And another thing

I think Paul Krugman says it best in today's Paper of Record



Heck of a Job, Bushie
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A year ago, everyone expected President Bush to get his way on Social Security. Pundits warned Democrats that they were making a big political mistake by opposing plans to divert payroll taxes into private accounts.
A year ago, everyone thought Congress would make Mr. Bush's tax cuts permanent, in spite of projections showing that doing so would lead to budget deficits as far as the eye can see. But Congress hasn't acted, and most of the cuts are still scheduled to expire by the end of 2010.
A year ago, Mr. Bush made many Americans feel safe, because they believed that he would be decisive and effective in an emergency. But Mr. Bush was apparently oblivious to the first major domestic emergency since 9/11. According to Newsweek, aides to Mr. Bush finally decided, days after Hurricane Katrina struck, that they had to show him a DVD of TV newscasts to get him to appreciate the seriousness of the situation.
A year ago, before "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" became a national punch line, the rising tide of cronyism in government agencies and the rapid replacement of competent professionals with unqualified political appointees attracted hardly any national attention.
A year ago, hardly anyone outside Washington had heard of Jack Abramoff, and Tom DeLay's position as House majority leader seemed unassailable.
A year ago, Dick Cheney, who repeatedly cited discredited evidence linking Saddam to 9/11, and promised that invading Americans would be welcomed as liberators - although he hadn't yet declared that the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes" - was widely admired for his "gravitas."
A year ago, Howard Dean - who was among the very few prominent figures to question Colin Powell's prewar presentation to the United Nations, and who warned, while hawks were still celebrating the fall of Baghdad, that the occupation of Iraq would be much more difficult than the initial invasion - was considered flaky and unsound.
A year ago, it was clear that before the Iraq war, the administration suppressed information suggesting that Iraq was not, in fact, trying to build nuclear weapons. Yet few people in Washington or in the news media were willing to say that the nation was deliberately misled into war until polls showed that most Americans already believed it.
A year ago, the Washington establishment treated Ayad Allawi as if he were Nelson Mandela. Mr. Allawi's triumphant tour of Washington, back in September 2004, provided a crucial boost to the Bush-Cheney campaign. So did his claim that the insurgents were "desperate." But Mr. Allawi turned out to be another Ahmad Chalabi, a hero of Washington conference rooms and cocktail parties who had few supporters where it mattered, in Iraq.
A year ago, when everyone respectable agreed that we must "stay the course," only a handful of war critics suggested that the U.S. presence in Iraq might be making the violence worse, not better. It would have been hard to imagine the top U.S. commander in Iraq saying, as Gen. George Casey recently did, that a smaller foreign force is better "because it doesn't feed the notion of occupation."
A year ago, Mr. Bush hadn't yet openly reneged on Scott McClellan's 2003 pledge that "if anyone in this administration was involved" in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity, that person "would no longer be in this administration." Of course, some suspect that Mr. Bush has always known who was involved.
A year ago, we didn't know that Mr. Bush was lying, or at least being deceptive, when he said at an April 2004 event promoting the Patriot Act that "a wiretap requires a court order. ...When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
A year ago, most Americans thought Mr. Bush was honest.
A year ago, we didn't know for sure that almost all the politicians and pundits who thundered, during the Lewinsky affair, that even the president isn't above the law have changed their minds. But now we know when it comes to presidents who break the law, it's O.K. if you're a Republican.

Hey - rightie - why don't you post some more of that vitriolic swill that you find on those reactionary blogs that you frequent - I am sure that they can support any findings you like with slanted bias to oppose the "main stream media".

Class distinction

I guess you were with Bush, but never got to see the DVD's his staff had to play for him four days after the hurricane to show just how bad everything was.
Almost all the faces seen at the Superdome and the Convention Center in New Orleans were all members of a particu;ar race and a particular social class - that's pretty evident to me - what the hell were you looking at?

New Year's greetings from he who leans left on the right coast

Well, it just amazes me how much faster the years go by now than before. I guess that is a result of each year being a smaller percentage of your life as you get older. 2005 was a truly memorable year. We saw almost 1/2 million people die due to natural disasters. We saw the amazing sight of purple fingered Iraqis exercising their franchise for the first time in their lives. We saw the horrible class distinction that still exists in this country in the aftermath of Katrina. We also saw the great heart of the American People, with charitable contributions rising to over 1/4 of a trillion dollars.
We saw the advances of AIDS treatment in this country hit new highs, while the disease is running unchecked in most of Sub-Saharan Africa. An amazing year it truly was.

Here are some hopes for the New Year

• The President abandons being the butt boy of the oil industry and throws the full force of his office behind the development of new technologies that will free us from dependence on fossil fuels, leading to a stronger America, a freer America, and a greener America.
• The continued success to the secular forces in the culture wars - I believe that everyone should be able to practice their religion whenever or wherever they desire - just respect my not practicing it. This does not mean I am against seeing creches in town squares, or crosses in public places - but it does mean please stop telling me that your way is the only way to heaven, or paradise, or Nirvana, or whatever the hell you call it. If God exists, believe me, he is not concerned with any of your sectarianism - he just represnts a good energy in the Universe, and would much rather see people respecting each other than killing each other in his name, thank you very much!
• More governing by the Legislative branch and less partisanship - the ship is rudderless right now, because everyone is posturing and playing to the fringes, instead of getting things done in the middle.
• A little more compassion from the government for those in need. I firmly believe that a majority if poeple who are getting government aid, are, in fact, in need, and not thieving welfare cheats who think it is more lucrative to have babies and get food stamos than getting a job.
• A sensible plan to deal with the illegal immigration issue - first of all, and I am speaking first hand, illegal immigrants are not here to collect welfare or get government hand-outs. They are here to do an honest days work for far more money than they could ever get at home, so they can send this hard -earned money back to their families, so they might better themselves a little. Let's give amnesty to all those workers in the country now, and develop some kind of guest worker program that works - here's a little hat tip to W. because this is something he supports.
• Education, education, education - a more equitable distribution of property taxes collected will go a long way to helping schools in impoverished areas to somewhat level the playing field. I also believe in merit raises for teachers, higher pay for teachers who choose to teach in impoverished areas, and comprehensive, regular testing for the teachers. We need to make it attractive for kids to study more math and science, or we will be buying a lot of Chinese and Indian advances in the decades to come.
• A little more laughter, a few more good movies, a lot more peace, a couple of rounds under 90, and continued health to enjoy the bounty of friends and family that I am so blessed to have.

Happy New Year - good night, and good luck!

You know, I am being tortured by the torture issue

Every day this eats at me - how can the US, the shining beacon of democracy, freedom, and all that is right with the world not only support, but engage in torture. The Bushies have used more legal loop holes to back their endorsement of this insidious practice. I truly believe tha they have done an end around congress in promoting torture, and they are on direct violation of the constitution and the FF's vision for this country.
That great liberal, Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, seems to agree with me ........




Here is an excerpt from the Sept. 13, 2005 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on President Bush's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be the chief justice of the United States. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Vt.), questioned Judge Roberts about the Bybee memo's conclusion that the president has "complete authority" to conduct the war on terror and is not bound by the federal law banning the use of torture. Judge Roberts replied, "No one is above the law," and said the president's authority would be "at its lowest ebb" in if he acted against Congressional authority under the Bybee memo.
LEAHY: We spoke about this again this morning, and I had told you when we met -- in fact, I gave you a copy of the Bybee memo so that this would not be a surprise to you. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a secret opinion in August 2002 which argued the president enjoys, quote, "complete authority over the conduct of war," close quote. And, quote, "The Congress lacks authority to set the terms and conditions under which the president may exercise his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during war," close quote. And then it took the argument to the extreme when it concluded the president, when acting as commander in chief was not bound -- was not bound -- by the federal law banning the use of torture.
In other words, the president would be above the law in that regard. You did not write that memo -- I hasten to add -- but you've seen it. And I asked Attorney General Gonzales for his view of this memo, in particular this sweeping assertion of executive power, which puts the president above the law. He never gave an answer on that and that's tone of the reasons why many had voted against his confirmation. So, now let me ask you this: Do you believe that the president has a commander-in-chief override to authorize or excuse the use of torture in interrogation of enemy prisoners even though there may be domestic and international laws prohibiting the specific practice?
ROBERTS: Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the constitution and statutes. Now, there often arise issues where there's a conflict between the legislature and the executive over an exercise of executive authority -- asserted executive authority. The framework for analyzing that is in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case, the famous case coming out of President Truman's seizure of the steel mills.
LEAHY: The Supreme Court held that unconstitutional.
ROBERTS: Exactly. And the framework set forth in Justice Jackson's concurring opinion, which is the opinion that has sort of set the stage for subsequent cases, analyzes the issue in terms of one of three categories. If the president is acting in an area where Congress is supportive -- expressly supportive of his action -- the president's power is at its maximum. If the president is acting in an area such as you postulate under the Bybee memo where the president is acting contrary to congressional authority, what Justice Jackson said is the president's authority is at its lowest ebb. It consists solely of his authority under the Constitution, less whatever authority Congress has.
And then, of course, there's the vast little area where courts often have to struggle because they can't determine whether Congress has supported a particular exercise or not. The Dames & Moore case, for example, is a good example of that.
SPECTER: Would you consider -- go ahead.
ROBERTS: I just going to say the first issue for a court confronting the question you posed would be whether Congress specifically intended to address the question of the president's exercise of authority or not.
LEAHY: Well, yes, I would think that if you pass a law saying nobody in our government shall torture, I think that's pretty specific. But let me ask you this: Is Youngstown settled law? Would you consider Youngstown settled law?
ROBERTS: I think the approach in the case is one that has guided the court in this area since 1954, '52, whatever it was.
LEAHY: The reason I ask that, when Mr. Bybee wrote this memo, he never cited Youngstown. I think it was Harold Koh, the dean at the Yale Law School who said this was a stunning omission. I don't agree with that. The president, instead, went ahead and appointed -- or nominated Mr. Bybee to a federal judgeship.
ROBERTS: Youngstown's a very important case in a number of respects; not least the fact that the opinion that everyone looks to, the Jackson opinion, was by Justice Jackson who was, of course, FDR's attorney general and certainly a proponent of expansive executive powers …
LEAHY: You've also said he was one of the justices you admire the most.
ROBERTS: He is, for a number of reasons. And what's significant about that aspect of his career is here's someone whose job it was to promote and defend an expansive view of executive powers as attorney general, which he did very effectively. And then as he went on the court, as you can tell from his decision in Youngstown, he took an entirely different view of a lot of issues; in one famous case even disagreeing with one of his own prior opinions. He wrote a long opinion about how he can't believe he once held those views. …
LEAHY: Are you sending us a message?
ROBERTS: Well, I'm just saying-- One reason people admire Justice Jackson so much is that, although he had strong views as attorney general, he recognized, when he became a member of the Supreme Court, that his job had changed and he was not the president's lawyer, he was not the chief lawyer in the executive branch. He was a justice sitting in review of some of the decisions of the executive. And he took a different perspective. And that's, again, one reason many admire him, including myself.
LEAHY: The reason I ask -- I mean, I thought the memo was outrageous. And once it became public -- not until it became public, but after it became public, the president disavowed it and said he is opposed to torture, and I commend him for that. Many wish the administration had taken that position prior to the press finding out about it. But in the Jackson opinion -- and I just pulled it out here -- he says, "The president has no monopoly of war powers, whatever they are. Congress cannot deprive the president of the command of the Army and Navy. Only Congress can provide him with an Army and Navy to command. Congress is also empowered to make rules for the government and regulation of land enabled forces. By which it may, to some unknown extent, impinge upon even command functions." Do you agree that Congress can make rules that may impinge upon the president's command functions?
ROBERTS: Certainly, Senator. And the point that Justice Jackson is making there is that the Constitution vests pertinent authority in these areas in both branches. The president is the commander in chief, and that meant something to the founders.
On the other hand, as you just quoted, Congress has the authority to issue regulations governing the armed forces: another express provision in the Constitution. Those two can conflict if by making regulations for the armed forces Congress does something that interferes with, in the president's view, his command authority. And in some cases those disputes will be resolved in court, as they were in the Youngstown case. …



By the way - Johnny Damon is my new favorite Yankee!!!!!!

The endless war on Terror

This pretty much sums up my thoughts

No Clear Victory, or End, to U.S. 'War on Terror'
By ROGER COHEN
International Herald Tribune
NEW YORK Perhaps no new entrant into the world's political lexicon is more troubling than "the war on terror."
It's disturbing because, as used by President George W. Bush, it is often equated with past wars. In his radio address on Dec. 17, the president said: "Yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front."
The subliminal message here is that after the wars of the 20th century, not a scarce commodity, along came a new one - another struggle Americans must fight and win to spread the beacon of liberty, this time in the Middle East.
But at the same time, the president has conceded there can be no clear moment of victory in this war; no act of surrender will be signed by Osama bin Laden (if he's alive) and it's inconceivable that the stateless terrorist movement called Al Qaeda will be vanquished in the same way as the German and Japanese armies in 1945.
To be engaged in a war without end is problematic. It requires patience. It also requires great caution in making claims of exceptional presidential war-making powers, because exceptional personal powers that last forever smack of the kinds of authoritarian regimes the United States has spent a lot of blood and treasure fighting.
On the international front, the president is showing patience. But on the domestic front, he's scarcely showing caution in arrogating wide domestic powers as a commander in chief in a period of potentially endless war.
Let's start with the patience. The remarkable election this month in Iraq - striking not least for the degree of Sunni participation - suggests that Bush's persistence in the name of a reformist Middle Eastern vision is bringing some rewards. Iraq is very fragile, but its thirst for some form of democratic government is unmistakable.
In a series of recent speeches, Bush has set out a coherent political, military and economic program for the country. His words have gained in credibility as a result of a new frankness.
He is conceding that "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," accepting for the first time that good-faith criticism of the Iraq war is desirable, taking personal responsibility for the conflict, and answering questions about Iraqi casualties without circumlocutions.
"I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," he said earlier this month. You can't get much more straightforward than that.
The president has also been clear and unwavering, despite increased political pressure, on the need to avoid setting timetables for a withdrawal of the more than 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. He knows Iraq's fragile democratic experiment would probably collapse if unprotected by U.S. arms and the solemnity of a U.S. commitment.
"Victory will be achieved by meeting certain clear objectives," Bush said this month, "when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country. These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq."
The president might have put these reasonable aims a different way. He might have said that when the rule of law begins to have real meaning in Iraq, and a hold on the imaginations of its people, the time to consider a U.S. military withdrawal will be closer.
The rule of law is, of course, central to any functioning democracy, be it in the Middle East or the Middle West. Which brings us to the domestic ramifications of the war on terror, recently revealed by The New York Times to include warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens approved by Bush in the name of fighting terrorism.
The president has been adamant in defending this practice, insisting that it is "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution" and essential to save American lives in a time of war and in a world where terrorist plots may have devastating scope.
The administration seems to be arguing that a combination of Congress's authorization of the use of military force, passed after the Sept. 11 attacks, and the president's "plenary" war-making powers give him the right, in certain circumstances, to override the protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures" guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. As a general matter, the Constitution bars the government from spying on Americans without prior court approval.
A brief signed in 2002 by former Attorney General John Ashcroft sums up the administration's thinking: "The Constitution vests in the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."
In effect, if that suspected "agent" is a U.S. citizen, and this citizen calls overseas, Bush believes spies have the right to listen in on the call, or read e-mail, without first making the case there's probable cause to believe this American is up to no good.
That's tantamount to placing domestic security surveillance within the sole discretion of the executive branch - an upsetting of the balance of powers central to the success of American democracy and the preservation of American freedoms.
The policy is doubly disturbing because a special court, established under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, exists precisely so the president can in secret obtain a warrant for spying if convincing evidence is presented.
The president says he has reauthorized this program 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and will "do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups."
That could be a very long time given the nature of the war on terror, so long that talk of the "exceptional" nature of such measures becomes meaningless. Infringements of Americans' essential freedoms then become permanent. That's not a good example for the nascent democracy being nurtured by the president's patience.

Well, we finally found something we can agree on

Well, our brother in the middle's prayers have been answered - we can all agree that the TWU sucks. Also, I hope that Bloomberg and Pataki have the cojones to follow through on the fines they promised the individual members of the TWU if they broke the Taylor Law and went on strike. Let's see how 25K per day off sets there 8% per year demands!

2 wrongs don't make a right - they still step on our rights

Just cause Bubba did it as well still does not make it right - if we had a blog back then I would have been against it then as well. A typical righty move - don't answer the accusation - deflect it!

They just don't get it, do they?

It just goes to show you, that arrogance can lead to blindness, and a total disregard for the constitution. Former NSA Director, and current Deputy Director of Intelligence, in response to the uproar over surveillance and wiretapping without a court order was quoted in the Washington Post today -
"Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."
Oh, so a judicial review of abrogating the 4th amendment rights of citizens is "looping paperwork around" . This is why there is a judicial branch of government, General Hayden - to keep a runaway executive branch in check. The law currently allows a 72 hour window of unapporved surveillance, as long as there is a retroactive approval of the wiretap by the secret court set up for this purpose. According to the Post Article today
" Since the law was passed in 1978 after intelligence scandals, the court has rejected just five of 18,748 requests for wiretaps and search warrants, according to the government."
This is a vey strong argument for enforcing this law as it is on the books. The Bushies claim that Executive Privilege allows them to circumvent this issue is a blatant abuse of power. Kudos to Republican Senator Arlen Specter for his reaction to this also in the Post.
"Voicing "grave doubts" over the legality of the National Security Agency program, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he will conduct hearings next month on the issue."
Go get 'em Arlen.
Also a quick tip of the hat to District Judge John E. Jones III, another Republican from the great state of Pennsylvania with common sense, for ruling against the teaching of intelligent design in Penssylvania public schools!

By the way - this one voice from the left agreeing with Ed about the TWU strike. You know what Mr. Touissant - I have to contribute a fair amount to my health coverage, and no one is offering me a job that I can retire from at age 55 at half pay - those are gains of the past. The average TA worker gets paid more than the average NY'er by about 20%, not counting the ungodly benefits they get- It's time for a reality check - maintaining the status quo will bankrupt the MTA and we can then return to the gory days of the MTA in the late 70's when trains were filthy, graffitti laden, and never on time.

As I was saying

Check out the front page of today's paper of record and see how well the Bushies are policing the spying on US citizens....Boy that Catholic group that helps feed and clothe homeless and poor people - that sure sounds like a communist plot to me!

A litle humble pie

It was nice to see the Pres actually admit that " Hey, maybe we made a mistake or two" instead of the standard bull headed hubris laden spew that usually comes out of his mouth.
Also, my agenda is not beat Bush at all costs - it is to see the course of this country return to the one that promotes the freedom of ideas; supports the freedom to criticize policy wihtout fear of being Roved; that is always in the moral forefront when it comes to items such as torture; that truly believes in helping the poor, tired, and wretched; that is the shining beacon that the FF envisioned when they started this grand experiment of theirs.

Just to touch on the torture issue one more time - torture is evil. We should not just sink to the level of our enemies, justifying it by saying we have to resort to these measures because it levels the playing field. That cheapens the whole American Way package that we are trying so hard to peddle in Iraq right now. They can get the torture package anywhere - we have an obligation to lead by example - the do as I say and not as I do will not fly when you are trying to get people to reincorporate themselves into a whole new way of thinking and living. We must continually show that Democracy is a better way of life - and by refusing to condone torture as a tool to be used whenever it is expedient for us to do so is a big step in that direction.
The problem with the expansive interpertation of executive privilege by the current administration sets a very bad precedent - the problem is not who's minding the store right now (though there are some very good arguments for that), but the unknown pedagogue that might be there in the future.
Remember some sad tales from our recent past -

1. The internment of Japanese- Americans - most of whom were citizens, due to the specter of fear and racism that was promoted by the administration at the time. (why weren't there any German-American internment camps????){by the way - did you notice - a little FDR bashing}
2. The great Red Scare of the 50's promoted by Tail-Gunner Joe.
3. The trail of broken laws by the Nixon admin - too numerous to mention.

It was things like this that led the FF to maintain that a free press, equal branches of government, and the fourth amendment were essential for this democracy to succeed and thrive.

The Defeat of the Patriot Act is a most Patriotic thing

After showing how well the Bush administration would safeguard against abuses of the Patriot Act by allowing the NSA to operate clandestine surveillance and wiretapping inside the country, it is a joke that they promised that there would not be abuses of the powers if the extension of the act was passed. As Republican Senator, John Sununu, of New Hampshire said so eloquently on the floor of the Senate "Those that would give up essential liberties in the pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." At last, an old school Republican.
Hallelujah!!!!!!! It is great to see that there are enough Republicans of character left in the Senior Chamber to stand up to the bullying tactics of the Bush White House.

You are so wrong, Gorilla

Look, I don't know where you got the idea that I, as a card carrying liberal, would be so upset that the elections in Iraq are going this well. I think it is a fantastic thing. Let's hope that all the positives are the first of many steps toward a beacon of freedom and democracy in a region where a medieval feudalistic theocracy is the normal government. Your view of liberals is so jaded by the likes of O'Reilly etc. Let' see if we can start a reverse domino theory and let this steamroll through the region. It was also refreshing to see W. actually eat a little crow and admit that maybe they made some mistakes. It's about time. Maybe if this "New Look Georgie" appeared about 18 months ago, he would have garnered a lot more support for his experiment in nation building. Maybe if he looked for help from across the aisle, and from across the pond, we might have stronger world wide support for our efforts in Iraq. Maybe if he didn't spend so much time launching personal attacks on his critics (let's call this Roving from now on), and engaging in a meaningful discussion where you actually try to come to some sort of common ground with the loyal opposition, we might have a few less dead, and little more support from the 60% of the American people who think he has led us down the wrong path over and over again. Just a thought.
To think that I am upset that about this is ridiculous. To think that any liberal would be upset by this goes to show how far from understanding and empathetic the right can be. This is a great day for Iraq, a good day for America, and a good day for humanity!

Just a quick follow up

Just a little more about the Secretary of State - read Helen Thomas today by clicking on the title of this entry

Condi's Spin

While watching Condeleeza Rice's performance in Europe, I was reminded of Bill Clinton's conjugation of the verb to be during Monica gate. What she did not say was a lot louder than what she did say. Saying that US personnel would not engage in torture, but not mentioning sending alleged suspects to Syria or Jordan for some good old medieval dungeon time.(Not much talk of those CIA beatdown houses, either). The fact is we have sent "enemy combatants" to some nations of suspect character to get information. The continued arrogance of the administration is appalling - spin, spin , spin - don't worry, be happy - it just doesn't fly anymore, and the American public is starting to wake up.
The US should not be engaged in torture - anytime. Men who have been torured, like Senator McCain, say that torture does not deliver useful information. Hell, you remove the remote from my hand long enough and I'll confess to anything. It's not good marketing for the proiduct we are trying to sell - The American Way. Look, this great experimant of the FF is still the best system in the world (Men are far to imperfect to aspire to any Utopia - that is a pipe dream). We cannot let our pride in this great system become hubris, allowing us to make immoral choices, because it is just easier. At this delicate time in Iraq, we should be putting on our Sunday Best, and always take the moral high road.

Go Giants

That was scary, but productive - red zone offense is spotty, and Eli threw a couple of Folly Floaters - they need to tighten up if they want to go far!

Ponderings on a cold Saturday morning

While my brother immediately assumes that I must be against the war in Iraq becaus I lean left, it is just not true. I admit that I was totally against invading a sovereign country without provocation ( and don't tell me that Sadaam's rhetoric was provocation enough - if it was , I should be able to play golf right now at the Havana Marriott). Intelligence was weak and shoddy and under dispute at all levels of the intelligence service- intelligence was used by both sides of the argument to support their sides, and this was possible because it ws so poor.
That said, I feel that the US should be held to a higher standard becasue we are the US - our system which we display as a model for all other countries was created by the Founding Fathers (hereby known as the FF on this blog) to be a morally superior model, responding to tyranny and opression - (okay, it was really a response about money , but isn't every single thing in the history of mankind :
The Trojan War - Helen Schmellen, Troy was a wealthy port of trade between the Mediterranean and the East
The Crusades - Get the infidels out of the Holy Land, and by the way, could you make me some money from the Spice Routes while you're there
The Civil War - Sure, slavery was a driving issue, but it ws more about the economics of slavery
than States rights.
The Spanish American War - a"Remember the Maine" and also remember to dominate the region to build a Canal to move product quicker to make more money.
Dessert Storm - How do you spell it, oh yeah ":O - I - L" )
Alright, I digress too much - back to our current situation - I believe the failure in Viet Nam, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, and the current quagmire we are now in in Iraq (and I know that Willue is posting links that show a school being built, and market opening, etc - but really does anyone out there believe that we are actually succeeding there?) all stemmed from a reluctance to committ enough resources to the arena. Win the war and provide security, and the hearts and minds will follow - as soon as every one can safely start making a living. When people feel safe enough to build businesses that will provide a nice living for a majority of the nation, they tend to worry a little less about jihad, and a lttle more about what's going to happen on "Baghdad Street Blues" tonight. I think we needed to have more troops on the ground to start with, and we need more now - or it is going to continue to go poorly. But the current DOD has never had any real plan, and keeps preaching more from less - Sorry Rummy, but you can't do that with the military - feet on the ground in large quantities is what provides real and perceived security - both important, but the latter is even more so.

Paranoia will destroy ya

While I can totally agree with shooting this idiot, the London police still have a lot of explaining to do for shooting that Brazilian on the tubes. In a time of hyped up security alerts ( which I believe are often done to turn attention away from other issues the admin may have) we have to have law enforcement that is properly trained. Air Marshals get more gun training than any other law enforcemnt wing and I believe they acted properly, but we have a lot of law enforcement who seem all too happy to shoot first and ask questions later. Look, their job is not one I envy - being on the line every day, with a lot of really bad guys out there, but they still make an awful lot of mistakes, and teaching restraint with the trigger could avert a lot of tragedies. Maybe if there was a little more hand gun control, and gun companies were faced with the same liabilities that finally chased down the tobacco companies, the bad guys might not be so well armed, and the cops would not have to be so on edge.

Just another right wing swift boat

Attacking the messenger is a very smooth way of turning the argument into a personal pissing contest without any substance!

Troop Support

While I was against the initial invasion of a sovereign country because we did not like them (let's not even get into the WMD debate), I have been wholly supportive of the troops on the ground in Iraq, and am in shock that the Rummy's plans totally ignored the needs expressed to him by multiple military professionals.
How about having enough troops to get the job done in the first place. Where was the post-war plan. There was never any Iraqi "Marshall Plan', only an Iraqi "Haliburton Plan" - and try to tell me that VP has no economic stake in all those no bid contracts - Haliburton was very conveniently labeled as the only company with the infratsructure in place to do all this work. Well, maybe that happened because they knew about the war before it happened. I don't put anything beyond the evil incarnate
Darth Vader pulling W's strings.

WHY I LIKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Democrats-
1) Really support stem cell research.
2) Support a women's right to choose what to do with her body.
3) Believe that government has a responsibility to protect it's less fortunate citizens.
4) Represent a much more diversified cross section of this country, and celebrate the diversity.
5) Don't believe in trickle down economics.
6) Are strong supporters of environmental concerns.
7) Understand that the concept of globalization is not just about the economic globalization, but also of working with other countries for the betterment of the world's citizens.
8) Recognize that with America's power, both economic and militarily, there comes a requirement to do more than pay lip service to having a moral responsibility, and lead by example.
9) Could care less what people do in their own bedrooms.
10) Support strong gun control (which, by the way, is supported all local law enforcement).
11) Are, for the most part, anti - death penalty.

The Cardinal Entry

TOM said...
Alright, alright, it took me a while, because I couldn't figure out how to throw money at this problem. But seriously, I think the Democratic Party is better party because it is so diverse. There is definitely room for all at our party. I think my right leaning (okay, falling) brother from the left coast's party is getting more and more exclusive. I don't think this is the party that a lot of old style Republicans want. Fiscally conservative, and morally laissez faire ( and I don't meant that they were immoral people ), big supporters of small government, and even bigger supporters of charities (remember the Rockefellers),the Republicans of yore were folks who knew what the job of governemnt was - to govern. Compromises were made, bills that were good for the country got passed, and people had some modicum of respect for the government. I'm not that happy with the Democrats either. They have gotten just as "my way or the highway" in response to the influence of the religious right driving a lot of the agenda in Congress. I don't think this is the govenrment the founding father's envisioned.