and Betrayal

In the wake of the recent cave in, er compromise, between the President and the Congressional Democrats regarding Iraq War funding and the question of a time line for a troop withdrawal I began to wonder about the pressures the peace crowd is putting on the Democrats and I then began to think of how little the shortcomings and or down right betrayals of the Party on the fold has had little affect on voter loyalty made manifest in the ballot box.

I was trying to think of a time in the political world in my lifetime when or where there was a cost to bear on the party for their multitude of unfulfilled promises. I thought of one time when the price was paid, although I can recollect many times when a bill, or lack thereof, was present.

The Democrat majority paid a price in 1994 when they lost their hold on power in D.C., but that was also after more than 40 years of running roughshod over the minority, and it seems that since then loyalty has only gotten stronger.

Naturally, the minority party gets not only its core voters but also an underdog minded segment of voters who will vote against whomever is in power, but in my lifetime it appears that there is seemingly no sin that would shake a large majority of Democrats from voting for the party. These are a group that has earned the name "Blue Dog Democrat" because they would certainly vote for a blue dog in an election if the bitch(couldn't resist) ran as a Democrat.

But that is old news, most people know this, and it does cut both ways, to a certain degree. However I could list many Republicans and conservatives who have ran afoul of their base, and subsequently I witnessed that base turn from the party. Bush the elder, and the GOP last year immediately come to mind, and its no stretch to name two handfuls more.

This is in reality a strength of the GOP that trims the party of dead wood, so that despite efforts to embellish the smears, no one in the GOP measures down to Ted Kennedy(man-slaughter) or Robert Byrd(long time KKK member).

The news yet to be written is that like a VA hospital threaten with closure, coincidentally in the same year a powerful congress person is up for re-election, a save will be made. Before the next national campaign I wouldn't doubt nor be surprised if Pelosi, Bush, and Reid all made nice again only with the legislature claiming an accomplishment to rally the base in an election year.

But it would be surprising if those who claim the label of liberal and who want to end the war today would actually demonstrate a little resolve themselves and abandon the party that had abandon them years ago.

Go Mets!

What would life be like without sports?

Sports is that one place where Pittsburgh Steeler fans can rail against Barry Bonds for alleged steroid use, where the hypocrisy is as thick as the book of allegations covering their beloved football team.

Sport is a place where, although "we" couldn't do "it" ourselves, we expect "them" to do "it" every time, perfectly.

Sports is also that one place where I can root for someones demise and not feel too bad about it all.

And so we have the Mets vs. Yankees.

Muck the fets, but sweep the Yankees! You see, I'm no Joe Torre fan, and the sooner he is discarded, the sooner the Yanks can potentially return to greatness, and the sooner I can root for them, again.

Joe Torre is probably a nice guy, every writer says so. He's probably a great manager to play under, every player says so. But Joe Torre is not a great manager if you want victories.

It's true, it's very true.

He had one winning season as manager before he was hired by the Yankees, and had never won 90 games in a season. That's not great, and that covers about a decade of work, give or take a season. You know how these guys are hired and fired.

He took a St. Louis Cardinal team in the late 80's, a team that had much post season success and expectations, and created a cellar dweller.

As to his World Series victories, as if $100++ million payrolls aren't sufficient in themselves to provide a victory, local writers and insiders have lauded the "character" element of those teams. Joe Torre was given platitudes for keeping out of the way and 'knowing what to say to a player' in treating him like a professional.

Great. What has the problem been lately then? This team no longer has the "character" players? You'd think payrolls the size of theirs could overcome such shortcomings.

A-Rod, Jeter, Posada, Williams, Abrieu, Johnson, Giami, Rivera.

What's wrong is that Joe Torre's only accredited skill at managing isn't working, if it ever had.

I wouldn't entertain thoughts of encouraging the firing of anyone outside of sports. The reality is that coaching for Joe Torre is not a necessary vocation for him anymore, he's got his million. So I have no fear of bad karma coming back to bite me, I want Joe to go.

One of the ironies of my life is that the man who could not steer the ship to success for my NL team went on to skipper 3 title runs for my AL team. The only hitch had been I swore off the Yankees the day they hired him, and even if I'm the only man in America who wants to see Joe go, I still contend I could of won more titles than he did with that obnoxious payroll.

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

I just got Lee Iacocca's new book,Where Have All the Leaders Gone? Its a half sized book, sarcastically speaking its just the right size for its intended audience.

I just started reading it and so far its chalk full of the usual anti-Bush bashing, it has really good fodder to get you angry all over again. There is more to it than that, but if you hate Bush and are adroit at blocking out all reasonable thought and historical norms, then this is the book for you.

But seriously, I'm expecting a little more, but so far the best regurgitated idea I read in this book is that congress ought to take a year off and evaluate what is actually working in government.

And thus far the biggest agitator Iacocca presents regarding Bush and this fiasco in Iraq is the better uses of our money that he lists, like potentially 25 million college scholarships. . . see page 79-80.

Oh well, if we all knew this was how it was going to go down in Iraq, I don't think that Bush would have had that overwhelming support that he had five years ago.

Naturally we'd all be harping about Saddam Hussein today if Bush had done nothing.

That was what was going on for the ten years between the wars, and that is what everyone conveniently forgets -- we all bemoaned he was still around in the 1990's, we all thought it would be best if he was gone. Now we all wish we never got rid of him in the first place.

The real travesty is the poor planning of the Bush administration(not to discount the loss of life), not the aim of removing a grave enemy of our state. We and the Iraqi's should be better off 5 years out, not worse. . . .

I still can't accept the Liberals who are willing to lose though, we ought to proclaim victory and lay it on the Iraqis to act civilized. To accept failure is un-American, at least that is how I was raised.

Unfortunately, as Iacocca writes, where have all the leaders gone? We have one side that screwed this up and another side that is doing all it can to ensure defeat.

What a sad state, and I can't decide who is worse.

Here's a fascist too. . .

I'm just on a fascist kick, I see them everywhere!

Of course, one can only take their fascism so far alone, but with a movement, i.e. global warming, fascism can be extended for years. While its unlikely to have the full blown murderous fascism that many try to label on Bush, other less violent forms of fascism can flourish.


Sometimes fascism is what is needed. If the population is stretching resources, then isn't it fair to acquiesce to command policy in order to alleviate the potential problems?

Where does it end? I dunno, buts its an interesting drama. I think this environmentalism can be great for U.S. economic concerns even . . . if the politicians don't screw it up.

Quote of the Day

"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupied no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine,' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun."




Ulysses S. Grant


Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant. Vol. 1, p. 68

presented by Right Sarcasm University
www.rightsarcasm.com

Legendary Author Dies

David Halberstam Dies.

For people unaware of this man's work, the link above provides much background. David Halberstam wrote 21 books.

Reid, Bush, and Peace

The Bill, The War, Bush & Reid


The disconcerting actions by the politicians is bad, ours shouldn't be.

I have no beef with anyone wanting peace. I feel no responsibility to try to convince anyone to change their mind, I can't blame anyone for feeling anything. As to myself, I want victory. There are a number of reasons why I want victory.

But that is not why I write today.

I have another argument to make, and that is that Harry Reid is not fit for his position as Senate Leader. I don't make this case on his party affiliation, and not solely as a peace proponent. It is his insertion of pork to a war spending bill, and his declarations of defeat prior to the actual fact. Thus standing in the unenviable position of being a high ranking government official who has given hope to the enemy.

For all that Bush has done, didn't do, or could of done differently, you can say surely that he hasn't given hope to the enemy. A new reason maybe, but not hope. Harry Reid gives them hope.

If Reid is truly against victory, er the continuation of the war, there is a better way to go about things. There better be. This approach didn't work in Vietnam, why would it work now? I can see that both sides could learn something from Vietnam.

Its folly to assume that only one side(read Bush) needs a history lesson, or that only one side is repeating the mistakes that afford me the luxury of reliving the biggest blight on my country's record even though I was still in diapers at the time.

If that were all, Reid would only be guilty of rashness, impatience, and ignorance. But by inserting pork into an otherwise clean position - - his time line provision-- Reid is showing an arrogance in using his position, and this issue, to enrich someone with government largess while real American lives are at risk.

Of course, this gives Bush more than one reason to veto the bill. Tomorrow they'll have an elaborate dinner to talk about their differences. Or maybe not. All the while voters, who again I have no problem with, are allegedly clamoring for a "new direction." Some even dying.

I would only hope that the people who wish for an end to this war are aware that their feelings are being leveraged for self aggrandizement.

Isn't that one of the problems you had with Bush?

Quote of the Day

"True opinions can prevail only if the facts to which they refer are known; if they are not known, false ideas are just as effective as true ones, if not a little more effective."



Walter Lippmann (1889 - 1974) American Writer, Editor


Liberty and the News(1920)

presented by Right Sarcasm University
www.rightsarcasm.com

If I were concerned about fascists, I'd watch this guy

Far be it for me to call anyone a fascist, especially here in the US where we have all these wonderful checks and balances to assure nothing gets done in DC. But if I were to place anyone one the watch list it would be Al Gore.

Hell, this guy not only has Hollywood friends, he owns a news station. He can control the movies and the news. Yet that seems not to stir much concern.

This is a guy who tried to have the votes counted in Florida until he won, and when he didn't he went to teach journalism. What better way to assure good press next time around? Seems to be working. . . .

He's got a cause, global warming. He's positioned his cause in a way that he proclaims its a moral cause, its dire, and anyone who opposes it is akin to evil, and that the matter is settled -- he's right!

We must fear the Republicans who want dirty water!

I dunno much for certain, who does? But if I were out there screaming about how Bush is a fascist, I'd also be concerned about this guy. Why wouldn't you?

NASA to release 3D images, check this one out!

NASA is going to release 3D images taken by the Stereo spacecraft. . . Check out this photo. Amazing.

Here is a link to Spaceweather.com for more information, including links to where you can see more of these images as they are released.

The Fascist Question Part 2

As I continue the dialog with myself concerning fascist,

This whole notion that G.W. Bush is a fascist doesn't pass the smell test in a number of ways. Harry Reid's comments are just the latest to undermine any arguments for this label. What kind of fascist, in the position that Bush is in, would not fight back his critics?

Maybe I'll wake up tomorrow to some kind of headline on the Drudge Report reporting on Bush's new found testiness, but I doubt it. So be it.

In any event, maybe most of the critics who use the 'fascist' terminology don't really understand what it means, and are just venting about issues they don't understand.

But I think they should know what the words mean that they use, still I think also that a heck of a lot of people actually think this man, Bush, is as bad a human being as Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini.

For those that do, may I ask, what filters do you use -, who informs you of what is going on in the world today? Just curious.

I'm just curious because I think that to believe that about someone, that he is a bad person along the lines of Hitler, really ought to be supported by proof that is conclusive, and that proof just doesn't exist.

But some people do even more than think, they write about it as fact for everyone to beware of. They hope we all will be as vigilant and observant as them.

We got to beware of the tools fascist use to control populations. . . .

I'd say the biggest concern we have is whether the fascist have taken over the words and images that are prevalent today. It is certain that one approach for the evil in this nation to subjugate us is by controlling our thoughts and feelings through the pictures and papers.

This creates a mood, a national spirit. If in power, all the imagery should be glorious. If aspiring to power, they'd want to present doom and gloom. Propagate pessimism. A real dictator wants to be loved, not hated. Feared maybe, but respected.

Any fascist would want to take over film and TV so that he or she could influence the types of movies and shows that people can watch. Its text book really, control the mass media. Bush has all kinds of ties to Hollywood? If not, who does and should we be concerned then?

The next step to totalitarian rule is to silence the critics. One way is simply do away with critics. Its tried and true, utilized by dictators throughout the ages.

I was doing a mental search of all the ex-cabinet members, Generals, or civil administrators who left the Administration, and gosh I think they are all still alive. Some even wrote books and appeared regularly on Imus(you can't be serious if you think Bush got rid of Imus).

Not even a Ron Brown type accident in a war zone, which there are many more zones to play this out in today.

Not one 'suicide', in a park no less, by a close associate of Mrs. Bush.

Not one death, unless I'm wrong, and if I am wrong what does that mean? People die all the time in administrations. But not in this fascist one? Go ahead and look it up, all kinds of peopled died during the Clinton years. John Tower died during the first Bush Administration.

I'd make sure, if I were a fascist with power, that all stories about me are positive. Damn near mythical, if I had my way. I would never let them see me make a mistake, misspeak, appear clumsy. And absolutely the last thing that I'd let happen is to be asked a tough question.

Another important imagery, would be to associate with the 'right' people, the 'in' crowd. Globetrotters. Movies Stars. Darlings of Wall Street. So be on watch for slick politicians who fit this bill. Remember the fascist are alive today in the good ole USA.

To assure allegiance we have got to be aware of a false cause. For Hitler it was the Jews destroying German society. For others it was capitalism, or a monotheist religion. For Bush its terrorist. Ah, they really do kill people like us don't they? So wouldn't it be legit to fight back?

OK, Bush has his gay battle, I'll concede that.

Now I retire to my book, Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. I really got increase my pledge of carbon offsets to compensate for all the electricity I'm consuming blogging.

Quote of the Day

"He who fears he will suffer, already suffers from his fear."



Michel Eyquen Montaigne(1533 - 1593) French philosopher, essayist


Bk III, Ch. 13

presented by Right Sarcasm University
www.rightsarcasm.com

Quote of the Day

"There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it."



William James (1842 - 1910) American psychologist, philosopher


The Varieties of Religious Experience(1902) Lectures 14 and 15

presented by Right Sarcasm University
www.rightsarcasm.com

The Fascist Question

One of the points on the left that I have been trying to 'get' for years but still haven't 'gotten' is this inclination to label the Bush administration 'fascist.' To go even further, many people spew forth phrases that haven't been used to describe a head of state since 1944. Besides 'warmonger,' which I don't necessarily agree with but can understand why the usage, I have trouble understanding the basis for these comments. In fact, it appears to me that for the most part, labels attached to Bush would more readily adhere to his domestic opponents.

Let's look at 'fascist' for a moment. Because a fascist is someone who supports fascism, we must look to the meaning of fascism first to ascertain whether G. W. Bush is one, or as I suggest, his opponents would more fit the bill. Dictionary.com defines:

Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


If a definition were like the ingredients label on a side of a package, where the first item indicates the majority of content, then a fascist must be a dictator with complete power, and that obviously is not the case with our current President. George Bush couldn't dictate his way out of a cabinet meeting where there was disagreement on the definition of "amnesty."

Take a quick look at history and you'll realize that beyond the tax cut and the two wars there is scant evidence of any exhibition of dictatorial powers that would strike fear into democracy loving citizens, unless you count suspending funding for abortions in third world nations as fascist -- I'd categorize that as cutting the fat from the foreign policy budget.

But the Guantanamo prison camps are beyond the scope of the constitution! Not so, says the Supreme Court. I wouldn't agree the constitution applies to foreigners who could kill thousands of us en route to 21 virgins either.

I can't say at this point that the Administration's domestic opponents are tyrannical, yet. In fact, this is the one facet of my argument that his opponents are more 'fascist' that has the weakest supporting evidence. Which depending on how you view politics is either a good or bad thing.

Well, Nancy Pelosi seems to have designs on forging her own foreign policy, which would be unconstitutional, but aside from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, I don't see liberals ever criticizing their own, which is a topic of another column and a major weakness.

Forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. This criterion for a fascist, when forcibly applied to this President, stirs such emotions in me that I have a hard time suppressing my laughter. There hasn't been a critic that was denied a voice in this country since the Clinton Administration. Seriously, can you, because I can't, name one voice that has been silenced by this President? Joe Wilson? Bob Woodward? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Pat Buchanan? John Kerry? Al Gore? Me? You? Rush Limbaugh? Don Imus?(strike that).

You can pick any card caring member of the GOP off the street and I guarantee that that person has shown more starch in his support of the Administration's policies than the man who lends his name to those policies.

In fact, the mere presence of this post, as well as the freedom to walk the street for millions of domestic opponents across this nation belies this notion that G.W. Bush is some kind of fascist.

I was once told that Bush and John Ashcroft were going to install a theocracy in this country. That kind of statement has many siblings, and they are all illegitimate.

We all know of the countless conservative voices who were drowned out by the left and its lackeys for such heinous crimes as patronizing an old man who never won the presidency 40 years earlier, or suggesting the press wants a black quarterback to succeed, or that a Speaker of the House is engaging in 'bad behaviour.' Is not 'forcibly suppressing opposition' applicable when the liberals coalesce against the enemy du jour?

Regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. Sometimes we all wander out to left field and we look around and realize we are all alone. I admit that I am having trouble coming up with examples that defie that perception that Bush is a fascist, besides noting his lack of anything that would garner such a label. But that is not an indicator that I am weak in my hypothesis. The grounds for calling Bush a 'fascist' is so flimsy that I am having trouble finding substance of proof in order to disprove that substance.

Besides the revitalization of Haliburton, which I would like to point out the general lack of competition in that industry, I'm having trouble finding one segment of our economy that Bush has either helped or harmed, beyond cutting taxes, to warrant the 'fascist' label.

I could list the industries that are targeted by liberals for their sins against the environment, but that would take too long for my purposes here, and there really isn't any doubt about the notion that liberalism is inclined to fix business through government intercession.

Finally, emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. That is all so subjective isn't it? One mans aggressive nationalism is another's patriotic duty. The reality is that this President hasn't cloaked himself in the flag anymore than any of his predecessors. In fact, considering the external forces align against our flag, it may do well for Mr. Bush to be more nationalistic. But with the open borders, the free-trade agreements, and continued appeals to the United Nations first in foreign affairs matters, and the fact I missed the memo on it, I can't believe that we are dwelling in an ultra-nationalistic society akin to Germany and Italy in the 1940's.

As to racism, I'm going to leave that alone. My kids don't know anything about that, and that is what my nurture is attempting to instill. I hope they don't learn it from the people who are propagating so many other misconceptions today.

As to his domestic opponents, I wouldn't want to call such things as the rainbow flag, the AIDs ribbons and all its siblings nationalistic, but the emotional strings being tug are related -- to inspire loyalty to the cause.

Where are your loyalties? I think you're free to choose, unless I missed the memo on that too.

Quote of the Day

"There are no illegitimate children -- only illegitimate parents."



Leon R Yankwich(September 25, 1888 - February 9, 1975) U.S. District Court Judge


Decision, Zipkin V. Mozon (1928)

presented by Right Sarcasm University
www.rightsarcasm.com

We can all be wealthy

When I was a young man the question was asked, why can't a million people pay each other a buck and we'd all be millionaires?

Because you'd need a million dollars yourself silly.

But if we all just click each other's Ad Sense ads on our blogs, couldn't we all get a little bit of wealth?

Quote of The Day

"A hero is a man who does what he can."



Romain Rolland (1866 - 1944) French Novelist

presented by Right Sarcasm University
www.rightsarcasm.com

Quote of the Day

"Besides learning to see, there is another art to be learned -- not to see what is not."



Maria Mitchell (1818 - 1889) American astronomer

presented by Right Sarcasm University
www.rightsarcasm.com

The 4th sign of the Apocalypse

It has been an essential element of my sensibilities that I carry along with me at all times a mental list of scenarios that would indicate to me the immediate on coming of the proverbial "End Time"s as prophesied in the Christian Bible. Number 4 on that list has always been to fear the ramifications of any agreement with Rosie O'Donnell on consecutive issues.

So with great trepidation I submit to you Ms. O'Donnell's blog where in you will read a long winded poem, maybe a haiku - exactly, I don't know. Near the end of that poem she writes,

unreal

i am registering as an independent
cause i am sick of both sides
cowardly silence

as democracy dies

prior to this caption she itemizes a number of sickness that prevail upon our land, and I was pleased to learn that she recognizes that both political parties are ineffective, willingly or unwittingly, to do anything to solve problems.

Early in the week, I agreed when she admitted that this nation's right to free speech is being severely challenged(my words), as stirred by the Imus controversy.

This Wheel's on Fire

This Wheel's on Fire: Levon Helm and the Story of the Band
Levon Helm with Stephen Davis
1993, 2000

Thirty years ago one of heck of a farewell concert took place at the Winterland Ballroom in San Francisco. Performers who attended and played included Eric Clapton, Neil Young & Neil Diamond, Muddy Waters, Ringo Starr, Ron Wood, Van Morrison, Dr. John, Joni Mitchell, and Bob Dylan. The concert took place on Thanksgiving Day, 1976 therefore a turkey dinner and all the fixing were offered, including a vegetarian selection. Ball room dancing, with professionals mixed in to assure the right atmosphere, was encouraged and it was all recorded and directed by Martin Scorsese. But all of this was secondary to the big show, which was to bid good-bye to one of history's(even to this day) greatest bands ever assembled.

Levon Helm, Robbie Robertson, Rick Danko, Garth Hudson, and Richard Manuel were The Band.

For anyone unfamiliar with who they were, I hope this lead-in will whet one's appetite to learn more about this great band who for years backed up Bob Dylan during one fabulous era of that legendary writer's career.

For anyone familiar with who they were, you surely need no hyping to be convinced that any book written by one of The Bands members would be worth your while.

This book provides not only a history of the early years of The Band, along with the early years of Levon Helm in particular, the history of the Last Waltz, and the post Waltz years, it also gives a history of so much of the early years of Rock 'n Roll.

In particular, Levon's childhood in Arkansas, his growth in music and all the local influences which shaped his style.

Ronnie Hawkins. A rambling musician who dominating the bar and club scene in Canada for many years and was also known well in the South. He was who gathered together the musicians who would later go out on their own, but first learned the ways of the stage under his tutelage. Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks were at a time the best at what they did.

Woodstock. Where it was, who came to live there and how their music developed, and of course the big concert.

Big Pink. Who said, "This album changed my life" which lead him to disband his own group which was in itself a historic combination of talent, and who was also denied entry into The Band.

Bob Dylan and Shangri-La

The story of The Last Waltz. Why it took place, how it came about, what was going on behind the scenes, who and why certain musicians were asked to perform. Back stage at the concert, the Bob Dylan issue, why this was the end of the Band and how Levon felt about all that.

The years following the Last Waltz. Why Robbie Robertson never toured with the other members again, the death of Richard Manuel, the fire in Woodstock at Levon's farm, and many attempts to re-capture the success of The Band.

And so much more, like the personal relationship and song development. The record contracts. The business side. The trivia.

Like Ragu, its in there.