i am a bear.

The New Deal, horrible mistake?

2009-02-02T03:09:00.002-05:00

You'd think, from listening to pundits like Glenn Beck and the right-wing establishment that FDR's New Deal was a great failure; an obstruction to the bullet train that was market based recovery. It's strange how even now we are relying on revisionist history and trying to save our economy by pushing forth the "market self regulation" theory that got us into this mess in the first place. It's a good thing we have Nobel Prize winners like Paul Krugman to keep people honest.

Paul Krugman | New York Times Blog
November 8, 2008, 3:37 pm
New Deal economics

Everybody’s talking new New Deal these days — and, predictably, the FDR-haters are out in force, with all the usual claims about FDR having actually made the Great Depression worse. (To the right, way back when, FDR was “That Man.” Now Obama is “that one.” Interesting.)

Eric Rauchway is all over this. Basically, the anti-FDR argument on the data is based on (a) considering people employed by the WPA “unemployed” (even though they were getting paid, and building public works that are in use to this day) plus (b) always focusing on 1938 — the year in which the economy suffered a serious setback from the progress of the previous four years.

Let me offer two pictures, beyond what Eric provides, to clarify things.

First, here’s real GDP (in logs) from 1929 to 1941, plus the trend. (That’s to bypass the employment nonsense). You can see that the economy made up a lot of the output gap before the 1938 setback, but by no means all.
INSERT DESCRIPTIONIncomplete recovery

Now, you might say that the incomplete recovery shows that “pump-priming”, Keynesian fiscal policy doesn’t work. Except that the New Deal didn’t pursue Keynesian policies. Properly measured, that is, by using the cyclically adjusted deficit, fiscal policy was only modestly expansionary, at least compared with the depth of the slump. Here’s the Cary Brown estimates, from Brad DeLong:
INSERT DESCRIPTIONLimited fiscal force

Net stimulus of around 3 percent of GDP — not much, when you’ve got a 42 percent output gap. FDR might have been more of a Keynesian if Keynesian economics had existed — The General Theory wasn’t published until 1936. Note in particular that in 1937-38 FDR was persuaded to do the “responsible” thing and cut back — and that’s what led to the bad year in 1938, which to the WSJ crowd defines the New Deal.

Implications for Obama: be inspired by FDR, but don’t imitate him slavishly. In particular, your economic policy should be bolder, not more cautious.

Powell endorses Obama, but there's more.

2008-10-19T14:06:00.002-04:00

Today Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama, but the more interesting part that will likely get less press was his defense of Muslims.

Powell is one of the first politicians that has publicly said, Obama isn't a Muslim, but what if he is? Is there something wrong with that? This is America and there isn't anything wrong with that. Even Obama himself has rarely addressed this point. Powell again shows why members of both parties respect him, his character, and his judgment dearly. We are walking down a dangerous path in history when citizens and politicians indicate that it is appropriate to single out faiths as disqualifying people from higher office or any office; the whispering undercurrent to this election is that Muslim = terrorist and that is wrong in so many ways and denigrates the accomplishments of so many. That is not the America we should be presenting to the world. Powell is on point and joins the growing number of prominent GOP members, conservative radio hosts and conservative newspapers that have come out to endorse Senator Obama. Hats off to Colin Powell for doing the right thing and standing up for our fellow citizens.

Carly Fiorina Implodes

2008-09-18T01:46:00.003-04:00

I found Carly Fiorina's recent appearance on MSNBC to be rather humorous.

Well, I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation. I don't think Barack Obama could run a major corporation. I don't think Joe Biden could run a major corporation. But on the other hand, a major corporation is not the same as being President or Vice President of the United States. It is a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company. So, of course, to run a business you have to have a lifetime of experience in business. But that's not what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden are doing.

Simply hilarious.

We are talking about a party that elected George W. Bush and touted his experience running (or screwing) an oil company and a baseball team, and his MBA. One that promoted the image that he would be America's first "CEO President"

We are talking about a party that touted Mitt Romney's experience as Vice President of Bain Capital.

We are talking about a party that especially during the Republican Revolution or... Gingrich Revolution if you will, basically advocated for smaller government that was accountable to its stockholders (the American People), just like a company.

My how short our memory is...

McCain and Wall Street

2008-09-17T23:39:00.004-04:00

"The government was forced to commit $85 billion," McCain said in a statement. "These actions stem from failed regulation, reckless management and a casino culture on Wall Street that has crippled one of the most important companies in America."

It's funny, McCain and the other Republicans (former McCain Financial Policy adviser Phil Gramm) passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. On the surface it was in my eyes truly a modernization act. It allowed Banks, Investment Banks, and Insurance firms to become one. Not the end of the world and not necessarily a bad thing at all.

This paved the way for Gramm's new bill, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Here we saw a bill that ensured unregulated creation and trading of Credit Default Swaps, Collateral Debt Obligations, Mortgage Backed Securities. And that's where we are today, a day after AIG was spared by the Treasury, Lehman brothers was allowed to collapse and the financial sector is in misery. With this bill, the Republicans allowed the financial sector to regulate themselves. When has self-regulation ever worked? When? Casino Culture indeed Senator McCain, your friend Mr. Gramm created this mess and you signed onto it in the 2001 Fiscal Year budget. Let's not forget all this time, McCain was the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. Where was John McCain the last 8 years when all of this de-regulation was going on? I don't remember him speaking up or against any of the deregulatory bills. The fact that he has done an about face today, just shows you who we have running for President.

McCain wants a commission for the market collapse

2008-09-16T23:55:00.005-04:00

McCain has said that he would create a commission to investigate how and why our stock market had such a huge collapse these past few weeks/months. I say, bring it on, let's have a commission. Maybe we can finally discuss industry deregulation. It's always been a game for Wall Street to invent ways to make money before the SEC comes in and says something. It just so happens that we let them go so willy nilly this time, that they dug themselves a very large hole and won't climb out of it in one piece. That's just what happens when you let greedy ambition run wild. Commission? Sure, maybe McCain will discover the role his own advisers like Phil Gramm played in this whole mess.

I hope Americans all realize who is going to pay for all of this, it's a double-edged sword. For everyone whose 401k/IRA accounts got shafted, that was the first blow. The second comes when people begin to realize that it is the American tax payer who will be shouldering the burden, the burden of bailing out AIG, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie... This is money that we could have been doing other things with. Things like healthcare, education, etc. It's funny in the back of my mind I keep hearing George W. Bush's words, that we shouldn't increase taxes on the wealthy, because the wealthy have accountants to get them out of paying for taxes. Whose that leave? That's right, it leaves you and I, the middle class. Thanks guys.

McCain and Al Gore: Inventors of the Century

2008-09-16T15:48:00.004-04:00

Today, John McCain knows how Al Gore feels. McCain policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, referring to this BlackBerry stated, "You're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create."

True, McCain may have voted on and driven some legislation that allowed for the FCC to make way to PDAs utilizing Push-services. But by no means did John McCain have a finger in its creation or R&D tax breaks that spurred its development. Research In Motion is based in Canada. Now John McCain will have to watch as the media and emails circulate about "John McCain invented the BlackBerry!". Now he knows how Al Gore felt. Now he knows, and so does the right wing. It's like karma came back to pay them back for that ridiculous Al Gore and the internet attack.

Palin: Working Mothers

2008-09-11T14:20:00.002-04:00

"A spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign said she was unable to say at this time what Palin’s position is on federal policies relating to job protections and benefits for working mothers."

Really? That's kind of surprising. I figured if anyone would have an early stance on job protection for working mothers/new mothers, it would be Palin. I'm curious what her stance is when she does reveal an opinion that the McCain-Palin campaign is willing to release.

The Real Sarah Palin

2008-09-06T17:32:00.002-04:00

Review of Sarah Palin, as given by Anne Kilkenny of Wasilla, Alaska. Anne Kilkenny exists and she actually did write the article as verified by the NYTimes and internet mythbusters, Snopes.com

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992.
Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a
first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her
father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a
first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more
City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the
residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular
girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and
won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because
she is a "babe".

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She
kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents
for seven months.

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby.
There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out
there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a
champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly
sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his
work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or
so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their
major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything
like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000
(at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about
670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running
this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been
pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had
gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had
given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6
years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over
33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the
City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation
(1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a
regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she
promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they
benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration
weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed
money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it
with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage
the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said
she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a
new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a
multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece
of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was
still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers
involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the
community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it
would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that
could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office
redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus
in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will
make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she
proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she
recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while
she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's
surplus, borrow for needs.

She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas
or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by
her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the
basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected
City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from
the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents
rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's
attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew
her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the
Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for
Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin
fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as
Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people,
creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally
grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power
to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the
case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated”
her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top
cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure
and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that
an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't
fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation
for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen
contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she
later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to
replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded
for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew
her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in
help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town
introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council
became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She
abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t
like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything
publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got
the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one
of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no
background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great
job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the
high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the
structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this
Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party)
engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some
undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all
her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and
garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a
gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit,
exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from
Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel
politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to
nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget
guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing
projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative
action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply
because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant
she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”.

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party
leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated
them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a
fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah.
They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and
predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly
stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made
point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's
mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and
experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package
of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march
to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to
global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state
initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from
pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the
state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s
lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar
bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a
heartbeat away from being President.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more
knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are
regretting it.

CLAIM VS FACT
•“Hockey mom”: true for a few years
•“PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary
school, not since
•“NRA supporter”: absolutely true
•social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill
that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships
(said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
•pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to
promote it.
•“Pro-life”: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby
BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life
legislation
•“Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has
residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska.
No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on
supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city
administrator to run town of about 5,000.
•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at
explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores
and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city
without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built
streets to early 20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on
residents
•pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city
government in Wasilla’s history.
•pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union
doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim
that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed
voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting
programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny +
Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local
government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen
when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because
few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out
of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no
fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will
cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100
or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's
attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to
say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in
spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor)
from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of
Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust
for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible
for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are
swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the
population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The
day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the
current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was
5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to
2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.

Anne Kilkenny
August 31, 2008

john stewart is always right

2008-09-05T00:04:00.001-04:00

Country vs. Party

2008-09-03T00:53:00.003-04:00

Country is more important than party. The more I hear this phrase repeated, the more it bothers me. Joe Lieberman repeated it last night more times than I can remember. Sounds high-minded, but in reality it doesn't really make any sense.

Politicians join a party because they share a common view on how best to run a country, so that it can be successful and take care of its inhabitants. Which party is not putting country first? It's a facetious argument to say that if you are a Democrat and you're not voting for McCain, you are not doing so in the best interest of your country. Putting your country first is the principle goal of any party. Then again, Joe Lieberman has never made sense.

"The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first."- Barack Obama - DNC '08

Notes from the RNC

2008-09-02T23:26:00.000-04:00

I'm watching the RNC right now and writing down some notes that come to mind...

-Why is Fred Thompson so orange?
-What's going on with this random guy screaming "Yeaaaaa yeaaaa yeaaa!" every few seconds, he's kind of obnoxious, you can hear him over the speaker at the podium.
-Everyone keeps chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!"... I just don't get it.
-There are a lot of people there dressed like Tucker Carlson.
-Lieberman? Why hasn't he been kicked out of the Democratic Party yet?
-"Country First"... are they saying Obama doesn't put country first? What's first, ego? Isn't that the insinuation? What happened to running a respectful campaign.
-Wow. Did they just applaud Bill Clinton? WTF?
-I can't believe Lieberman just said that Obama voted against equipping troops in the field. That's such a ridiculous distortion of the truth. What a backstabber. So much for helping him "reach to the stars".
-"yes we will"? Can't they come up with their own original chant...
-That's a big flag they have on screen... and on everyone's lapel. Patriotism isn't about how many pieces of flair you have or how big your flag is. I most people in that room realize one day that Republican policies are not in their best interest.

Sarah Palin?

2008-08-30T16:43:00.005-04:00

This reminds me of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. You could hear the collective "uhhhhhhhh...." of voters across the nation. If John McCain wanted to make an argument for the 2008 election about experience and sound decision making, I think he sunk his own battleship. Palin has been governor of Alaska for about a year and a half, a mayor for six, and on a city council for four. I'm trying to figure out what she brings to the table for McCain, and I hate to say it, but it's starting to sound like nothing, other than the obvious, that she is a woman. This is the impression that I get, especially given the overtures the McCain campaign has been making to disaffected Hilary Clinton voters.

Palin herself said during her introduction:
"It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hilary left 18 million cracks in the highest hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out that the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

It sounds like the McCain/Palin campaign are banking that voting women are going to vote for this ticket, solely on the fact that Palin is a woman. Talk about single issue voting. Sure, Hilary was a woman too, but she brought with her, strong Senate experience, a positive record on womens' rights and reproductive freedom, and populist appeal. Palin, on the other hand is very much pro-life. If you were a Hilary supporter, Hilary agrees with Obama on about 95% of the issues, why would you vote for McCain who agrees with Obama on... say... 5%?

"I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life. "

With a McCain presidency and justice elections, the Supreme Court will actually have the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. I have a feeling that even pro-life women, when faced with a legislative ban on abortion (even in cases of rape or incest) will change their tune when choice becomes no choices.

I can't help but wonder if we just witnessed the tipping point of a McCain self-destruction; maybe it was just a "senior moment". Republicans everywhere must be kicking themselves for not electing Mitt Romney in the first place. Or could it be that Palin will decline the nomination and Romney will get the nod, it sounds crazy enough to be true, especially given the way left field nature of Palin's nomination.

More information will come out about her in the coming weeks, and maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised, but as of now, it looks like he was looking for a woman to be on the campaign (it wouldn't be hard to find a more qualified woman and one that wasn't in the midst of an ethics investigation). If he truly wanted a woman as vice-president, why didn't he pick someone the GOP was more familiar with and more qualified? He could have easily chosen:

Condoleezza Rice, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Susan Collins, or Elizabeth Dole.... 4 women who I am at odds with on the political spectrum, but who obviously have more political experience, practical experience, foreign policy experience, more national exposure and support, and more distinguished careers than this former mayor of Wasilla. Any one of those women could have easily been strong contenders for VP. I think more people have heard of Wasilla, Alaska band, "Portugal. The Man," than have heard of Palin.

But to be serious for a minute, to be VP you don't need to be popular or well-known. What Americans are interested in is, if something were to happen to a 72-year old John McCain, is she ready to step in and govern the United States of America, the most dynamic economy in the nation and the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Palin was a real shot in the dark, and if she actually accepts the nomination, I think this election is over now.

less government in business, more business in government

2008-08-14T23:57:00.004-04:00

I've always thought of George W. Bush as the MBA president, running the United States as if it was a multinational corporation (albeit with a inept CEO at the helm). For the last eight years, it has seemed to be the singular mission of the Bush administration to outsource government and let business run it. It came as no surprise that they brought in Blackwater to fight our wars, and even less when industries began to deregulate with the industry policing itself, driven by the whim of a free market economy.

This in some cases, makes for more efficient government and a more aggressive economy, but in many other cases, you are throwing the public interest to the wolves. The most recent, and most egregious that comes to mind is a proposal to make changes to the Endangered Species Act which would "streamline" the protection services of the Department of the Interior. What the proposal really does is to remove mandatory consultation from government scientists, so that what goes on the endangered species list and what factors contribute to extinction of a species becomes the responsibility of a department that oversees conservation and land development.

Quote from the MSNBC article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26143098/
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.

The reasoning offered up for this is that since we don't know/can't make correlations that global warming is a contributing factor to species extinction (uhhhhhhh we can't?) the DOI doesn't need to seek experts on climate, ecology, etc. They can decide for themselves. Additional reasoning is that the Endangered Species Act has been around for long enough that government agencies and private land developers and land owners know best how to take care of species that fall within their boundaries and plans; they don't need to waste time consulting the experts. I can just see the level of abuse this is going to open the floodgates for rampant disregard in the name of efficiency and money.

How business friendly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26199580/
Again, none of this is unexected. I was surprised however, to see that today, George W. Bush, signed a bill banning lead in toys. Whaaaat? This is one of the few times I've seen this administration step forward to regulate the private sector. I would have expected Bush to offer the veto pen and say that it should be up to businesses to regulate themselves and consumer displeasure to manifest itself in corporations bottom line. Maybe the legislation was veto proof, or maybe you'd look heartless by not passing it. Whatever the reason, this represents a stark difference from the business friendly legislation pushed during the last 8 years of Bush.

Chuck Norris wanted to be Barack Obama when he grew up

2008-06-21T20:40:00.003-04:00

My friend Chris wrote a hilarious post for Slate about rumors that the Obama campaign should circulate. Call it the anti-viral slander email?

From Slate.com http://www.slate.com/id/2193798/ written by: Christopher Beam

The Barack Obama presidential campaign introduced a new site last week, FightTheSmears.com, that it hopes will debunk persistent myths about the senator: that he's a Muslim, that he won't say the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. As we have argued before, restating the myths often reinforces them, no matter how persuasively they've been refuted.

Rather than restate untruths about Obama, the campaign would do better to start some rumors of its own. Here's a template e-mail the Obama campaign might consider disseminating.

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Subject: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American's duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.

Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.

A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.

Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It's upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

There's only one artist on Barack Obama's iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.

Barack Obama's new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama's skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.

Disqus

2008-06-17T22:20:00.002-04:00

I'm moving to a new comment system, learn more about it at http://disqus.com/ . The Disqus environment creates dialogue based comments rather than a flat, "well I don't know who that comment was directed to" format. Try it out.

Barry Obama in West Virginia

2008-06-08T19:21:00.004-04:00

My friend sent over this YouTube link this morning and it gives us a peek into the West Virginia voting constituency. Most of those interviewed are Clinton supporters that say they will either not vote or vote Republican if Barack Obama is the Democratic Party nominee. Is that crazy or what? Voting Republican is probably the worst thing they could do for themselves, they are in a sense voting against their own economic interests. Why would someone do that? Apparently they don't like his name Barack and they think he's a Muslim.

It's funny because Barack (Barak) is a fairly common name straight out of the Hebrew Bible. There are a lot of Israelis named Barak. Hussein too, is a common Arabic name meaning "good" or "handsome". Unfortunately, Hussein is the name he was given at birth and unfortunately there was a dictator of Iraq with the same first name. But it goes beyond context of the name, it's the fact that it doesn't sound "American". It's not white bread, it's different, he's not Barry, it sounds foreign, it threatens the status quo. I often forget that while our country has had a lot of progress with racism, it's only been a few decades since that progress had been made. There is still a lot of mistrust of people that are of a different color skin, that attend a different church, that worship from a different book, and it would be a shame if people voted the same way an infant sees the world, in the binary of he looks like me or she doesn't look like me.

Obama is a Christian, but even if he was a Muslim why would it matter? The woman in the video can't bring herself to believe that he is not a Muslim and instead resorts to saying that she thinks that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. "I just don't believe that [that he is not a Muslim]". It's almost easier on her conscience to say that she is distrustful of a Muslim than to just say that she doesn't want a black man as President of the United States. I hope that those in the video represent a minority rather than a majority, but as they exist, it shows that we still have a ways to go in terms of loving thy neighbor.

will Fox News lean left?

2008-05-30T01:33:00.006-04:00

At last glance, President Bush had the highest disapproval rating, 69%, of a U.S. president in the 70 history of the gallop poll. At was not always this low, in fact, after 9/11, Bush, was in fact one of the most popular presidents as the nation banded together in light of the terrorist attacks.

One organization that gained a lot of momentum following 9/11 and our run-up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was Fox News, with its right leaning media coverage. Fox News made a living heralding the Bush administration, demonizing liberal elites, the far-left media conspiracy, painting war protesters as unpatriotic, etc. America ate it up, after all, there were terrorists running amuck and boy were we mad. Fox News is a business triumph any way you look at it, they are the number one rated cable news network and subsequently, the advertising dollars have rolled in, and the administration has been especially conciliatory towards Fox News, gracing them with exclusive interviews with President Bush and other members of the Executive Branch which have largely shut off access when it comes to other networks.

I am curious how Fox News will proceed in the coming years. As I mentioned before, President Bush is the most unpopular President in modern history, presidential candidate John McCain while being a Republican is still distrusted and hated by a significant portion of his own party, and Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton for that matter) seems well positioned to be our next President of the United States. Come 2009, the Executive Branch will most likely be run by a Democrat, the House and Senate will probably still have a Democratic majority, your average American thinks the Republican party is full of out-of-touch idiots, Republicans can't recognize their own party anymore, the economy is in a tailspin caused in my opinion by the deregulation of the housing and credit markets, and politics for the most part have made a complete 180 in favor of anyone who is not associated with the neo-conservatives.

I think with America growing increasingly disillusioned with the right wing, it is inevitable that viewership moves back towards left leaning/centrist MSNBC and CNN. You just don't make money by pursuing an opinion that few people embrace. Next year are people still going to want to hear from Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Grace, and Glenn Beck drumming us to increasing anti-immigrant fervor, made up facts, blaming Democrats, screaming at people for not supporting the troops, and boycotting companies for ridiculously tenuous ties? No, I don't think so. I think regular Americans will be able to tell that 8 years of majority Republican rule led to failed foreign policy, failed economic policy, uncompetitive wages, job loss, and soldiers being over stretched and under-provided for. I think it's pretty obvious to most people that 8 years of Bush didn't lead to a better America. McCain still seems like he's part of the Bush club.

Fox News is a business; it is still part of News Corporation. How is Fox News going to change and adapt to a shifting American political sentiment? When Scott McClellan comes out and writes a book basically saying, the Bush administration misled us into Iraq, the media didn't hold him responsible, outlets like Fox News facilitated the move to war, are people really going to believe it when Fox News analyst, Karl Rove, comes out and says "oh he's full of it" and the network and White House try to paint him as a disgruntled employee that wants to sell books? Fox News will have to change; otherwise ratings are going to drop like a rock. I think Rupert Murdoch knows this. I am curious what kind of content changes are going to be made, if punches will be pulled back, if zealous right wingers will be pulled out of prime time slots?

Recently, Rupert Murdoch had this to say about Obama and McCain:

[speaking about Obama]. "He's become a rock star. It's fantastic... he may not carry Florida because the Jewish people are suspicious of him and so are the Hispanics... but he'll probably win in Ohio and who knows... he'll probably win [the election]"... Personally I want to meet Obama, I want to know , is he going to walk the walk. If you read his education policy, it's just great, he's got a revolution there, the education system in this country is a total disgrace... He wants a break with the past, I do know that he is a highly intelligent man with a great record at Harvard, at the Law Review, and I just hope he's as good as he promises."

[Speaking about McCain]. " He has been in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises... So what's he really stand for?... He's a patriot, he's a friend of mine, he's a decent guy but he's unpredictable. He doesn't know much about the economy, and I say this sympathetically, I think he has a lot of problems."

Murdoch seems to be jumping on to the Obama band wagon, We'll have to wait and see if he directs Fox News to follow in step.

John McCain on Political Expedience

2008-05-27T01:05:00.005-04:00

John McCain opposes Senator Jim Webb's updated GI bill citing that his opposition to the bill was the principled and right view and not the politically expedient viewpoint. For your reference the bill is officially titled: WEBB-HAGEL-LAUTENBERG-WARNER G.I. BILL “POST-9/11 VETERANS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT” (S.22). McCain supports another bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention and Readjustment Through Education Act (S.2938), which I will compare later (at least to some degree).

First some background. Both the S.22 bill and it's Republican alternative S.2938, serve as an updated GI bill in the same scope as the GI Bill that was introduced to our armed forces post WWII. This is especially important at the present time as the military is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain members during a war that has entered its 5th year.

McCain argues that he knows the military better than supporters like presidential candidate, Barack Obama, and that support for Senator Webb's bill is political and not based on sound reason. He argues that passage of the GI bill will hurt retention by encouraging service members to leave the military to go back to school. This is not a subject I'm going to tackle today, but I do think that McCain's train of thought is short sighted and mistaken. The original Montgomery GI Bill was not created for purposes of retention, the spirit of the bill was to reward our men and women in the military for their service to their country, to avoid a post-war abundance of job seekers, and to stave off a post-WWII depression. Until I write something with more depth, I would refer you to Jim Webb's fact sheet on the subject for now. http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/factsheetgi52208.pdf

Now what is curious about McCain calling this support politically expedient is two-fold.

First, the Senate passed this bill 75-22. 75!! This is in a Senate that has a hard time passing any kind of legislation together. Tell me more. The bill had 58 co-sponsors including:

Daniel Akaka (D)- Chairman of the Committee on Veteran's Affairs & WWII Army veteran
(actually all of the WWII vets in the Senate are co-sponsors, Akaka, Inouye, Lautenberg, and Warner)
Chuck Hagel (R)- Vietnam Veteran
~~Jim Inhofe (R)- "Mr. Global Warming is a Hoax!" and Army veteran~~ withdrew sponsorship
Richard Lugar(R)- Navy veteran
Arlen Specter(R)- Airforce veteran
John Warner(R)- Navy and Marine Corps veteran, WWII veteran, and former Secretary of the Navy
and of course...
Jim Webb(D)- Vietnam War veteran, Marine Corps veteran, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, and former Secretary of the Navy

Oh I guess I should add that this bill is "endorsed by all major military and veterans’ associations but is opposed by the Pentagon and VA"- Army Times. (The Pentagon and McCain think the bill will hurt retention in the military and the VA thinks it will create too much work for them)

In fact, almost every single Senate member with military experience is a co-sponsor (interesting note, I had no idea such a large number of Senators had military experience). So what McCain is trying to tell me is that all of these Senators that decided to co-sponsor the bill were doing so because of political expedience? All of them. I am supposed to believe that John McCain is one of the few members of the US Senate with military experience that is being principled and not doing it to look good, and not doing it because it's in the best interests of our troops and veterans? I have a hard time believing that McCain has a monopoly on straight talk and truthiness.

The second aspect to McCain's opposition is the fact that he supports a gas tax holiday. Let's talk about political expedience. Not one economist in the country thinks a gas tax holiday is a good idea. The experts, unanimously think it's a bad idea and McCain thinks it's the right thing to do, am I now supposed to believe that the straight talk express is supporting the right move and not the politically expedient one? McCain, politically willing to say anything, showing his age, or secretly right?

do you hate capitalism?

2008-05-25T00:15:00.005-04:00

Friday afternoon I was at the Barack Obama rally in the Bank Atlantic Center in Sunrise, FL. To my right hand side, I had some friends from work, a libertarian, a conservative, and a democrat. My friend next to me, the libertarian, repeated something I've heard a lot over the years. When he heard Obama tear into the oil companies over skyrocketing profits and rising prices at the pump, he chuckled, "can't a company make a dollar these days? people just hate capitalism".

I can almost guarantee you wouldn't hear that kind of thing from someone poorer than us, but it's the kind of principled economic stance that you hear from a lot of people that stray further to the right of the political spectrum. I hear it a lot, how can you be mad at a company that is successful? How can you admonish them for doing well? It's not that surprising to hear that though, we're as single person households, in I would estimate the 90th percentile of income in the United States, if not higher. We are successful, we work hard, and nobody should penalize us for making a dollar. That's why, at least I think, I hear a lot of complaints about taxes and tirades of "liberals being against capitalism". Full disclosure, I own ExxonMobil stock and I have since I was 14 (it's not like I don't like to make money).

Unfortunately, cases like Exxon Mobil are different. Their profit is huge. It's not the fact that they make money that bothers me, it's that the way they take care of their business partners, whether they are the land owners, station owners, surrounding community, etc. Taking care of anyone that is not Exxon Mobil is something to be desired.

During Obama's speech, Obama spoke of how Americans need to band together, especially in difficult times; a new age of nationalism and community. During a time when rising gas prices are on the forefront of the American consciousness, what are companies like ExxonMobil doing? Joining forces with the consumer to get through a rough patch? More like diving into a Scrooge McDuck style money pool. Investment into alternative energy? Not really. Directing their millions of lobbying dollars towards something consumer friendly? You're dreaming. Do people like me hate capitalism? No, but it's a little infuriating when normal people can't even make a living selling Exxon Mobil's gas at the gas station. I can tell you where Exxon's 2007 $40 billion profit didn't go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/24/AR2008052401961.html

Are you bitter?

2008-04-13T23:11:00.005-04:00

If you've been following the news this past week, you may have noticed that it's been a very sloooooow news week; the biggest news story is Hilary Clinton and John McCain knocking on Barack Obama for calling voters in small Pennsylvania towns, bitter. This is a serious story? Are people bitter? I would think so, there is a reason that entire region is known as the "Rust Belt". I don't even live in a small town where the entire economic foundation collapsed and I would say that I'm bitter. Groceries have gone up in price (dramatically), gas has gone up, the Dow is down about 1500 pts from its late 2007 high, my investment portfolio & 401k and most people's investments are tanking, my raise doesn't match inflation, I can't afford a house, I mean let's be honest, who isn't bitter? Saying we aren't in a recession doesn't make it so, and saying that disgruntled people aren't doesn't make it so either. So what's wrong with Obama saying people are bitter. Fox News went on the streets of Allentown PA to ask; the best reaction is the anchor getting frustrated and asking the optician why he doesn't just move. OR

Fox News Anchor: Do you think that people are bitter because of the situation at hand?
John@Diner: I know they are.
LOLZ.

Joe Lieberman. Far Right in Disguise

2008-04-11T23:05:00.006-04:00

I published this online May 2006; due to technical issues with Blogger 2 years ago, the post itself did not receive a permanent link, and was instead bundled into a monthly archive. I was and still am in strong agreement with everything I wrote in the aforementioned post and the essay I wrote (linked below) for my 'ethics in medicine' class that I took with Dr. Jeffrey Blustein of the Montefiore Bioethics Center, Professor of Bioethics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and adjunct Associate Professor of Philosophy, Barnard College. I am re-posting it for posterity and because I was reminded of Joe Lieberman the other day. In 2006 during the Senate race between Lieberman and Ned Lamont, the Lieberman website crashed and the campaign pointed fingers at the Lamont campaign and even went so far as to file a complaint with the US Attorney's Office. A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the FBI found that the cause of the crash was due to the use of a crappy $15/month hosting site and a misconfigured server. Onwards!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few months ago Joe Lieberman spoke out in defense of Catholic hospitals' right to turn away rape, sexual assault, and incest victims who were seeking emergency contraception. "hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for 'principled reasons' shouldn't be forced to do so… In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital”. In a way he's right, in another way he's callous and very much not right. Look around at the hospitals in New York City, in your town, in your suburb, how many hospitals are Catholic; how many have merged with the Catholic Church and you don't even know about it?

The Catholic Church is a huge financial power that controls more than a few hospitals across our nation. As the largest non-profit provider of healthcare, they have the financial resources to keep hospitals afloat that other organizations could not. More and more hospitals are either selling to the Catholic Church or affiliating themselves with them. Does your hospital provide EC? It's hard to know these days.

Lieberman justifies the Catholic position saying that there are plenty of other hospitals in Connecticut you could go to. That's fine for Connecticut, that's not fine for the many counties and cities where the Catholic hospital is the sole provider of healthcare and residents have no alternative.

Furthermore, what an insensitive comment. If you are a rape victim, I'm sure the last thing you need is to drive to the hospital in a state if duress only to be turned away. What are Americans to do when there is no procreative freedom, our morals are being governed by an organization that represents about 25% of our population and less than 10% in many of the states where the Catholic hospital has been deemed a "sole-provider". America was founded by those seeking to escape religious oppression, look around though, here we are again.

Follow the link: CLICK ME! essay I wrote for "Ethics and Medicine" examining the ethics of the Catholic healthcare system.

I've said it once, I've said it a million times...

2008-04-11T21:37:00.001-04:00

worth the read.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/webfeatures/elhaj.pdf

What's Wrong With Kids These Days?

2008-04-08T22:08:00.011-04:00

Uhhhh...

Apparently getting a concussion, hearing loss, and vision loss is what you get these days for talking trash on the internet, on MySpace.

Mercades Nichols' Mother's comments: "don't waste your time on myspace going back and forth talking, saying all these nasty things about people. I don't see why she would do that if she didn't have the nerve to back up what she was saying."

Some comments from the accused when asked if they felt any remorse: “None at all,... Guess we’re not going to go to the beach on this spring break"
"Am I going to be released in time to go to cheerleading practice tomorrow?”

Exhibit 1:

Teen Beating, Victoria Lindsay, Video
Uploaded by guanabee

Exhibit 2:

~~One the girls' Myspace pages. Look at it and feel your brain hurt. Expand the image to see some what she's all about.~~

Update 4/11/08: The screenshots below which was allegedly Mercades Nichols' myspace page, is not necessarily her page. See blog and comments @ Republican Ranting. That blog that I linked to is interesting in that the permanent link is titled "myspace-of-mercades-nichols-the-girl-who-kidnapped-and-beat-victoria-lindsay-reveals-that-she-is-anything-but-sorry/" and the title of the article that appears on the post is "Fake Myspace of Mercades Nichols (the Girl Who Kidnapped and Beat Victoria Lindsay) Shows that People Have No Decency". Sounds like someone else on the internet had a change of heart, I admit that I did not give her the benefit of the doubt.. Anyways, the point of this update is that the myspace address of the "real" page is rodeo_chick_0413 and the "fake" one is rodeo_chick_413 (has been removed). Are they both her pages? Was the offensive page faked? They were both last updated on 4/8/08. Is the removed page a fake and what instigated the whole event in the first place? Either way, the page I took the screenshots from made Mercades seem to be a pretty awful person, rubbing salt into a wound that was already pretty bad. Due to its unbelievably racist content on all levels, I'm inclined to agree that it's a fake. Whoever created the page... is pretty awful regardless of the circumstances surrounding this whole thing. Again the pages below, probably fake.

Getting Desperate?

2008-03-08T01:08:00.002-05:00

Hilary Clinton responding to a question regarding a "do-over" in the Florida and Michigan primaries:

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

You know, NOT having a do-over is a great disservice to the voters of Florida. I did not go to the polls because I knew my vote wouldn't yield any delegates. Just a guess, but I think a lot of people felt that way. What's Clinton scared of? If Florida believes in her, it will give her the votes. Her trying to declare herself the victor in a state that knew its votes didn't count and to declare victory and delegates in Michigan where she was the only person on the ballot is absolutely ridiculous. Someone is getting desperate for delegates...

a letter from someone who knows things

2008-02-16T15:04:00.000-05:00

President George W. Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

hahahaha

2008-02-12T00:51:00.000-05:00

this is awesome...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WALLACE: How does [McCain] overcome all of that and…

BUSH: Because there’s two big issues. One is, who’s going to keep your taxes low? Most Americans feel overtaxed and I promise you the Democrat party is going to field a candidate who says I’m going to raise your tax.

If they’re going to say, oh, we’re only going to tax the rich people, but most people in America understand that the rich people hire good accountants and figure out how not to necessarily pay all the taxes and the middle class gets stuck.

We’ve had — we’ve been through this drill before. We’re only going to tax the rich and all you have to do is look at the history of that kind of language and see who gets stuck with the bill.

saddam's charade

2008-01-28T02:55:00.000-05:00

That June 2000 speech was about weapons of mass destruction. In talking casually about that speech, Saddam began to tell the story of his weapons. It was a breakthrough that had taken five months.

"Oh, you couldn't imagine the excitement that I was feeling at that point," Piro remembers.

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

Absolutely stupid

2007-12-04T23:15:00.000-05:00

I maintain that the present-day Republican Party is one of the most awful, selfish, and callous organizations I have ever seen in my life, but there is a reason why I maintain 'independent' status on my voter registration card. As I wrote about in my last post, Democrats continue to get issues wrong, it's like they are not thinking.

As I do every night, I fire up teh internets and goto www.Huffingtonpost.com for some left wing news. The big headline is "Romney Caught Employing Illegal Immigrants, it's pretty obvious, at least to me, that this is pretty stupid; the headline that is and not Romney. What exactly has Romney done? He hired a lawn care service, said lawn care service had illegal immigrants working for him and the media (at least the Huffington Post) chose to jump on it in a big GOTCHA! moment. How are we supposed to make progress on illegal immigration when we are attacking politicians for things like this?

It is ironic that most left wing media sites would and have been completely opposed to the idea of stereotyping people by race/skin color and asking workers/neighbors for immigration papers. What are we, the Gestapo? Of course, it's completely not okay to assume that someone is an illegal immigrant because they are working for a lawn care service and look Mexican; that's not okay. But when we start to find things to embarrass a presidential front-runner about, it all of a sudden becomes no holds barred at the expense of the people that the left wing are trying to protect. How was Romney supposed to know that the lawn care service hired illegal immigrants? After it was brought to his attention that such hiring practices occurred, he brought it to their attention, how was he supposed to know that there were no more illegal immigrants working for the company and thus at his house? The expectation for him to be cognizant of these kinds of things is absolutely absurd. Can I guess who is an illegal immigrant and who isn't? No, and that's the way it should be. Let's keep the GOP out of the White House, but not like this, HuffPo should be ashamed.

Even the Democrats Don't Get It.

2007-11-18T23:20:00.000-05:00

There is a reason why my voter registration card lists me as an 'independent' and not a 'Democrat'. Most of the time, I would associate myself with the Democrats, I would consider myself socially progressive, I would say that I'm a liberal, but... there are times when I listen to the Democrats and I wonder how they just don't get the issue at hand.

I'm watching the CNN debate and they were discussing what the future President of the United States should do about trade with China given that there has been an uproar about unsafe products coming out of China. Everyone is talking about enforcing the WTO law and shut off trade with China, they are talking about how bad China is this, and how bad China is that, is that the real heart of the issue? I think they are missing it.

At my workplace, we make consumer electronics. No they aren't immediately threatening products like a medical device, but they still need to be safe. The products need to be lead-free, they need to not explode in your hand, in short, we test them extensively to make sure they don't hurt people. At the same time, we manufacture things in China, like everyone knows, manufacturing at places like Foxconn just makes financial sense, they do it fast and they do it well. If something went wrong, the attention I think is on us, not on China. It is our responsibility to make sure that everything is defined to a T. This includes giving them materials so that we know the resistors and capacitors are in fact Pb Free/RoHS compliant, that the paint we use has no lead in it, it is our job to make sure that things are so explicitly defined that no shortcuts can be taken. It is ridiculous in my opinion to not do these things and then turn around and plead ignorance when something bad happens.

There were very few people on the debate stage that identified the problem, that we should be checking what China exports to us. But they are going about this incorrectly, they want to set up a foreign FDA/watchdog type arm of the US government to inspect exports. Why? This is a complete waste of money. This is one of those things that is very Republican in a way (although I haven't heard any of the Republican candidates even bring this up), we live in a capitalist system, we keep preaching how market forces drive things; market forces should drive safety.

It should be up to each individual company to define everything that goes into the product, to test a sample of the products before they are exported and sold into the American marketplace. I find myself in disbelief when we are blaming China for what happened. Even Mattel apologized to the Chinese government and Chinese people about the lead in the paint ordeal. It's not for the most part, China's fault. If Mattel didn't define what goes in the paint, if they aren't testing the products for lead, if they aren't the first line of defense, they should be held criminally liable. We don't need a government organization to check this kind of stuff, there is no way that a government organization can have the expertise to know exactly what safety concerns they should be looking for. It needs to be up to the experts, it needs to be up to the corporation designing the goods. What's so hard about this? We need to stop being so afraid of holding American corporations liable and scapegoating China. We manufacture in China because it's cheap, and we should understand that you get what you pay for. If you as a company find that it is no longer financially beneficial to build in China because of all the safeguards you need to implement, don't build there!

Let's stop blaming China for things that we should be responsible for. Now alternatively, if we do everything we can to be explicit about how they are to manufacture things, how to be safe, and things still go wrong, then and only then should we be making a public issue about it. Then and only then should we be going after Chinese manufacturing. We need to start being really on the ball about this issue, it is inevitable in my opinion that as profits begin to grow in China, Chinese business owners are going to start realizing that cutting corners can mean more money in the pocket. That's what we need to be watching out for, but first and foremost we should be doing our due diligence and making sure we take all the precautions necessary. As you can read in the news, due diligence is what has been lacking in almost every one of these public scandals.

FUCK!

2007-11-07T23:02:00.000-05:00

Some dickhead used my name, ss#, and address to buy stuff from Sears. Imagine my surprise when I received a Sears Mastercard bill today, he/she even got a $15 discount for opening the account! C'MON!!

There will be hell to pay.

consult your lawyers

2007-10-12T00:30:00.000-04:00

Hilarious. Mitt Romney says we should consult with our lawyers to see if we can declare war on Iran, wtf? There is a reason we have a Constitution, Congress, and even a somewhat fuzzy War Powers Act... Mitt, what are you talking about man?

At least Ron Paul was there to set you straight. Fast forward to about 03:40 on the video.

I think my favorite part in this segment is when Rudy Giuliani chimes in, "Hey, September 11th!, September 11th? September 11th". Talk about a one tricky pony.

"history will prove me right"

2007-10-08T01:13:00.000-04:00

Awesome article. Simply maintaining that history will prove you right, as adamantly as possible, doesn't have any impact on what actually does happen. 14 years later, it's pretty obvious George W. Bush was wrong about the MLB's new wild-card system. Where will we be on Iraq in 14 years?

------------------------------------------------------------

I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right." -- Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush after voting against realignment and a new wild-card system during a Major League Baseball owners meeting in September 1993. Bush was the lone dissenter in a 27-1 vote. "Time will tell. We believe in our research and that the positives far outweigh the negatives." -- Milwaukee Brewers president and acting commissioner Bud Selig after owners approved the new system 14 years ago. ---------------------------------- Judging from their track records on this one, maybe Selig should take a crack at sorting out that nettlesome Iraq situation and the president should forget about baseball and events in Baghdad and turn his attention to health care. You didn't have to stay up late Monday night to watch Colorado's 9-8 victory over San Diego for confirmation that baseball's wild-card system makes for compelling entertainment. It's apparent from the euphoria in Denver, an NFL hotbed where baseball suddenly is monopolizing the front of the sports pages.

You can see it in Major League Baseball's record 79.5 million attendance this season. That includes a combined increase of about 1.25 million fans in Philadelphia, Denver, San Diego and Milwaukee, cities where teams were playing meaningful games right down to the jubilant and/or bitter end. And you can tell by baseball's spiraling revenue, which has increased from $1.2 billion to $5.8 billion since owners had the temerity to mess with tradition and introduce realignment, followed by revenue sharing and a luxury tax on big spenders. Selig, who spent last week watching games at Miller Park and channel-switching at home, called his old pal, former Boston Red Sox CEO John Harrington, and they marveled at the direction the game has taken. "John said, 'Commissioner, did you ever think when we were designing all this that it could be this good?'" Selig said. "The answer is no. I thought it would be great, and so did John. But are you kidding me?" Baseball's playoff system is so popular, even Bob Costas is no longer on a soapbox on behalf of purists everywhere. The only people with reason to complain, it seems, are those unfortunate division champions who keep getting sent home prematurely by upstart wild-card clubs. If recent history is any indication, this year's wild cards, the Yankees and Rockies, might be sticking around a while. Since 2002, six of the 10 World Series participants have been wild cards. Three of the six -- the 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins and 2004 Red Sox -- went all the way. When the Yankees win the wild card with their massive YES network revenue, a lineup featuring Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter and a $195 million payroll, it's officially time to dispense with the notion of wild-card teams as Little Engines that Could. On the contrary; lots of people in baseball think wild cards have an inherent advantage because they're grinding for victories until the final days of the season out of sheer necessity. Since the current system first came into effect, wild cards are 14-10 in the Division Series, 8-6 in the League Championship Series, and 4-4 in the World Series. "You're talking about guys playing their best, most inspired baseball of the entire season during the time they're rushing to make the cut," said Phillies assistant GM Ruben Amaro Jr. "Oftentimes it seems like there's a carryover there." That's not a hard and fast rule, of course. The 1997 wild-card Florida Marlins went 12-15 in September and won the World Series. The 2000 Mets (15-14) and 2006 Detroit Tigers (12-16) were also underwhelming in the final month. But since the rule's inception, wild-card teams have posted a staggering .631 winning percentage (461-270) in the final month of the regular season. The Angels, Giants, Marlins, Red Sox and Astros -- the five wild cards that made the World Series from 2002 through 2005 -- had an aggregate record of 94-47 in September. Does late-season momentum outweigh the advantage that a division title winner derives from clinching early, setting up its rotation and having an opportunity to rest injured regulars? The 2006 Yankees, who won the AL East by 10 games and got bounced by Detroit in the Division Series, might beg to differ. Still, the enduring success of wild cards in the postseason has prompted some baseball insiders to wonder whether it's time to erect a roadblock or two. In an effort to gauge that sentiment, ESPN.com surveyed general managers, assistant GMs and other front office personnel from all 30 big league clubs on the state of the wild-card system. We gave them five alternatives and asked the following question: If you had a choice of these scenarios, which wild-card setup would you prefer? Here's how it turned out:

Option No. 1: Keep the current system exactly as is (seven votes)

"Certain things are adages and clichés for a reason," said Dan Jennings, Florida Marlins assistant GM. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the wild card is the greatest thing that's happened to our game in the last 40-50 years." Right off the top, let's dispense with the notion that wild-card teams somehow slip in the back door. Discounting the strike-shortened 1995 season (the first of the wild-card era), there have been 22 wild-card winners. Only three (the 1996 Orioles, 2005 Astros and 2006 Dodgers) failed to win 90 games. And no wild card has ever won fewer than 88. If there's reason for debate regarding wild cards, it relates primarily to the fairness or lack thereof in the schedule. In 2001, Major League Baseball went from a balanced to an unbalanced schedule that requires teams to play 17-19 games within their division every year. The Phillies, for example, have to play well against the Braves, Mets, Nationals and Marlins if they want to lay claim to the NL East title, rather than clobbering the other two divisions and simply holding their own in intra-divisional games.

I don't think they should look at the wild card as, 'Well, you didn't win your division.' You just might have been in a division that was better than the other divisions. Why should you be penalized after that?

--Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd

But the system also raises questions about the equity of the wild-card race, because teams are chasing the same goal based on the same criteria -- winning percentage -- while playing vastly different schedules. The distinctions are even broader now that interleague play is part of the equation. And who's to say the wild-card Rockies, who won 90 games in a very competitive NL West, are inferior to the Cubs, who won 85 games while competing against Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Houston in the sorry NL Central? That's why a lot of executives think there's no call for a wild-card team to confront additional barriers in October. There were enough obstacles in place from April through September. "I don't think they should look at the wild card as, 'Well, you didn't win your division,'" said Colorado GM Dan O'Dowd. "You just might have been in a division that was better than the other divisions. Why should you be penalized after that?"

Option No. 2: Expand the first round of the playoffs from five to seven games (13 votes)

Oakland general manager Billy Beane spoke for many when he referred to the postseason as a "crapshoot." A bad call by an umpire here or a chalk-line double there can mean the difference between advancing or going home early. So doesn't it stand to reason that a longer first-round series will negate the possibility of a fluke or a hot -- yet inferior -- team springing a surprise?

"The integrity of the playoffs would be better served with no five-game series where too many coincidences can impact the outcome," Cleveland GM Mark Shapiro said. Detroit's David Dombrowski concurred that a longer first-round makes for a fairer test without favoring one club or another. "We need to remember that sometimes the wild-card team is the second-best team in the league and has the second-best record," Dombrowksi said. "Handicapping them too much, in some cases, can be extreme." Beane actually favors the opposite approach. He proposes extending the first round to seven games and giving the wild card home-field advantage if it has the second-best record in the league. The biggest problem with a longer first round is the calendar. If this year's World Series goes the distance, Game 7 will take place Nov. 1. The new spaced-out schedule, which is dictated by television concerns, provides for more off days and potentially more wiggle room. But after last year's October weather debacle, the people in the commissioner's office would rather not be squeezed in the event of rainouts. Selig said a seven-game Division Series has been discussed ad nauseam in recent years. Everybody loves the idea until confronted with the possibility of lopping games off the regular season schedule and losing revenue as a result. "I understand the argument when a team says, 'Look, I played all year and went through all this hell for 162 games, and it's going to be over in five games,'" Selig said. "On the other hand, there's more drama because it's only five games. That's something to think about. "I've always believed that we should go back to 154 games anyway. But that's a real hit, particularly for the big-market clubs. We went through this two or three years ago and I asked the clubs, 'Are you guys willing to cut two or four games from the schedule?' And the answer was always no."

Option No. 3: Add a second wild-card club (seven votes)

Some executives favored a one-game playoff, while others liked a best-2-of-3 series. But this option was particularly popular with executives of clubs that compete against opponents with superior resources. O'Dowd, Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi and Milwaukee assistant GM Gord Ash were among the respondents who favor expanding the field by one team in each league. Ricciardi admits he's biased, but it's hard to blame him. Despite being crushed by injuries, the Blue Jays just posted consecutive winning seasons for the first time since 2000. Their reward: They finished 13 games out of first place in the AL East despite going a respectable 17-19 against Boston and New York. Toronto is accustomed to having a payroll that's considerably smaller than New York's or Boston's. Now the new, more enlightened Red Sox and Yankees are pumping more cash and resources into the amateur draft and international operations, so they're starting to look invulnerable on all fronts."I think you have to look at the dichotomy of the American League from our standpoint," Ricciardi said. "Those teams aren't going away. There's no cyclical change in their payroll or their ability to go out and get people. "It's not that we're not up for the challenge of competing with them. All we're asking for is a little more of a shot. This gives the Kansas Citys, the Tampa Bays and all those teams a chance to say, 'Hey, maybe we can get in at 88 wins.'" Atlanta assistant GM Frank Wren likes the concept of a best-of-three playoff because it would tax the depth of a wild-card team that might have qualified thanks to a hot streak at the end. If that team has to burn its two best pitchers in a "play-in" round, it will be at a disadvantage starting the next round. One obvious objection to the "play-in" concept: With 10 teams and four rounds, the baseball playoffs would start looking more like the marathon odysseys in the NHL and NBA. "Too many games," said Gary Hughes, special assistant to Cubs general manager Jim Hendry. "We might be watching Game 7 of the Fall Classic with our Thanksgiving turkey."

Option No. 4: Require the wild-card team to play four of five games on the road in the first round (three votes)

"We've talked about that a lot," Selig said. "But if you're going to make it almost impossible for the wild card to win, then why do you have the wild card?" In truth, home field advantage isn't as much of a factor as you might think. Since the advent of the wild-card era, home teams are 155-138 in the postseason. But it was pretty much dead even until 2004. In the three years since, home teams have gone 42-27 in the playoffs and World Series. The concept of wild-card teams-as-road warriors appeals to executives who want to tweak the system, but dislike the idea of dragging out the postseason with an additional tier or an expanded Division Series. "I think the wild card should be disadvantaged, and this seems like the best way to me," said Gerry Hunsicker, senior vice president of baseball operations in Tampa Bay. "I still think when you play 162 games, winning your division should mean something, until the industry decides we're not going to do that."

Option No. 5: The old Japanese League system (No votes)

For years, under the Japanese system, a team that finished first by five games or more during the regular season was required to win only two games in a best-of-five series, while its lower-seeded opponent had to win three. That rule is now off the books. While a few of our respondents were intrigued by the concept, no one embraced it as a realistic option. "I think it's an extremely cool idea, but it's just too radical and would never happen.," said a National League front office man. "Un-American," said another. Selig, similarly, has no interest in a wrinkle that seems too gimmicky and contrived for the national pastime. For all the talk about tweaking the wild-card system, fans love it, the money is pouring in, and there's a healthy mix of new faces and old guard teams this October. "You now have a system that's producing record attendance because people like it and believe in it," Selig said. "We're doing things we never thought possible. Why would you change that?" Jerry Crasnick covers baseball for ESPN.com. His book "License To Deal" was published by Rodale.

letter to an alumni

2007-09-28T05:38:00.000-04:00

Dear xxxxx,

Although I think the decision to invite Ahmadinejad was wrong, I think Caroline Glick's article is fundamentally flawed. I think it is clear that Columbia itself is not anti-Semitic, Bollinger is not, and providing a platform for Ahmadinejad to speak does not constitute a legitimization of holocaust denial. It bothers me that Columbia is presented as synonymous with a terrorist and a dictator, merely by extension of an invitation; it may have been selfish, hurtful, and ill-timed that Bollinger wanted to confront one of the more prominent dictators face to face, but I fail to see how Columbia now represents "depravity by renouncing the intrinsic sanctity of human life".

Glick's article was written as if she did not know what the content of the speech was, as if it was still weeks ago, transcripts unavailable, videos of the speech not at her fingertips. Whether or not the University should have invited Ahmadinejad is a separate issue, but Bollinger took the President to task, directly criticizing the Iranian president's claims that the Holocaust was a fabrication, that Israel should be wiped off the map, etc. In light of the controversy, Columbia, its president, and its students intellectually mauled the speaker, co-workers have been approaching me all week saying "Wow. Your school's president wiped the floor with Ahmadinejad". Bollinger was absolutely correct that Ahmadinejad looked absolutely foolish, in every question posed to him at the end of the speech the answer was nothing short of ridiculous, the logic nothing short of profoundly flawed. I think Iranians will be hard pressed to re-elect a man whose government already failed to be re-elected, and who shows such intellectual contempt. We heard Ahmadinejad claim that the Holocaust is like medieval scientific belief, that more research needs to be done, what was true then may not be true now; to anyone even remotely intelligent, this makes no sense and he was rightfully chided for such a poor answer, he should have been challenged to say "your election victory is history, does it need to be re-examined for historical accuracy, could you perhaps NOT be the President of Iran?, what is true then is not true now?". We heard him claim that homosexuals do not exist in Iran, another ridiculous claim that those in Iran will also know to be a lie, it wasn't too long ago that two homosexuals were put to death; homosexual relationships are explicitly enumerated in Iranian law to be punishable by death (these laws don't exist if they don't ever happen).

I agree with you, he should have never come to the University, but I strongly disagree that his being allowed to speak is even remotely an acknowledgment of his fanatical beliefs. Glick says that Columbia's forum made genocide a legitimate subject of debate, again, during the speech, Bollinger, the head of SIPA, and student questions made it explicitly clear that even the mere question of the historical accuracy of the Holocaust was dubious. An invitation is not an endorsement or a legitimizing factor. Was the invitation putting Jewish lives on the table and under debate, I don't think so, but not being Jewish perhaps I lack the capacity to see that that is not the case. Saying that the school believes that genocide is a reasonable subject for debate seems to me to be a spurious claim that is not even a logical conclusion one could make.

Glick's main criticisms of the University lie not in the shortcomings of the University, but in the same enumerated list that you and I have stated in our own emails to Bollinger, the shortcomings and idiocy of the Iranian president. Glick's article in turn reads like your average FOX News broadcast, that Columbia actively teaches a far-left political worldview and is actively engaged in stifling conservative ideology and Zionist beliefs. As a Columbia graduate who attended the school during a lot of major media firestorms, I can only help but feel that Glick is out of touch from the University, that her call to dissociate from the University are based on a selective representation of events on campus, a flawed belief that Columbia now represents anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

In my time at Columbia, we have seen speakers ranging from John McCain, David Horowitz (who I would say is rather far to the right), John Ashcroft, Alan Dershowitz, Benjamin Netanyahu, Norman Finkelstein, and Hilary Clinton. The reality is that Columbia is not anti-Semitic, it has a vibrant Jewish community and Hillel, and is if anything vocally Zionist and slowly becoming increasingly conservative. To be honest, while trying to recall speakers that had come to Columbia during the time I was there, there are few prominent/controversial "liberals" other than Finkelstein that immediately come to mind. The majority of speakers are great men and women who have been positive catalysts for change in their field, be they progressive heads of historically repressed states, Nobel Prize winners, or great artists. The claim that Columbia somehow is closed off to conservative speakers, at least in my opinion, is ridiculous. It was only a few months ago that Tamar Jacoby spoke to the journalism school. Ideas like that are perpetuated by those on the outside of the school; because Columbia has not invited a Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter, is not an indication of an aversion to conservative voices.

The media's negative portrayal of Columbia is largely a product of... the media. I can't even describe the overwhelming number of students, professors, alumni who scratched their heads when Columbia was deemed to be rampantly anti-Semitic based on a documentary created by a pro-Israel corporation, largely hearsay and unsubstantiated accusations against professors, and anti-Zionist lecture material and academic publications by a few MEALAC professors. The MEALAC controversy was fueled by papers like the NY Sun, the poor grievance policy and subsequent composition of the investigative committee, poor decision making on the Professor's part and Zionist campus sentiment. What was not heavily publicized was the sentiment expressed by a large number of... for ex. Professor Massad's Israeli and Jewish American students that they found him to be an extremely engaging, thought provoking, and excellent professor. Nor were Massad's reactions, clarifications, and the opinions of other Columbia professors like J-School Dean, Ari Goldman presented with the same fervor. It should be clear that anti-Semitism is not the same as anti-Zionism, one is pure racism, the other is cultural and historical disagreement. The same goes for Ahmadinejad's invitation; an invitation is not the same as an acknowledgment or agreement of beliefs. Was the invitation unnecessary, not sound judgment in exercising free speech, and largely insensitive to military veterans and the Jewish population? Sure, there is very little disagreement. I have to strongly disagree with the Columbia name being further tarred and feathered and being made synonymous with the name of a dictator.

Regards,
Stephen

Tasers and Bill O'Reilly

2007-09-19T22:51:00.000-04:00

Andrew Meyer of the University of Florida was tasered by the police while he was resisting arrest. Meyer was screaming and writhing in pain, it was difficult to listen to. Although I think Meyer deserved to be tasered, after continually resisting arrest, it is another thing completely for someone like Bill O'Reilly to listen to his screams and state:

"I've been tasered for a story, and all I can say is: He is the biggest wimp in the United States of America." O'Reilly added: "And I don't say that with any kind of bravado, but the overreaction to being tasered -- it's not -- it's an electrical shock is what it is."

The biggest wimp in the United States? Give me a break. I'd like to see the video of Bill O'Reilly getting tasered for a story, actually, I'll even call bullshit on that one. That's right, bullshit. Watch the below video of an army soldier getting tasered, he screams out in pain to, I don't think that even comes close to making him a wimp. I challenge O'Reilly to prove he can take a taser shot without screaming in pain, $10 says he pees his pants.

Tasers and Free Speech

2007-09-18T23:30:00.000-04:00

A few months ago I saw a very shocking video of a UCLA student being tasered by the police in a library. He screamed for help repeatedly, continued to be tased, and was tased some more when he tried to get on his feet. It was truly sick and was uncomfortable to watch.

Yesterday, Andrew Meyer, a UF student, was tased by campus police while he was asking questions of Senator Kerry at a forum. While the UCLA spectacle oozed of police brutality and over reaching, the only thing I could think of when I watched the video of Meyer was, "this kid is an idiot". Meyer getting tased came up at work today; some were defending his freedom of speech and based on a sampling of youtube comments a lot of people are concerned about his freedom of speech.

What about his freedom of speech? Meyer walked from the back of the line to the front, walked up to the mic and began asking Kerry why he did not contest the 2004 election and if he was a member of Skull and Bones. (What is the relevance of the fraternity question? Kerry gave up the job of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES because he was in competition with his secret society frat brother? That's beyond reasonable. ) The moderator made the signal to cut his mic and asked the police to escort him out. The interesting question is why they chose to haul him away at that moment, why didn't they do it when he first skipped to the front of the line? There were better ways of handling the situation than asking him to be removed. When you ask tough/stupid questions, do you forfeit your free speech? Are you entering the bounds of the riot act and disturbing the peace? Although I sympathize with Meyer's politics, I don't think he actually wanted to ask Kerry a question, it was more a rhetorical statement that Kerry was a douche, in question form, like on Jeopardy. Still. He should have been heard and Kerry should have been allowed to respond, sans the screaming and Conspiracy Theory paranoia.

The other independent event is Meyer's getting tased. In this case, I think the officers were well within their bounds to tase him. His mic was cut, they thought he was a threat/disturbance, AND he was resisting arrest. While officers had him in custody, he was still flailing around trying to escape. Even after they had him on the floor in an attempt to handcuff him he was still squirming around. Guilty or innocent, that can be proven later, why wouldn't you just let the police calmly take you away. You can't scream out, "why are you arresting me, help me help me, don't tase me bro", while trying to escape from police officers, pushing them, and flailing around.

Meyers' story gets even crazier when he is brought down the stairs and the officers try to calm him down and have him take deep breaths. He asks those witnesses to ask about his whereabouts as it is his belief that "they're giving me to the government... they are going to try and kill me". Give me a break. Of course you're going to get tasered.

What angered me the most was the reaction of John Kerry. His actions, or inaction, was the root of Meyer's question and the root cause of why he lost the 2004 election; the man has no spine. When people wrote books and went on the news to openly question his Vietnam service and purple hearts, why didn't he just squash those right then and there? When Andrew Meyer was being hauled off and then shocked with a taser, all Kerry did was sit back and stumble on his words. Kerry said, "hey officers can we... hey folks... I think if everyone just calms down... I'll answer his question and it's an important one". This is ALL while Meyers is on the ground being taken away by the police. Why didn't Kerry just ask them to stop, firmly? Why didn't Kerry do something? Instead he carried on answering Meyer's question and joking that he wished Meyer was there swearing him in as President, and lamented that it was unfortunate that he was incapacitated. WTF. Where is his backbone, shame.

Eyewitness account from teh internets:

“As much as I concur that this was excessive force, let me remind you what led to this:

Andrew spoke up after the Dean of International Affairs had stated final question. The final question was being asked about Israel, and then Andrew got on the mic on the other side of the room (noting he was next on the mic), and then proceeded to tell Kerry that its not fair not to be able to ask more questions after listening to him for an hour, and the Dean exclusively asking Kerry questions for another 45 minutes, leaving students 25 minutes to ask questions. At that point, the officers try to subdue him, but Kerry sternly told the police officers to back down. Kerry then asked Meyer if he can finish the other question and then proceed to his. Meyer consented. After the last question was answered, Kerry asked Meyer, what is your question. Then you enter the video that has been circulating around, where he asks his question, not before Accent Speaker’s Bureau president, Stephen Blank (in some videos, front row left side of right aisle), signals the AV guys to cut Meyer off. Meyer then was confused what happened, and then was dragged up the auditorium. Meyer kept screaming why is he being arrested. The other videos do not show that Meyer was handcuffed, before he was tasered. I sat in the back row, with this occuring less than 5 feet from me.”

What have we become?

2007-08-16T01:39:00.000-04:00

Have you ever read something so disturbing, so troubling, that it made you sick? As I neared the end of Sean Flynn of GQ's article about Army Major Tom Fleener and Lt. Commander William Kuebler, my arms and legs still aching from a debilitating workout the day before, my stomach started to turn over on itself.

Flynn was writing about Guantanamo. The focus was not torture, terrorists, or abuses; it was about the circumvention of law and the policy changes that have molded the current day United States into the antithesis of what the country was founded upon. I know, lofty.

President Bush and his proponents have always been right, 9/11 changed our world; it was not however, towers collapsing that changed things, it was the direction our nation was steered towards as a response. Our world is changed. Instead of a country based on principles of freedom, freedom that we are trying to export to the rest of the world, we are a country guided by Machiavellian/Bill Parcels accountability. It's not how you do it, it's simply that you do it and you get the results you wanted. This should come as a surprise; as a nation we are socially at odds with that concept. I want to re-iterate, by "as a nation", as I am referring to a nation of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. perhaps it should resonate even deeper with those that consider themselves Republicans. How you do it is always a fundamental concern; the practices of Enron were largely criticized as it ruined thousands of people at the expense of the few, the lip synching of Milli Vanilli signaled their fall from grace, we extol the virtues during every presidential election of the self-made man who climbed the social ranks out of poverty, and you better be ready to defend yourself if you get caught with a sleeve full of cards at a poker table. In short, we hate cheaters. In the opinions of Major Fleener and Lt. Commander Kuebler, that's just what the government and military have transformed us into, cheaters. We are not upholding the spirit or the principles upon which our laws were created and that they exist to defend. There should be a real debate over what is more important, a hypothetical protection of ethics and morals or an at-any-cost defense of our soil against any perceived threat, real, unsubstantiated, or fictitious. I think while pragmatics would steer you towards the latter if there actually was a real immediate threat, but if the former is not what we are embracing, our war on terror/expansion of freedom is a nothing more than a sham. Without principles, what exactly are we defending?

In the interest of fighting a "war on terror", the rule of law has been thrown out the window. You can argue to no end that those in Guantanamo are real live terrorists and hundreds of crisis was averted by their detention. The reality of the situation is that we have subverted the presumption of innocence, denied habeas corpus, and made no attempt to uphold the "prevention of ex post facto application of criminal laws". Flynn points to the updating of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, "It was an astonishingly radical law. For one, it gave the president the authority to declare anyone, captured anywhere, an enemy combatant who can be jailed indefinitely and without charge, precisely the sort of power against which the colonists fought the revolution." Precisely what the colonists fought against, that should mean something to all of us that wave the American flag and put a yellow ribbon on the back of our cars, it really should. What makes and has made our nation great is not our symbolism, but protection of the basic tenets of our democracy. Fear and fear mongering has changed the meaning of 'protection' from building on principles laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to a very real policy of detain, torture, or kill anyone who supposedly threatens our nation. That alone should give us pause.

We should think hard, if it were an American that was suspected of terrorism by a foreign entity and jailed indefinitely without due process, habeas corpus, knowledge of the evidence being presented against him, the presumption of innocence, and all other aspects of the American justice system, would we find that acceptable?

Someone Finally Gets It Right

2007-07-09T01:32:00.000-04:00

Right on everything. Good environmental policy is good economic policy. We are focusing on Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith and not real issues. Someone give him a medal, we need more people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

the free market

2007-07-01T18:56:00.001-04:00

Everyone learns in middle school that communism, while its heart was in the right place, does not work in the real world. There is always going to be your hard worker who gets dicked over by the lazy man. In the same vein, we should have learned by now that the free market is just as idealistic; there is always going to be that dick that tries to ruin it for everyone. Can you imagine the riot that may have ensued if this woman was allowed by buy out all of the iPhones in the AT&T store? Hilarity ensues. The free market, a figment of your imagination.

b-ann coulter

2007-06-27T00:16:00.000-04:00

It is bewildering that Ann Coulter has not been dropped by every major newspaper in the country and dropped as a political commentator on every single news network. I've never listened to someone that afterwards just made me sick to my stomach. Perhaps it's the fault of an American public that loves to listen to her spout out every hateful thought they've ever had but were too uneasy with doing.

“if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” - 6/25/07 Good Morning America

"I do think someone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using hijack and religion in the same sentence.“ 6/25/07 Hannity and Colmes

Enough is enough. Get rid of her. It is not an infringement of free speech to silence her from mass market media, it's called tastefulness.

The Cheney Factor

2007-06-24T02:03:00.001-04:00

In depth examination of Vice President Cheney and his restructuring of the role of the Vice President.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19378776/

Coulter, why bother?

2007-06-09T00:48:00.000-04:00

[Talking about Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act]
"One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population."- Ann Coulter

Why is this woman still given a forum to speak? More newspapers need to follow suit and drop her from their opinion columns, it is not even funny anymore how racist, xenophobic, and absurd her beliefs are. "one may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been". Ha. That's a good one.

Media Restraint?

2007-05-22T23:53:00.000-04:00

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito of CBS News' "The Blotter" have reported that President George W. Bush authorized the CIA to engage in non-lethal destabilizing efforts within the Iranian government. They report that the plan involves "a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions".

Although I have always defended the media as having a Constitutional duty to serve as a checks and balances system against the government, this one made me raise my brow. When it was revealed that the Bush administration had actively engaged in the use of warrantless wiring tapping of our communication systems, I was glad that someone within the government blew the whistle. Someone thought, hey, this is wrong, and the media told us about it.

In 1991, current Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams, pleaded guilty to withholding information in regards to the Reagan administration's destabilization efforts during Iran-Contra within the Nicaraguan Sandinista government. Again, giving weapons to the Contras, who were known drug traffickers, for hostages, was a bad idea. (It's kind of funny in a way, that National Security Adviser, Robert McFarlane got Reagan's approval while Reagan was in a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery, in the same way that Alberto Gonzalez went to John Ashcroft's hospital bed to ask him to override the Justice Department and reauthorize the domestic wiretapping program).

However, this story about modern day Iran feels different. Let us pretend for a minute that Iran was oblivious to America's meddling. America is now a lot more unsafe now that the "covert action" has been caught with its pants down. Let's be honest, Iranian President Ahmadinejad is not someone who has been entirely consistent and who even the most far-left "liberal" would not trust. One day he is claiming he is developing a nuclear program ONLY for energy, the next day he is making power posturing and flaunting his indigence to well meaning nuclear oversight. Is it too much of a stretch to be hesitant of trusting a President that publicly states that he wants to blow Israel off of the map, with nuclear weapons? If he didn't know before, now Ahmadinejad knows we have been actively trying to derail his government. The repercussions, given America's spread out military, is unnerving and scary. This is one of those times when I think the media, could have shown some restraint in releasing this story.

They could have waited until Iran figured it out and made an angry statement on TV. Then the media could have piled on about how stupid it was to try and destabilize Iran which is represented by someone who you could refer to as a "slam-dunk" of a threat to the US. Which is more worth it, exposing another ill thought out Bush plan, or having a severely pissed off Iranian leader who gives updates on his nuclear capabilities like he was a weather man?

"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran... And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow,"- Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Joost

2007-05-17T03:14:00.000-04:00

Memory hog. Unnecessary full screen interface. Super cool.

The creators of Skype and the college staple Kazaa, have released a legal, industry backed, video on demand application. At one time it was known as "the Venice Project", it has been renamed Joost, and is currently undergoing beta-testing. To sign up for the beta-test and download the software, follow this link ---> Link! The interface is relatively smooth, I was able to stream a good quality Gym Class Heroes music video and an episode from Laguna Beach. This is the strength of Joost, somehow they convinced companies like Viacom to allow them to distribute their content on a sponsorship based system. When I loaded up the video, up popped a quick brand logo for Motorola, it appeared, disappeared, and the video started. Considering Joost is in beta, it is a strong sign that video loading and playback was smooth; Joost operates on a form of p2p using h.264 as the video decoder. The more users, the more nodes that can be downloaded from, and thus the smoother playback will be. It's not even under wide internet adoption and it's already smooth. Good sign.

There have been other video services that have been similar, but this is the best one I've seen so far. Democracy 2.0 was cool, but the content was limited; think of it as populated by free video podcasts or a YouTube that was trying to deliver tv length shows (Democracy 2.0 streamed the Wine Library TV, that was cool).

YouTube is going to have some serious competition. The only drawback so far is that the software isn't anywhere near as optimized as it needs to be. It was eating up ~ 130 MB of RAM and slowing down my computer. Mind you my machine is an Athlon XP 3000+, 1 GB of Ram, and a 512 MB Radeon 9800 Pro, which while not bleeding edge, is still a pretty fast rig.

Still... sweet deal.

A Signal For The Death Of The Two Party System?

2007-05-13T22:45:00.000-04:00

For my entire life American politics has been dominated by the two party system. It is broken. The only thing that having two political powerhouses has done is create an artificial classification of citizens as either conservatives or liberals. These terms are not representative of beliefs or a view of the future, they are mud-slinging labels that fuel the fire of their respective voting base.

Conservatives are cold hearted, money loving, un-progressive stick in the muds. Liberals are tree hugging hippie peaceniks that don't understand market economics or the military.

In reality, the conservative/liberal labels probably accurately describe 1% of the population.

The reign of George W. Bush has only made the situation in Washington worse. If you were not lock step with the Bush administration you were cast aside and excluded from the election dominance machine that is Karl Rove. If you were not following in the footsteps of Pelosi and Reid, you were acting detrimentally to the overarching goal of defeating Bush. Now that George II is reaching the finale of his second term, those who would not speak out against the administration and their peers, are coming out of the woodwork. It is a good sign that perhaps Washington isn't secretly controlled by a cabal that identifies political candidates via a tap on the shoulder from Skull & Bones, and candidates have the ability to think freely.

Chuck Hagel has publicly stated (he has for a long time now), "I am not happy with the Republican Party today... It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors." For most of us, this has been obvious for a long time. If you were actually a traditional "conservative", you must have been shitting a brick watching the Bush administration freely spend, drive the economy into a nosediving level of debt, and grow the government and its special interest attachments to sizes that would have made President Reagan squirm. How could anyone possibly be happy with the modern Republican Party?

The possibility of a Hagel-Bloomberg independent ticket is intriguing, especially with New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, on the ticket. While people herald Rudi Giuliani as the hero of 9/11 and the cleaner-upper of NYC, in post 9/11 times, he can only be seen in my eyes as a political opportunist and one trick pony; I can't think of anyone who has ridden the 9/11 card so hard, not even George W. Bush mentions it with Giuliani's frequency. Given Bloomberg's progressive stance on social issues and his guidance over NYC, I would vote for him in a heart beat.

Historically, people like Ralph Nader have been longshots, emphasis on the "long". Are there other independent Dark Horses, strong ones, electable ones? So far we have the specters of Hagel, Bloomberg, and perhaps even Al Gore. America should monitor Gore's weight, should he lose enough to bring him back to non-fat ass status, consider him a serious candidate for 2008.

Do They Actually Care?

2007-05-04T00:39:00.000-04:00

The Democrats are now in control of the U.S. House and Senate, even with the Republican majority ousted I still can't tell if politicians actually care about what is happening to the American public. Speaking on the recent veto of the Democrat's funding proposal for Iraq by President Bush, Senator Harry Reid was adamant that Republicans, Democrats, and yes, the Bush administration would work together and hopefully they'd have a solution before Memorial Day.

I heard this on my way home from work while listening to NPR. This announcement came during the same week where I have been working 7:30 AM to ~ 9 PM all week long. When something happens at work, when I have responsibilities to take care of something, you just suck it up and put in the time. Americans do this every day, some may work two or more jobs, some work the worst of the worst jobs to provide for their family, and they do it because they have to do it. For once I'd like to see a similar effort from politicians. From the laziest and least working 109th Congress to the new and improved "100 hour plan" 110th Congress, what's the difference? If the Democrats were serious about withdrawing our troops from Iraq, they should hunker down, put their heads together and begin serious negotiations and proposals immediately. Memorial Day is more than three weeks away, while they are engaging in their political dance of posturing and expedience, men and women are dying.

Chris Shays spoke out against the Iraqi government going off on vacation,"If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight — that would be the outrage of outrages," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn. On the same side of the coin, a solution needs to be proposed now. If withdrawal is the serious conclusion of months of developing the spending bill, they should resubmit it with no changes. The politicians take forever to come to any sort of usable consensus, the Bush administration led us into a deadly Catch-22 in Iraq, and all the while blood continues to spill; the future of Iraq seems bleak.

McGovern PWNS Cheney

2007-04-24T22:57:00.000-04:00

Former Presidential Nominee George McGovern:

VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney recently attacked my 1972 presidential platform and contended that today's Democratic Party has reverted to the views I advocated in 1972. In a sense, this is a compliment, both to me and the Democratic Party. Cheney intended no such compliment. Instead, he twisted my views and those of my party beyond recognition. The city where the vice president spoke, Chicago, is sometimes dubbed "the Windy City." Cheney converted the chilly wind of Chicago into hot air.

Cheney said that today's Democrats have adopted my platform from the 1972 presidential race and that, in doing so, they will raise taxes. But my platform offered a balanced budget. I proposed nothing new without a carefully defined way of paying for it. By contrast, Cheney and his team have run the national debt to an all-time high.

He also said that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq and leave the U.S. exposed to new dangers. The truth is that I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the U.S. and diminished our standing in the world and our national security.

In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush.

Cheney charged that today's Democrats don't appreciate the terrorist danger when they move to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war. The fact is that Bush and Cheney misled the public when they implied that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. That was the work of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda team. Cheney and Bush blew the effort to trap Bin Laden in Afghanistan by their sluggish and inept response after the 9/11 attacks.

They then foolishly sent U.S. forces into Iraq against the advice and experience of such knowledgeable men as former President George H.W. Bush, his secretary of State, James A. Baker III, and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft.

Just as the Bush administration mistakenly asserted Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, it also falsely contended that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson exploded the myth that Iraq attempted to obtain nuclear materials from Niger, Cheney's top aide and other Bush officials leaked to the media that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent (knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal).

In attacking my positions in 1972 as representative of "that old party of the early 1970s," Cheney seems oblivious to the realities of that time. Does he remember that the Democratic Party, with me in the lead, reformed the presidential nomination process to ensure that women, young people and minorities would be represented fairly? The so-called McGovern reform rules are still in effect and, indeed, have been largely copied by the Republicans.

The Democrats' 1972 platform was also in the forefront in pushing for affordable healthcare, full employment with better wages, a stronger environmental and energy effort, support for education at every level and a foreign policy with less confrontation and belligerence and more cooperation and conciliation.

Cheney also still has his eyes closed to the folly of the Vietnam War, in which 58,000 young Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese died. Vietnam was no threat to the United States.

On one point I do agree with Cheney: Today's Democrats are taking positions on the Iraq war similar to the views I held toward the Vietnam War. But that is all to the good.

The war in Iraq has greatly increased the terrorist danger. There was little or no terrorism, insurgency or civil war in Iraq before Bush and Cheney took us into war there five years ago. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism, a bloody insurgency against our troops and a civil war.

Beyond the deaths of more than 3,100 young Americans and an estimated 600,000 Iraqis, we have spent nearly $500 billion on the war, which has dragged on longer than World War II.

The Democrats are right. Let's bring our troops home from this hopeless war.

There is one more point about 1972 for Cheney's consideration. After winning 11 state primaries in a field of 16 contenders, I won the Democratic presidential nomination. I then lost the general election to President Nixon. Indeed, the entrenched incumbent president, with a campaign budget 10 times the size of mine, the power of the White House behind him and a highly negative and unethical campaign, defeated me overwhelmingly. But lest Cheney has forgotten, a few months after the election, investigations by the Senate and an impeachment proceeding in the House forced Nixon to become the only president in American history to resign the presidency in disgrace.

Who was the real loser of '72?

THE VICE PRESIDENT spoke with contempt of my '72 campaign, but he might do well to recall that I began that effort with these words: "I make one pledge above all others — to seek and speak the truth." We made some costly tactical errors after winning the nomination, but I never broke my pledge to speak the truth. That is why I have never felt like a loser since 1972. In contrast, Cheney and Bush have repeatedly lied to the American people.

It is my firm belief that the Cheney-Bush team has committed offenses that are worse than those that drove Nixon, Vice President Spiro Agnew and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from office after 1972. Indeed, as their repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law, come under increased consideration, I expect to see Cheney and Bush forced to resign their offices before 2008 is over.

Aside from a growing list of impeachable offenses, the vice president has demonstrated his ignorance of foreign policy by attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. Apparently he thinks it is wrong to visit important Middle East states that sometimes disagree with us. Isn't it generally agreed that Nixon's greatest achievement was talking to the Chinese Communist leaders, which opened the door to that nation? And wasn't President Reagan's greatest achievement talking with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev until the two men worked out an end to the Cold War? Does Cheney believe that it's better to go to war rather than talk with countries with which we have differences?

We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it's wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.

On a more serious note, instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: "A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood."

Matt Sanchez on the Issues

2007-04-21T14:37:00.000-04:00

Matt Sanchez's five minutes of fame have come and gone. Matt continues on, now as a blogger, passing heavy handed judgment in the same way he criticized those who delved into his past life as a gay porn star and tried to attach his story to a larger political purpose. In my hopefully last visit to his blog, I stumbled upon his two most recent posts.

On April 20, 2007 Sanchez blogged a piece called "That's the Spirit", commenting on the media's and society's reaction to the Virginia Tech Massacre, during which, Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 30 VT students and professors and injured many more. Sanchez rages against people labeling what occurred as a tragedy, stating "Fatal car accidents, sudden infant death syndrome and getting struck by lightning is "tragic", when a man pre-meditates the death of 32 his classmates, this is what American society calls a massacre." Sanchez's reaction baffles me, why can't you refer to this as a tragedy?

Sanchez writes that calling this a "tragedy" reflects an "absurdity of word-choice and the willingness to avoid self-pity". At the heart of this commentary lies Sanchez's disgust for a world that he believes bends the law and is more compassionate towards those of the gay/lesbian/trans-gender community (he's written on this subject more than a few times, it's almost obsessive). Sanchez concludes by asking "Would Cho be any less of a madman, if he were a pre-op trans-gender person of color?". I ask, how can anyone take Sanchez seriously? During the internet flare up that was the revelation of his gay porn movies (he likes to refer to them as adult films), he ranted forever about the gay population's co-opting of his story and politicization of his story for their cause. Is this any different? Here we find the honorable Marine Corporal Sanchez, using the, yes, tragic, shootings of VT students and faculty, to push forth his agenda of scrutinizing those of alternative lifestyles. Yes, Matt, it is tragic, it is a tragedy. For those friends and family of the departed, it is a family tragedy. For the Cho family, to see their son and brother, snap and terrorize a community, it is tragic and devastating. How could anyone fail to see that? For Matt Sanchez, it MUST be called a "massacre", nobody can display emotions and feel sad about it. Am I misreading him? And no, Cho wouldn't be any less of a madman if he was a "pre-op trans-gender person of color", he would still be a murderer who went on a sick rampage.

April 21, 2007. Matt Sanchez comments on the man who raped, tortured, and held captive a Columbia Journalism student, and Columbia's activist community "Take Back the Night" reactions towards it. He begins by describing how Columbia's International Socialist Organization, ISO, speaks out on police brutality, profiling, and racism. "In the following days, students who typically call for the end to profiling and accuse the "pigs" of racism were insisting the police act to capture the rapist.". The logical reasoning is that if you speak out on issues against the police, you are not a legitimate voice in the conversation. Why can't you insist that the police capture a criminal and speak out against police brutality at the same time? The most fallacious aspect of the blog post is that he equates the ISO to the rest of the Columbia community. The ISO is 0.01% of campus, they do not run "Take Back the Night". "Take Back the Night" is an organization that speaks out against rape and violence against women, why question their actions?

Scapegoat?

2007-04-08T12:12:00.000-04:00

Monica Goodling has resigned from her position as Director of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice, coming just 11 days after she cited the Fifth Amendment and at this point is no longer going to appear at Senate hearings she was originally slated to speak at.

Why the Fifth Amendment? Her lawyer John Dowd gave the reasoning,

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real... One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby"

We learned in the Scooter Libby trial that Libby was guilty of lying to federal investigators. Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald did not find anyone guilty of leaking undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame's identity, and it was largely believed that Libby took the fall for more high profile figures like Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove. Does it not seem familiar now that Goodling has resigned? Perhaps she saw the lessons of the Libby trial and felt that she would be asked to take the fall for Alberto Gonzalez and the White House...

Body Armor and iPods

2007-04-06T01:09:00.000-04:00

iPod = standard issue hardware? The flickr caption reads:

"My wife’s uncle works in a military hospital and told me about this. Its pretty amazing. Kevin Garrad (3rd Infantry Division) was on a street patrol in Iraq (Tikrit I believe) and as he rounded the corner of a building an armed (AK-47) insurgent came from the other side.

The two of them were within just a few feet of each other when they opened fire. The insurgent was killed and Kevin was hit in the left chest where his IPod was in his jacket pocket. It slowed the bullet down enough that it did not completely penetrate his body armor. Fortunately, Kevin suffered no wound."

There has been some "controversy" from commenters on the Flickr page about the ability of an iPod to stop a 7.62×39mm steel core round, but the fact is, whatever the weapon/ ammunition was, 20 GB iPod saved this soldier's life. One less fatality can always be chalked up in the win column.

At the Pleasure of the President

2007-04-01T01:04:00.000-04:00

United States attorneys are appointed by the President of the

United States

, not coincidentally, attorneys are often of the same political persuasion as the President. US attorneys are expected to enforce United States law, they are not political tools used to investigate and undermine opposition political parties. When President George W. Bush took the oath of office in 2000, he pledged to Americans that he would make national unity a top priority, perhaps the only growth of unity is in the growing discontent with the Bush administration. The forced resignations of 8

U.S.

attorneys, has shaped it to be yet another example of political suppression of actions that are contrary to the interests of the administration.

Karl Rove has made the case that the resignations were not political actions but house keeping measures based on job performance. It is interesting to know what the criteria of job performance encompasses, perhaps they were sleeping on the job or maybe criminals were not prosecuted in an efficient manner. It has come out in recent weeks that the attorneys were removed because they were investigating Republicans in corruption cases and there are indications that they refused to be swayed by Republican Congressmen and women, pressuring them for information that they should not have had access to. It is quite obvious that it is not in the interest of the administration, for its members and supporters to be investigated and possibly be indicted on charges of misdoings. By removing attorneys that are in the midst of prosecuting such cases, the executive branch is circumventing the execution of the law.

Bud Cummins was removed, according to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, to groom former Karl Rove aide, Timothy Griffin, for the position.
Kevin Ryan, a Bush loyalist, was actually the victim of the poor job performance, but the DOJ had tried to retain him amidst the chatter of large scale firings. He was removed after a judge sought to go to Congress to make public his poor management problems.
Carol Lam was removed because she was said to not be aggressively pursuing illegal immigration cases. The Department of Justice had defended Lam's performance in mid-2006, which asserted that she was pursuing larger scale immigration crimes, as opposed to small border crossing crimes. Emails between the DOJ and the White House, show that concern was growing about her expanding investigation of disgraced Republican Representative Duke Cunningham, which was beginning to investigate Republican Representative, Jerry Lewis (he was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee at the time of her firing).
David Iglesias was removed when New Mexico Republican Party chairman, Allen Weh, complained to Karl Rove that he was unhappy about Iglesias' performance on voter-fraud issues, despite his active role of training federal prosecutors and giving symposiums on that topic. There had also been complaints that Iglesias did not prosecute Democrats quickly enough to make an impact on the 2006 elections.
Paul Charlton was removed when his investigation of Republican Representative, Rick Renzi, began to ramp up. He had also created opposition with the Bush administration on his refusal to pursue death penalties in a few cases. Only a few months earlier, he had been honored with the Federal Service Award.
John McKay was fired because he had not convened a federal grand jury case of voter fraud in the 2004 Washington State election for governor, following two recounts giving the victory to Democrat Christine Gregoire. McKay has responded, stating that following an investigation from his office as well as the FBI, they were unable to find credible evidence of federal crimes.
Margaret Chiara was fired, according to the NYTimes, to make room for an attorney the Bush administration wanted to groom for the position.

These firings were not the first instances of politically motivated removals. Attorney Frederick A. Black, was demoted in 2002 while he was prosecuting the Jack Abramoff case through the Guam Superior Court.

Kyle Sampson, top aide to Alberto Gonzales and former UN ambassador, John Bolton (who did so on the Daily Show with John Stewart) have argued that there is no distinction between removing an attorney for politics and job performance. According to them, poor performance can be equated with acting contrary to the political interests of the ruling party.

As far as I know, Department of Justice attorneys do not have a requirement to be impartial. Unlike the Office of Independent Counsel, the advantage of politically moderate attorneys is in facilitating their confirmation by the Senate. As confirmation hearings during the Bush years have shown us, anyone heavily skewed to one ideological direction will get skewered.

In 2005, White House Counsel Harriet Miers approached Alberto Gonzales telling him that President Bush wanted to purge all 93 district attorneys, a move reminiscent of Stalin and Lenin era Soviet Russia. Pursuant with the Patriot Act, the White House would be able to replace removed district attorneys for an indefinite amount of time, circumventing Senate oversight. Checks and balances are effectively eliminated and opposition opinions are never voiced. The removal of those not considered Bush loyalists is yet another example in the Bush legacy of political insulation and suppression of political opponents.

Valerie Plame, outed.
Military generals speaking out against Iraq War policy, forced into retirement.
Political commentators paid off by Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind.
Qualcomm donors to Democrats, barred from federal Telecom Conference.
"Either you’re with us or you're with the terrorists".
Bullying scientists on Global Warming.
Bush Town hall meeting, question and answers, filled with pro-Bush supporters.
Attorney Scandal, no transcript and officials not under oath.
Habeas Corpus suspended for ANYBODY suspected of being a terrorist, people disappear without a trace and are tortured.

What are they afraid of? Public opinion?

First you terrorize your opponents into silence so that your movement appears to have no opposition. This gives you tremendous power, not only because moderates quietly feel they are alone in their disagreement with you, but also because the ignorant media – especially the foreign media – casts you as the choice of the people. Having succeeded in silencing moderates, the next step is terrorizing them into cooperating with you. Soon passive cooperation is not enough. You want more than their body – you want their soul, so you terrorize the moderates into being "passionate" in your cause.

In the end, your movement appears to have only loyal and active supporters. Now you are in total control, for who would dare speak out against you? As Hitler said, 10 years before he finally rose to power, "The National Socialist Movement will in the future ruthlessly prevent – if necessary by force – all meetings or lectures that are likely to distract the minds of our fellow countrymen." In other words, all opposition is evil and we will protect you from it. Conservative Columnist for WorldNet Daily, Bob Just

Sound familiar?

Whoah.

2007-03-20T02:05:00.000-04:00

My old professor, Daniel Ellis, was talking about Life Blogging, and recording his conversations on a tape recorder. This guy, "Justin", just took it to a whole new level. http://justin.tv/ As of right now, he's been been on for 26 hours. Justin's life, streaming to you via EVDO-Rev. A on a laptop. Interesting. Too bad he's not doing cool stuff. Wandering around San Francisco gets old, fast.

What integrity?

2007-03-17T11:38:00.000-04:00

It was easy for the conservative media to defend Matt Sanchez, when it was revealed by bloggers that he had an extensive gay porn past. All the Michelle Malkins, Anne Coulters, and Fox News of the world had to do was say, "That was in the past, he's moved on and we embrace him for his service". MSNBC made the mistake of jumping on this story.

How much of the past really matters though? I'm not talking about when Sanchez's most recent fling as a gay male escort was, I'm talking about how relevant his past is on current day commentary. If you ask Sanchez, he would tell you it means absolutely nothing, it was a dark day in his past and he is working hard to put it behind him. Fine.

If only it was that easy for everyone else in the national spotlight. Forgive and forget, wash your hands clean of past sins. To see the double standard, all we have to do is look at Fox News and the network's treatment of Barack Obama. They have looked into his past and claimed that he attended a Madrasah for four years when he was a young boy. This was found to be untrue in all respects. Along with the Madrasah claim, they have focused on his middle name being "Hussein", his smoking of cigarettes, etc. Barack says he is a practicing Christian, what more does Fox News and its right wing punditry need to know? It was in the past (although their smear job was unfounded and untrue), hence as with Matt Sanchez, it shouldn't matter, right?

Matt Sanchez, has been but surprisingly forthcoming about his past. He hasn't denied the gay porn, he hasn't denied the career as an escort, and it has been refreshing to be quite honest, even if it was because it was impossible for him to deny the claim; the facts are in front of him. What bothers me about Sanchez is his lack of integrity in my eyes.

A few days ago, Sanchez posted a blog entry about his being mentioned (focused on) in a story written by one of his heroes, Kevin McCullough, titled, "Why Christians Embrace Gay Porn Stars". Sanchez said that he was SO moved by the article he wanted to write McCullough a thank you letter, he instead went on his radio program a few days later. The inherent problem about McCullough's article and Sanchez is the content of the article itself.

The first is - he stopped having homosexual sex. The ability to "choose" one's actions particularly as it relates to which gender one has sex with is supposed to be unchangeable in the mind of liberals. The whole "made that way" argument tends to get decimated when someone like Sanchez simply decides that it is an empty, sad, and destructive life that brings him no joy.

McCullough's premise is that Matt Sanchez was a gay man, and has since turned away from that life, essentially, turning off the gay light switch. In that same paragraph, McCullough links to one of his own articles espousing how homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not biological. Sanchez, now, has become evidence that you can become un-gay, by hating yourself enough and turning towards God. Matt Sanchez has denied being gay at every opportunity possible. While he was participating in sodomy on film, while he was a male escort charging up to $350 for his services, while he was posting himself on gay interest sites, all the while, not gay. McCullough's premise, if we choose to believe Sanchez, is then completely false.

I have written Matt many times about this, he has chosen not to respond, he has instead chosen to screen his blog comments and not post mine. How could you thank McCullough when he has written an article about you, using non-factual information, using you to push an anti-gay agenda? It's easy, Sanchez has no interest in serving anyone but himself, and has been doing everything in his power to stay in the favor of the conservative movement.

update:
A commenter has asked if Matt has made the statement that he has ceased having gay sex, please see below. It is interesting though, Matt has committed this statement many times, I wonder why it isn't asked and if it wasn't assumed that since his gay porn past was 15 years ago, he has ceased having homosexual sex. This is compounded by the fact that people have found advertisements for his "services" in the New York Blade as recent as 2004. Columbia University tuition costs a lot of money, I know, my family and I paid for it, it would be interesting to know where Sanchez is getting his income from to pay for his tuition, as he receives no pay being an reserve Marine. If it was discovered that Sanchez was still engaging in homosexual activity, would Kevin McCullough, Malkin, etc. still embrace him? He has not explicitly denied it, but has danced around it, kind of denying it.

Matt says he put it all behind him - Kevin McCullough radio program.
Matt says he isn't gay and loathed himself - On Alan Colmes radio program.

update 2 (corrections):
In a previous update I said that it would be interesting to know what Matt Sanchez's occupation is. Columbia costs a lot and Matt had admitted to prostitution, albeit he claims when he answered Alan Colmes, he says he was referring to porn, which he considers prostitution. According to recent interviews, he has worked in Hollywood pitching films, starting up a magazine, working on Angel for the WB, and most recently he has been working at NYC marketing firm, MDA (I couldn't find it on google, anyone know what they do?) and was recently made partner. Mystery solved

Military Progressiveness, Please?

2007-03-11T04:00:00.000-04:00

Reposted from the MilitaryTimes forum:

The notion that one's sexual orientation compromises military readiness if one is homosexual versus heterosexual is without logical foundation.

One's sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual can compromise operational readiness if that conduct occurs. For example, when a heterosexual member of the armed services engages in an affair with the spouse of an active duty member in their unit or command, or a male engages in sexual intercourse with an underage female on and off base, or a senior enlisted active duty member of the armed forces acquieses to the promiscuity of his daughter with other military men on base, operational readiness can be impacted. It is not a leap of logic to find that this otherwise private conduct is either unlawful or has an immediate impact on command readiness given the web of sexual conduct and intrigue within the command. As reprehensible as this conduct is, it would be unlikely to directly undermine command readiness unless it's illegality would subject the member to legal or administrative sanction. In all of these instances, the command was aware of the conduct and did not act against the member, all of whom were former students of mine. The common element was that the sexual conduct involved a male and female, not male and male or female and female.

By contrast, another highly decorated male in the armed services who was viewed as a very macho "man's man" was drummed out of his highly sensitive job in a local military team. His job was among the most dangerous and clandestine in the US military for which hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to train him. Several of his missions saved the lives of fellow military personnel. Still, he was seen walking in a gay area of San Diego with another military-looking man. Hushed rumors matured into hate messages and death threats. He accepted an honorable discharge after less than 10 years in the military. He had intended to make it his career. Members of his team felt betrayed by him since they believed that he did not share their interest in women. Perversely, they thought if he was not interested in women he must interested in them! The man with whom he was walking was another member of the armed services in a different branch. They were dating at the time. That he did not "tell" nor did his command "ask" was irrelevant. This command did not protect him.

In another instance, a married couple who were both my students, also occupied sensitive posts which called for both to have TOP SECRET security clearances. They were bisexual and some how their command found out about their off-base activities. In an effort to force one of them to leave the service (why one and not both was never clear), their command insisted that one of them would have to leave the sevice to be the responsible adult guardian of their daughter. They had no family who could assume that role. It seemed logical, but they command had always known of their family situation and it had never been an issue until their bisexuality became known. Moreover, the $60,000 re-enlisted bonus each had received would have to be surrendered by the spouse leaving the military. They were understandably outraged. The counsel I gave them in a letter they could share with their command sent their superiors into a panic. As difficult as the matter of guardianship of their daughter might be in the future if sent overseas, the alternative for the military was one that could have lead to reprimands of those up the chain of command, or worse.

The matter of their bisexuality and daughter were dropped. They are still active duty members of the armed forces today serving the nation in their TOP SECRET posts.

I mention these instances to illustrate the conflicting attitudes toward service members' sexuality and just how arbitrary and capricious treatment of individual members can be.

Wrongful hetesexual conduct can be excused and overlooked. Bisexuality can be overlooked if in the nation's interest. Openly gay men and women serve in active duty in all branches of the military without difficulty so long as they are ultra-discrete and closeted in their private lives (not exactly the same standard for heterosexual members).

It is unfortunate enough the irrational prejudices toward gay and lesbian members of the military continues, but this is compounded by the irrational attacks on Matthew Sanchez's political beliefs. It is akin to the illogical notion that all gays must be Democrats . . or it is illogical for a black American to be a Republican.

Those gay advocates who condem Sanchez's political conservatism demonstrate intolerance toward gay members of the service (or former members) who espouse political ideas with which they do not agree. This is much like self-annointed "conservatives" condemming those who criticized the decision to go to war in Iraq. Both act from a rigid ideological base from which they shelter themselves from truths that they do not want to see. One can be gay and conservative. One can also be a loyal American and not want to go to war in Iraq.

It would be better to have a lively poltical discussion with Matthew than to engage in the distraction of how many gay movies he appeared in, or what he did sexually while in the military. They may be titilating in a "National Inquirer" and "Star" centered discussion with lots of heat and overblown rhetoric, but hopefully most of the readers of the Navy Times aspire to more.

Richard Dittbenner, J. D.
San Diego, California
rdittbenner@sprynet.com

Opportunity for Change

2007-03-07T01:21:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, "teh internets" was buzzing with talk about the Scooter Libby trial, but tucked a little deeper was a story about Matthew Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez has made a name for himself traversing the right wing opinion shows like Hannity & Colmes, O'Reilly Factor, etc. speaking out against Columbia University's supposed mistreatment of military veterans.

Matthew Sanchez had an opportunity to make change, yet like another Columbia student, Chris Kulawik, he failed to capitilize in a productive way with his five minutes of fame. (To be fair, Chris penned an opinion article recently, voicing a call for change, an article that was admittedly well intentioned). Both studnets were circulating FOX News shows. Both made a sweeping label of Columbia as an institution deserving of ridicule by the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Chris said something that led to Bill O'Reilly labeling Columbia as a fascist-liberal-anarchist-jihadist factory and Matthew claimed that Columbia treats its veterans as second class citizens. Columbia administration? Maybe. The University with its collection of students, faculty, and administrators? No.

Both Kulawik and Sanchez's claims I find hard to believe, especially having been a part of the Columbia consciousness for four years, graduating only a year before Sanchez, and two before Kulawik. I would point out that there is disagreement on this point, but veterans' qualms are mostly in the realm of reinstating the ROTC and isolated incidents with a faculty member or students. I would risk my own reputation to say that an overwhelming majority of Columbia respects the military and its members' willingness to be put in harm's way to defend our nation. This goes back to the question, who actually needs a "support your troops" magnet? Everyone supports the troops, they do their job just like the rest of us. One thing that would benefit the school and should be seriously addressed, as my co-writer, Lt. Sean Wilkes, at the Columbia Critic would point out, is the lack of an Office of Veterans Affairs, which would assist in organizing and assisting with paper work related to students interested in ROTC programs and applying for Officer's School (then again, this isn't much different from ROTC returning to campus).

Returning to Matthew Sanchez. It was posted today, on Gawker, DailyKOS, etc. that Matthew Sanchez, prior to enrolling in the School of General Studies, was working as a gay porn star. Joe My God, has stated that in a telephone interview, Matthew stated that he will be posting a response to the media coverage tomorrow. Is the controversy true? We'll find out tomorrow. To be honest, the gay porn star career this has little bearing on anything other than the revelation being socially shocking. If stations like FOX News want to spin this and have it blow up in the faces of liberal blog sites and news sites that choose to run with it, all Matthew and they have to say is "That was a different time in my life, I've grown up since then and have found another calling". That's it. As far as I can tell, Matthew's comments have been limited to university reform for students in the military, an admirable endeavor and entirely expected from a Columbia University student; right wrongs where you see them and be vocal until you achieve change.

If tomorrow the allegations of being a gay porn star turn out to be true, we should all focus our attention on if the military removes him from military service. If that occurs we should observe if Matthew takes on the cause of gays in the military and the removal of "don't ask, don't tell" and the elimination of sexuality as a disqualifier for service.

Those kinds of observations will have to be made at a later date, what is troubling is that Matthew Sanchez represents the same lack of inaction as Mary Cheney, I am of course making this comment with the assumption that Gawker was correct in its outing of him. Here we have two individuals, minorities that are in positions to speak out and do something about their respective minority statuses in the scheme of American culture and politics. Mary Cheney is a lesbian that is having a child with her partner, she is also the daughter of the Vice President of one of the most socially conservative and outspoken anti-"non-traditional families" administration in recent memory. How could Mary Cheney have served in such a lofty advisory position while so much vitriol and anti-gay sentiment was circling around her? In Matthew's case I am more understanding of, as he was invited into the spotlight to discuss Columbia and the military, and being gay jeopardizes military service.

However. Wrongs are never corrected until people speak out, when the oppressed cease their silence and stand up and say, this is immoral and not in the spirit of our constitution, I am not free. Both Sanchez and Cheney have remained quiet, while others stand on the front line, absorbing the biggest of blows from their opponents. To make matters worse, while remaining silent, they stand in the company of enemies that are not yet enemies because they did not push for equality. How long can people like Ann Coulter stand in front of America and call someone a "faggot" and be met with applause? How long will men like Matthew Sanchez pose for pictures with her?

Out of respect for Matthew, I hope that major media outlets do not approach him on this matter. It's midterm time at Columbia University. Everyone deserves to study in peace, away from the hubub of having your personal life wrecked in front of your eyes.

P.S. If Matthew Sanchez turns out not to be, gay porn star Rod Majors of Glory Holes of Fame 3, that he is purported to be, which may very well be the case, I'll redact this post.

Update:
Matt Sanchez has updated his own blog with an op-ed that ran in Salon. He was indeed a gay porn star in his earlier life. I think we should all be fine with that fact. I have sent him a few emails, only one of which were responded to so far, but the details behind that time in his life remain unknown, unsurprisingly.

There are those like David Horowitz who might take a glance at me and slap the label, "liberal, looking for the politics of personal destruction", but I think that sort of comment would be incorrect in every aspect. I am not interested in demonizing Matt, I'm interested in Matt because I think he has an opportunity to tackle more causes than just the existence and treatment of military members on college campuses. I am interested in his sexual preference as it would be a strong statement if someone that is, at least for now, respected by FOX News were to make a statement about Don't Ask Don't Tell, about gays in the military, etc. Maybe people would open their ears and listen for once. This isn't about Sanchez "being a hypocrite" or "leading an immoral lifestyle" or whatever leftist or conservative slant you want to put on it, it's about having a chance to take a stand against injustice. I would hope Matt grows his cause beyond the ivy gates of Columbia University.

To Save the MPAA.

2007-03-04T14:31:00.000-05:00

From the perspective of the Motion Picture Association of America, their business model is broken. Is it their fault? Have studios been producing increasing amounts of celluloid trash that does not interest the public? Has the advertising model by which major studios rely on ceased to be able to force feed consumers their concept of good cinema? The MPAA will tell you that the loss in revenue relies solely on piracy; internet piracy and bootlegs selling on the streets and subway stations.

"The worldwide motion picture industry, including foreign and domestic producers, distributors, theaters, video stores and pay-per-view operators lost $18.2 billion in 2005 as a result of piracy."

Like most industries, the film industry suffers its ups and downs. If you look at the US stock market, across the board stocks took a plunge in 2001 following September 11th and idled in recession until picking up steam through 2006 and 2007. The movie industry on the other hand had no such recession, since 1995 the growth of the movie industry has risen from $5 billion to $9 billion in 2006 (this is box office revenue alone! not counting DVD sales!). I don't know of any other industry that has been able to grow at that rate. At one point, the MPAA even said that they were losing $250 billion a year to piracy worldwide, with recent estimates being toned down to tens and twenties of billions of dollars.

In any case, the movie industry attributes revenue fluctuation to piracy. There is no doubt that piracy causes a loss of revenue for the MPAA member studios; the illegal market for films is high and widespread. It would be interesting to see how much of an effect that the illegal industry has on strengthening the legal market on account of free marketing and promotion. There is however no way to change the mind of the MPAA. Piracy is a crime and it must be dealt with. I am proposing a way for the MPAA to deal with it.

Movie studios keep their current strategy of releasing films to theaters across the nation. They charge high prices for theater chains to buy films and they take a percentage of ticket sales.

To combat piracy, I propose that the MPAA member studios make available their new films for free online after the film has been in the theater for a set number of weeks and has been available for sale on DVD for a week or two. This assures that retailers like Best Buy and Amazon.com will still retain a significant amount of income from the sale of new DVDs. The online release date can be dynamically adjusted for films, like Titanic, which continued to generate massive box office numbers MONTHS after the premier. Like ABC and NBC have pioneered, movies can be hosted on individual studios' websites, available for streaming over the internet. Advertisements can be run on the page adjacent to the film. Like television, ad revenue can be generated at a high rate due to the significant traffic to the site that online availability would provide. The mentality is that film is best watched in a movie theater and not the home computer. People will pay for the theater experience, but the honest truth is that not all movies released are very good, and there are a significant amount of people that are willing to sacrifice the theater experience for a cheaper price. Blockbuster has proven this.

Providing new films online for free in my opinion would deter a significant amount of people from illegally downloading a movie. The recent lawsuits from the RIAA have been burned into the public consciousness; the MPAA is making similar moves. I would bet that people would wait for the availability of a MPAA sponsored free version, rather than risk a lawsuit while downloading an illegal free version via p2p.

Studios may retain new movies online for a period that may be arbitrarily set, say a month after first posted online. Movies will not be retained online any longer than the fixed amount of time. New movies and old movies will both still be available through Blockbuster, Netflix, Best Buy, Amazon.com, etc.

The current practice of filing lawsuits against the customer is detrimental to the overall health of the industry, and it is destined to fail. We saw it once already with BetaMax. The solution is providing a distribution avenue that delivers what piracy does, but does it within the confines of the law; if paired with an ad delivery system, the free distribution method becomes a new revenue generator. With a legal alternative, customers will be dissuaded from the illegal method of instant gratification and turn towards a legal method that requires some patience.

If the MPAA hopes to increase profits, assuming that revenue loss is directly due to piracy, they need to adapt to the networked digital world where anything can be attained for free. This is the way, lawsuits and scare tactics are not.

2008 Presidential Race

2007-02-23T00:16:00.000-05:00

The most provocative 2008 Presidential Candidate stand-off that no-one is talking about... yet: Al Gore vs. Jeb Bush. It would be incredible.

Amuse Me

2007-02-20T02:42:00.000-05:00

It is really a gift that YouTube exists. Nowhere outside of the internet has there been such an open forum for holding political pundits accountable for what they have said. Whether it be Joe Biden calling Barack Obama the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy", former Senator George Allen calling S.R. Sidarth, an Indian man, "macaca", etc, everyone's verbal gaffes get their time in the sun. Open forums like YouTube and Google Video have largely done what the mass media has been afraid to do the last decade, hold people accountable for lies and hypocrisy and internally regulating their own misdoings.

It is always amusing to watch conservative firebrands like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter taken to task for journalistic irresponsibility and fallacious logical arguments. I have a hard time believing that Republicans take Malkin and Coulter seriously, there is just no way. I have an even harder time believing that these two women are products of American higher education; Malkin graduating from Oberlin College and Coulter from Cornell University and later University of Michigan Law School. How can it be that such prestigious universities produced two such individuals that have little regard for fact checking. It is especially surprising in Coulter's case given that she graduated Cornell cum laude and was the editor of the Michigan Law Review. Two very bright women. You have to wonder if they sacrificed their own credibility for the sake of being outspoken and prominently featured on FOX News.

Watch as Malkin and Coulter both get caught up and trapped by their own non-nonsensical speech.

Republicans During Kosovo

2007-02-17T19:15:00.000-05:00

From the years 1993 to 2001, President Bill Clinton worked alongside four different Congresses; the 103^rd, 104^th, 105^th, and finally the 106^th. During three out of four congresses, both the House and the Senate were presided over by a Republican majority. It is interesting to examine how a Republican majority Congress worked/fought against a President of the other party, especially during war time and on issues of the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. It is in my opinion, a good window of time to examine the failure (56-34 with 17 Republicans joining the Democrats) of today’s non-binding measure which sought to rebuke President George W. Bush’s plan of escalating the number of troops deployed in

Iraq

with a surge of 21,500 combat and support troops.

Article I- Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that while the President is the Commander in Chief of military forces when called upon to do so, the Congress retains the power to:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

In order to understand how the balance of power is struck throughout the course of a war, we must look at Article I in conjunction with the War Powers Act which requires the President to gain the approval of Congress before the commencement of any sort of hostile acts. This Act, whose legality has never been formally challenged through the Supreme Court, gives the Congress a set of teeth, as declaring war can be interpreted as a formality that does not give Congress a role in actually authorizing military action. Congress can authorize a war, but can it end one? Congress can end a conflict if war has not been formally declared within 60 days conflict. However once it authorizes a war, as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq, it relinquishes its war making power to the President. This however does not give him the authority to conduct a war on Iran, unless Alberto Gonzalez somehow successfully makes the argument that in the “War on Terror”, the “terror” aspect is so far reaching that the President can make war with whomever he so pleases. I find that to be unlikely.

In 1992, the US as well as NATO were convinced that it was time to take action against Bosnia. The Senate and House, although controlled by the Democrats passed the multilateral authorization of force by a strong ~94% agreement. Eventually in 1995, the Dayton Agreement was signed and peace was agreed upon by the warring parties in Bosnia and NATO.

It was during this time that Democrats and President Clinton began to be heavily criticized by some in the military and by the Republicans. In a 1996 editorial, John T. Correll, Editor in Chief of the Air Force Magazine, blasted Clinton for not observing the Weinberger Doctrine –

“In 1984, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger proposed six tests to determine whether US forces should be sent into combat: Is a vital national interest at stake? Will we commit sufficient resources to win? Will we sustain the commitment? Are the objectives clearly defined? Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation? Have we exhausted our other options?

…the Clinton Administration, which came to office imbued with the idea that the instrument of military power could be and should be applied with fewer restrictions. President Clinton's first Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, said that under the Weinberger rules, the armed forces would be employed "only very, very rarely" and that "people may not be willing to pay $250 billion or even $200 billion a year for a military that is not very useful."

To my knowledge Correll, even as far as 2003 (when he discontinued his role at the Air Force Magazine), supported the efforts that the Bush administration had made in Iraq and Afghanistan. To some degree, retrospectively I would agree, Bush along with Rumsfeld transformed the military to better fight the evolving threats arising from Middle East combat. However, given our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan today, it being 2007, I would be curious to see if Correll has given his thoughts any reconsideration. His laudatory attitude towards Bush was largely based on rhetoric and not action.

[Correll commenting on G.W. Bush] “He promised to review the open-ended deployments: “Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless deployments is the swift solvent of morale. ... I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling.””

Reflecting from 2007, Bush's words ring hollow as the criticisms he reserved for Clinton are those that he is also facing now. As we can see, Bush was heavily critical of the way Bosnia and Kosovo were handled. Many individuals like Bush and Correll threw up their arms, finger pointing that Clinton had committed our troops to world policing activities and used US military power too liberally. As the Congressional Democrats and Clinton pursued keeping troops in Bosnia to ensure success during peace negotiations, Republicans were intent on ending our nation’s activity in Bosnia.

The Republican Congress sought the following measures:

11/9/1995- H.R. 2606
Title: To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense from being used for the deployment on the ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any implementation force, unless funds for such deployment are specifically appropriated by law.
[Passed 243-171; 214 “AYES” votes were by the Republicans; failed in Senate 22-77]

12/13/1995-H.Res 302
Title: Relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enforce the peace agreement between the parties to the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Reiterates serious concerns and opposition to the President's policy that results in the deployment of 20,000 members of the U.S. armed forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Calls for: (1) the President and the Secretary of Defense to rely on the judgment of, and ensure the provision of appropriate resources and support to, the commander of the U.S. armed forces that are deployed in and around the territory of the Republic in all matters affecting the safety, support, and well-being of such forces; and (2) the U.S. Government to be impartial and evenhanded with all parties to the conflict as necessary to assure the safety and protection of such forces.
[Passed 287-141; 221 “Yeas” votes were by the Republicans]

12/13/1995- H.Res.304
Title: Providing for debate and for consideration of three measures relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[Passed: 357-70; Majority opinion of both parties]

12/13/1995- H.R. 2770
Title: To prohibit Federal funds from being used for the deployment on the ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any implementation force.
[Defeated 210-218; 190 “YEAS” votes were by the Republicans]

This piece of legislation was submitted by D-Rep. Lee Hamilton

12/14/1995- H.R. 306

Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the deployment of United States Armed Forces to Bosnia.
Supports the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.
[Defeated 190-237; 219 “NAYS” votes were by the Republicans]

With this Congressional record I think it is obvious that the criticism being endured by the Democrats concerning the non-binding resolution is without any merit whatsoever. Democrats are being accused of hurting the morale of our troops by pushing this resolution, obviously when Lee Hamilton presented the “We support our troops” legislation in 1995, the vote by the Republican majority was a resounding “NO”. Alongside of this lack of support for American troops assisting in peace keeping along with NATO, the Republicans voted repeatedly to cease the funding of activity in Bosnia. At the time, did that not embolden our enemies and show them that a peace agreement would not be supported by force from America? The inconsistency is stunning, a turn around in party politics that was only a little more than a decade ago.

This lack of support for the President in foreign policy only continued into 1999 when America again returned to the area for the Kosovo War. Again, the Congress authorized military action, agreeing to use of “air operations and missile strikes”. There was no opposition to Clinton from the Republican majority. And although the Senate had agreed to Senator Biden’s resolution authorizing air attacks in Yugoslavia and had also overwhelming agreed to Senator McCain’s resolution authorizing Clinton the use of “all necessary force and other means, in concert with U.S. allies, to accomplish U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)”, the Republican House still fought the legality of the war. This is not to say that I think that Clinton’s war was legal, in fact I would side with the Republicans and say it was pursuant with the War Powers Act to end U.S. involvement. The end result was still to authorize an extension to bombing in Yugoslavia, but to this day, Clinton critics argue that he went too far in pursuing “victory” and defending the Albanians.

The Republicans made many efforts to censure President Clinton on his handling of and engaging the United States military in the Kosovo War. They passed resolutions to debate the legality of war, they sought to withhold funds for the war and peacekeeping efforts, they even voted to not “support the troops” in what was for the most part a piece of fluff legislation. It is surprising now that the Republicans are acting so fiercely against Democrats taking action against President Bush and the Iraq War. During the Clinton Administration, there were not questions of how legislation was hurting the morale of the troops, there were however repeated questions about the Presidential powers invoked by Clinton in war making; questions that were absolutely legitimate. The current Republicans in Congress seem to have entirely given up their job of oversight of Presidential power; giving their responsibility in a system of checks and balances directly to President Bush without any after thought.

Uniqlo

2007-02-03T13:18:00.000-05:00

I just returned from a week long trip to NYC, where I bought clothes, ate lots of food, and hung out with all of my friends that didn't and probably won't ever leave New York City (one of the few cities in the world that actually matters).

One of the coolest new things that I discovered was Uniqlo. If you walk on Broadway, right in between Spring and Prince, you will find a brightly lit clothing store that is the Japanese equivalent of H&M (except the quality is a lot better). Actually, the way I originally thought of it was the up-scale Ikea of clothing. The quality of clothing is in ratio with price on a margin of about 5:1. The idea is simplicity, clothing pieces that you can pick up and instantly mesh together with your existing closet of stuff. The next time you are in the city, take a pit stop here.

They also have a nice catalog type book they call Uniqlo Paper. It pairs together spreads of the clothing alongside featurettes that are similar to GQ's now semi-defunct "Seen on the Street" section, where they chat up artsy fartsy folks on the streets of New York wearing Uniqlo. Pair that with interviews ranging from Kim Gordon of Sonic Youth, Chef Morimoto (the Iron Chef, yes that's right), to various foundational blocks of the Uniqlo brand like its textile masters and interior designers.
http://www.uniqlo.com/us/uniqlopaper/

Historical Lessons for Iraq

2007-01-30T21:13:00.001-05:00

We study history to take a glimpse into our past, to gain knowledge as to what motivated people, what mistakes they made, and how we may build upon their experience so that each generation becomes greater than that that preceded it.

The Bush administration is making an interesting claim to support their war on terror; when asked about what lessons he has drawn from Vietnam, he answered “we’ll succeed unless we quit”. The Bush lesson being, had Nixon not called for total withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973, and we pressed on, the American intervention would have been victorious. Had we pressed on, America would have been forced to answer the question, what is victory? Would victory have been the complete obliteration of South Vietnam, ending the north-south “civil war”, or perhaps maybe it would be the reformation of South Vietnam into a democratic entity. Who knows, however, because that question was left unanswered in our past, the question has risen again.

Another historical lesson we may draw on to better understand Iraq can be seen in a statement made by Dick Cheney recently.

CHENEY: Remember with me what happened after in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the '80s, supported the effort against the Soviets. The mujahideen prevailed and everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan, within relatively short order, the Taliban came to power. They created this safe haven for al Qaeda. Training camps were established, where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late '90s. And out of that, out of Afghanistan -- because we walked away and ignored it -- we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa and 9/11, where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East.

Once again, the presiding wisdom of the Bush administration is that, if we do not leave, then we will win. By most accounts, the US mission in Afghanistan that had taken place during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush (41) was a resounding success. The mission was to halt the spread of Russia and communism into Afghanistan following the removal of the Shah. The United States funded, trained, and armed the mujahideen for many years until the Russians withdrew in 1989. Victory!... or not? The question however is, did we walk away? We accomplished our mission and did not have the foresight to anticipate the rise of the Taliban; at the time there really was no impetus to stay any longer than the mission at hand required. We left the country in tatters; they experienced nearly a decade in guerilla warfare against communist rule leaving their infrastructure broken, the best and the brightest of the country had left out of fear, leaving Afghanistan with no leadership outside of the mujahideen factions; we left an awful situation. This is leaps and bounds different from both Iraq and Vietnam. We did not leave because we were in many ways “losing”. We had won. It was just a shortsighted victory.

Today, if is somewhat the fault of the United States that Islamic terrorism persists with the strength we are currently witnessing. The Mujahideen are by definition very similar to the extremist jihadists. They were fighting the specter of atheist communism and promoting the strength of armed and political Islam. We raised them to power.

What was the United States to do in the 1980s? Were US troops to remain in Afghanistan until democracy was spread from border to border; were we to depose the theocratic state that we funded in exchange for secular leadership? Such a campaign is on par if not more daunting than the current Iraq situation. Never would it have been as obvious that the United States was using political puppets to serve its own worldly interests.

The only lessons we can learn from Vietnam and Afghanistan are that if we remove ourselves from regional struggles, regardless if we began them or not, the United States can retreat to a semblance of isolationism and peace for a short while. The lesson is not that if we remain, that victory is immanent. Such a conclusion is not only ridiculous, but irresponsible to the men and women that volunteer for our armed forces. To achieve “victory” in Iraq, we will most likely be in Iraq for an untold number of years, more than a few of those years will be devoted to figuring out what victory is in the first place. If we learn anything from Afghanistan it is this: even if we achieve victory, how long will it be until we discover that our victory was short lived and our conditions for victory short sighted? What other regional conflicts are we not foreseeing by our actions and what new enemies are we creating?

Disney's new ad campaign

2007-01-28T01:55:00.000-05:00

Disney's new ad campaign is the best one I have seen in a long time. They have been looking for ways to reignite interest in the Disney themeparks and this was a pretty brilliant and glamorous idea; I can't believe they didn't think of it earlier. They have hired Annie Leibovitz to do a series of photos, the first installment of which features Scarlett Johansson as Cinderella, David Beckham as Prince Charming, Lyle Lovett as the March Hare, Oliver Platt as the Mad Hatter, and Beyonce as Alice in Wonderland. Apparently Annie is setting up for the second installment that will have A-list folks dressing up as the Little Mermaid, Snow White, and Peter Pan. Let's hope they don't ask Michael Jackson to be Pan.

state of the union!

2007-01-23T22:06:00.000-05:00

Tonight, George W. Bush discussed Health care reform. It's about time. Energy policy reform. Long due. Immigration reform. Glad it's being addressed. Global Warming. I told you so, but it's already too little too late. Fuel efficiency. Fiiiinally. The semblance of bipartisan discussion and open exchange of ideas. I sure hope so.

Dikembe Mutombo. You've got to be kidding me.

minimum wage increase good?

2007-01-11T09:58:00.000-05:00

The business community (at least part of it) is dreading the new federal minimum wage increase. In the majority of the articles I've read, small business owners have overwhelmingly stated that they think that the sizable increase to minimum wage is a moral obligation. At the same time, they fear that an increase in minimum wage is going to hurt their business; either they will have to cut jobs or increase prices, either way they are predicting a loss in their own yearly income.

Not being an economist, I couldn't tell you what I think is going to happen, nor do I think a model is necessarily going to accurately tell you how businesses will react and their bottom line along with it.

This morning I read an article in the NYTimes about Washington State. For about a decade, each year they have increased the wages of the lowest paid workers. Washington state did not crash and burn, losing all of its jobs to Idaho. Washington added 90,000 jobs in 2006, the interviewed business owners say they are doing more business than ever (maybe they got lucky), border residents have streamed to Washington for employment, and even the Association of Washington Business stopped fighting the minimum wage law.

To be fair, the percent of small businesses in Washington State's overall scheme is 2.4%. Can it be used as an accurate prediction for what is to come after all states adopt the new higher minimum wage? We'll all wait and see, but in my opinion, an increase in minimum wage has been a long time coming. It's about time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/us/11minimum.html?hp&ex=1168578000&en=bf304392cdc5baf4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Gator Nation

2007-01-09T00:25:00.000-05:00

Gator Nation is proud. The school I almost went to, the school my dad decided to continue his education at, the school my brother turned down Duke for: the University of Florida, the mighty gators, National Champions. It's great to be a part of Gator Nation.

so global warming IS partly our fault

2007-01-07T00:41:00.000-05:00

“It is clear today that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions.”

<3 Exxon Mobil

Wow. Can you believe that? This statement arriving just after news that Exxon Mobil had manufactured and supported op-eds and studies that created uncertainty towards human contribution to global warming. Well actually, first they released that the news of their propaganda campaign was an “attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion”, then they thought... no no no, the truth will come out and we will get kicked in the balls like Enron; Courageously they told the truth, hopefully it wasn't just a press snippet. Don't Republicans look silly now, and now it may be too late for Al Gore to save us! Can we label those folks "global warming deniers" and point and laugh at them?

smackdown

2007-01-06T13:05:00.000-05:00

You may disagree with the content of Keith Olbermann's commentary, but it is refreshing to see someone other than FOX News brewing up a pot of righteous indignation. This video comes in just a week before President Bush is slated to address the nation and deliver us his plan for future prospects in Iraq. I would have to agree with NPR, that it is likely that Bush's message is going to look exactly like the plan for Iraq just released by The American Enterprise Institute (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.25396,filter.all/pub_detail.asp).
I mean... almost everything he does mirrors AEI.

Already the Democrats have issued a statement to President Bush asking him to reconsider what they (and basically everyone else) anticipate his Iraq plan to be, the increase of troops. Troop increase, I can't imagine that this is a good idea, how could it be? We are not fighting a war in Iraq, at least not in the traditional sense, where there are distinct forces on each side of a conflict. In a traditional war, numbers matter, strategy matters, and perseverance matters. How are the tactics of traditional warfare going to help, are we to increase our troop levels by ~20% and knock on every Iraqi door and ask if they are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? We are fighting people who are defending their crumpled status quo and who really don't like the United States. The only way to "win" militarily would be to kill every last terrorist and detain/kill every single person that we think might one day become a terrorist. I think at that point we would be teetering on a cloaked form of genocide. We are attacking symptoms and not causes, and by not focusing on the cause, things have been escalating out of control.

What are the causes? Historical relations between Sunnis and Shi'a, the former Baathist party, and the inability of countries such as Lebanon and Iran to provide better social services and political strength to its people outside of terror sponsoring organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Is it a surprise that there are so many that support Hezbollah and Hamas? Given that they have extensive social programs including education, health care, etc. and national unity, how can we be surprised? President Bush and his cabinet have shown little effort in factoring these elements into US-Middle East policy and as we all know (or at least will eventually come to realize) it has been disastrous.

As a side note, Americans should observe Hezbollah and Hamas. They provide everything that a government should provide to its people, but their foreign policies are also driven by the religious convictions of their leaders; foreign policies that have dragged them into war with Israel, with no end in sight. We should take note of this as our politicians suggest and promote that the United States be a Christian nation.

happy holidays

2006-12-21T20:11:00.001-05:00

Hello all! I have just replaced my broken monitor, which led to a week+ of no content on this page, with a new widescreen Dell. I will be as prolific as ever in the new year. I wish everyone the best, especially President Bush. He is having a really bad year. The way I see it, he should abdicate as he has so soundly bought into his own faulty logic that he is proceeding into battle with a shining sword that is bright with the strength of his own conviction and covered with the blood of everyone he has sent into Iraq. May the new year bring us new direction and the semblance of leadership.

happy holidays

2006-12-21T20:11:00.000-05:00

who loves kids, certainly not you.

2006-12-12T20:41:00.001-05:00

I've been busy at work, so I apologize for feeding you commentary on a subject that is yesterday's news. I still think it is pretty amusing though.

Democratic Congressman, Steny Hoyer (D-MD), announced that when the House reconvenes next year, he will be try to push for a five day work week. That's right, Monday through Friday. Just like the rest of us. A bold move for Congressman Hoyer, considering the House will have met... let say around 71 days during 2006. Not very impressive. A whole ~60 days less than the average for congress during the 80s and 90s. And you wonder why people are complaining about lack of government oversight. It's a Republican's dream, small government! What government? What oversight?! All that really existed was the Executive Branch... and he wasn't really there all the time either.

Republican Jack Kingston wasn't too happy at the news.

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

Considering the rest of us work about 260 days (ok, with vacation let's go for 240 to be fair) a year and most of us also don't make $160k a year... do I need to continue? Sure, I understand that congressmen and women need to be in their home states with their constituents, but this is also the job they signed up for. So if Democrats don't care about families because they want congressmen to work more and be away from their families... big corporations, government organizations, and small business want us to work five days a week too, that would mean... I see where this is going? Uh oh.

The Myth of the American Free Market

2006-12-05T00:41:00.000-05:00

An excellent article by David Sirota on the myth of the American free market. People should know by now that we have never been "free market capitalists". We are and have always been "what's best for the American economy and will put up whatever protectionist barriers and tariffs we want to" capitalists. We only push for free markets and rapid market liberalization in developing countries and those in debt before we go in and squash them even further into debt. But that's just the cynical extremist inside me talking, Sirota actually has a very detailed and thorough discussion on the subject. It is worth your time to read.

Flattening the Great Education Myth & the Free Market Fundamentalists
David Sirota

Partisan War Syndrome rages across the progressive blogosphere. Wall Street Democrats hide their corporate fealty by declaring a new era of "The Common Good," claiming as their own a term their arch enemy, Noam Chomsky, coined years ago. Democratic lawmakers cheer about bringing a "change" to Washington, talk up important efforts to better-fund education, then quietly begin reassuring K Street that all will be the same when it comes to structural economic issues.
And lost in the din is the most important question: will free market fundamentalism finally be openly challenged?

That is the question I pose in today's San Francisco Chronicle in an op-ed entitled "Flattening the Great Education Myth." The piece describes a recent community meeting here in Helena, Montana and how local officials, hamstrung by a national trade policy that undermines their communities, are forced to focus exclusively on education as the way to build the economy. But, as the hard data shows, we cannot simply educate our way out of the problems associated with a globalization policy whereby our economy is regulated exclusively to enhance multinational corporate profits - and not to enhance ordinary people's lives.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/flattening-the-great-educ_b_35511.html

Fear Has Gotten the Best of Us

2006-12-03T13:39:00.000-05:00

Yet another disgusting example of how the War on Terror has really crippled America as a nation founded on principle, morality, and combating injustice. Radio host Jerry Klein, in a bit of a social experiment, suggested that Muslims in the United States be marked with some sort of identification, be it a arm band or a crescent moon tattoo. Instantly the phone lines lit up, some expressing how sick the suggestion was, and the majority applauding such a suggestion.

"'The first caller to the station in Washington said that Klein must be "off his rocker." The second congratulated him and added: "Not only do you tattoo them in the middle of their forehead but you ship them out of this country ... they are here to kill us."

Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver's licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. "What good is identifying them?" he asked. "You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans." "'
"I can't believe any of you are sick enough to have agreed for one second with anything I said," he told his audience on the AM station 630 WMAL (http://www.wmal.com/), which covers Washington, Northern Virginia and Maryland

"For me to suggest to tattoo marks on people's bodies, have them wear armbands, put a crescent moon on their driver's license on their passport or birth certificate is disgusting. It's beyond disgusting.

"Because basically what you just did was show me how the German people allowed what happened to the Jews to happen ... We need to separate them, we need to tattoo their arms, we need to make them wear the yellow Star of David, we need to put them in concentration camps, we basically just need to kill them all because they are dangerous."

Has our nation been profoundly changed for the worse by the War on Terror? Sadly, I would have to say yes.

Quotations from: Read Reuters article

Dennis Prager makes himself look like an idiot

2006-12-02T19:37:00.000-05:00

Keith Ellison will be sworn in as the first Muslim in the House of Representatives when the 110th Congress opens up for business next year. Dennis Prager, a conservative columnists saw this as an opportunity to claim that Ellison would be sworn in and take the oath of office on the Koran, and subsequently went on a tirade about how such an act would be ridiculous.

What's more ridiculous, the notion of Ellison taking his oath on a Koran or Ellison's lack of understanding about the House of Representatives and the US Constitution (and disguised racism)?

“If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don’t serve in Congress... Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? "

These sorts of comments are written to incite a sort of xenophobia not seen in America for decades. It takes advantage of the current War on Terror and events of 9/11 to in effect, limit the rights of Muslims living as American citizens. What Prager repeats over and over again is that American tradition is being trod upon and that it threatens our very way of life. What nonsense. Keith Ellison is an elected official is deserves the respect of everyone, not for his religion, but for his character. Prager is trying to turn him into some anti-American monster before the man has even taken office.

The facts are this. The House of Representatives does not have people sworn in on any book, be it the Bible, Torah, or the Koran. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi will have the Congressmen and women raise their hands and take the oath on the floor of the House together, in the absence of any holy book.

It is ridiculous to think that one should even be required to take an oath on the Bible. The oath exists as a show of allegiance to the nation that as a public servant, the US Constitution will be upheld. Any ritual requiring those taking the oath to use a book, are impressed to do so as a show that they are willing to swear before that which they hold most holy. It would seem obvious that if you are pledging an oath, you would do so in the presence of your God(s), your holy book (if you are of the religious persuasion at least), so that your oath is meaningful to you. For Jews or Muslims to swear on the Christian Bible would be like asking someone to swear on some random person's first born child.

Also making the comment that 'those unwilling to swear upon the Bible should not run for office' is far more anti-American than any pledging upon the Koran.

Article XI of the US CONSTITUION.
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

I can't tell if Dennis Prager is actually interested in American tradition or if he's trying to stoke the fire of American aversion towards Muslims. His words are not dissimilar to those of Joseph McCarthy during the second Red Scare.

Coulter: Mean and Nonsensical

2006-11-29T22:57:00.000-05:00

The New York Daily News likes to pick on Columbia University a lot. Because FOX likes to invite Ann Coulter to opine on anything and everything, she jumped on the fray and made all kinds of ludicrous statements. Comments ranged from really mean to just plain weird.

Talking about a S&M demonstration: "they could go on the web to ask the Imam for how large the branch can be to beat your wife with"

Uh... "Christians have more sex, better sex, more sexual satisfaction, so you know they need to have to form clubs to figure out what evangelicals have right away, you want a sex club, become an evangelical."

Somehow insinuating that joining a S&M interest group is for the purpose of having sex that they couldn't otherwise have... "You don't expect them to have to join a club, that's why i'm saying they are the biggest losers on campus, they always are".

Speaking about culture back in the day "would such people be allowed to remain on campus"

Speaking on where this cultural crudeness comes from... "somewhat university campuses, most of all the culture of children raised without two married parents... let's take a poll of the members of that club and see how many of the girls in that club grew up sleeping in the same house as their fathers."

Why she laughs when the host brings up the question of the University regulating such behavior is beyond me. I thought I would never hear the day when Ann Coulter would say that you can go into private establishments and regulate what they do (assuming they aren't committing a crime); actually what am I saying? Ann Coulter has made a living out of distorting the truth and lying to people's faces, why should anything she does surprise us?

Watch the video here:
VIDEO!!

conservatives hang your heads

2006-11-07T23:44:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow morning, regardless of if the Democrats sweep the House and the Senate or just one of the two, it will be clear who screwed up: Karl Rove, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Since the Iraq War began, the Bush administration, and thus the loyal Republican Party, has stood on the shoulders of one issue, fighting terrorism. It is not that the war on terrorism is an unworthy cause to rally around, it was that it was the ONLY cause that they rallied around.

Karl Rove has been credited by many people on all sides of the political aisle for being a genius; a master manipulator and strategist of epic proportions. His strategy was to find in all political races, a weakness that could best be exploited to the American public. To his credit, that strategy worked; it worked for a long time and it got many Republicans into office, but again, a one strategy approach is extremely risky. This midterm election, campaign races were ugly, they were the ugliest and the dirtiest I have seen since I developed a political consciousness. I speculate, given Rove’s history of pulling strings, that a lot of the negative ads were either suggested by or inspired by him. Americans saw that the ads were nasty. Americans saw that conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh were cruel. Americans saw that there was one issue that they were called to rally around and to be honest, I think we all were tired of being scared by the specter of terrorism.

The Bush administration has centered on the Iraq War for a long time. We must stay the course. We must spread freedom in the Middle East. We must drum up Democratic inadequacy at protecting the average American. Placing all of their eggs in one basket was successful when things seemed to be going according to plan, but as most of us know, what we expect rarely occurs according to plan. Iraq has been a disaster. Thousands of American soldiers have lost their lives, a two-digit multiple of that number of civilian Iraqis have been killed, and there is no peaceful light at the end of the tunnel. To be honest at this point, the end of the tunnel doesn't even exist yet. Part of this can be blamed on poor planning for post de-Baathification Iraq, part of it on the shoulders of Iraqis not stepping up and taking control of their country and sectarian violence, and a large part of it is a single minded Department of Defense strategy that rejected those individuals and ideas who were best suited for Iraqi reconstruction and planning for war.

Republicans by an enormous majority margin supported the Bush administration in its march into Iraq. There were few voices of dissent and even less of a substantive effort to have the administration embrace accountability for its failures. If you ask the President, Rumsfeld, or Cheney, you will be told that there have been no failures, that we are on the right track, and that they will see their plan through to the end. The American public however views Iraq as a failure. In a Republican controlled House, Senate, and Executive branch of government, Republicans had an opportunity to bring a conservative framework to America, in both legislative and social aspects; a conservative ideology which in my opinion would be more than welcome by the majority of America. The true conservative spirit of America was failed, plain and simple. Government is not smaller, spending is out of control, our borders are not secure, and the focus of government has been on job retention and not serving the public interests. In six years we have not fixed a faulty voting system, we have not addressed illegal immigration, we have outspent every past Presidential administration to date, government has in fact gotten larger, we have not prepared ourselves for the jobs of the 21st century, we have left millions of children behind, and we have sacrificed our moral foundations that for centuries have made us great.

Without any other issues to fall back upon, the Bush administration came up empty. This was an extremely unfortunate outcome for a number of Republicans who have served their states and constituents well, the failures of the Presidency and Republican majority ruined their current career. Tom Keane Jr, Lincoln Chafee, Chris Shays (who right now looks like he might win, we’ll see tomorrow), Anne Northup, etc; people who are in my opinion, good public servants, who are being run out by general mass dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. By stubbornly clinging to a failed policy and focusing so heavily on one issue and one issue alone, Bush and his party have not only angered America but also put Republican legislators’ jobs in jeopardy. The American people have spoken and they are tired of being scared shitless every time the approval rating goes down and the economy is in not doing well. Tomorrow, if we are lucky, the United States gets back on track and checks and balances means something again.

Security straight out of the Middle Ages

2006-10-31T23:21:00.000-05:00

The United States is pushing to build a 700 mile fence between Mexico and the United States. Israel is considering the construction of a moat by the Egypt-Gaza border. Not that they are bad ideas, per say, but I get the feeling that instead of actually solving problems we are blocking ourselves away from them. Should we catapult North Korea?

Republican Outrage!

2006-10-24T19:53:00.000-04:00

In the aftermath of Mark Foley's being exposed at a pedophile and a page predator, we have not heard much about how to protect congressional pages. We have not heard much about how this went silent for more than four years (the truth is coming out as Republicans are stepping up during election time) and we have not heard much about the actual issue at all. What we have heard is that somewhere, somehow, it's all the Democrats' fault.

Newt Gingrich has bellowed that Democrats are hypocrites for their condemnation of Foley, Hastert, and the Republicans. More Conservative commentators that I can count on both hands have said it is disgraceful that the Democrats chose to reveal this during election time. When exactly was a good time for this? After the election, so that the election wasn't distracted and pages could exchange nasty emails with congressmen? Months before the election so that Democrats could be accused of trying to divert the conversation about their lack of persuasive plan for America? Many months before the election so that Bill O'Reilly could tear someone apart on TV and cite a general lack of concrete and substantive evidence?

The most likely scenario is that the Democrats found out about Foley recently, much more recent than the Republicans (and by that I mean the Republicans had a couple year head start to do damage control) and they waited a little bit to do maximum damage to the GOP during November elections. What is ridiculous about this condemnation is that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, slings the mud and digs up the dirt during election time. Why is it that when the Republicans do it, it is strategy, and when the Democrats do it it is moral depravity? Could the "swiftboat veterans" have attacked John Kerry earlier so as to not disrupt a PRESIDENTIAL election? Couldn't the GOP have waited until after the 2000 election to have called President Clinton out on his affair with Lewinsky, so as to not use moral bankruptcy and family values and Clinton as a weapon against Gore? Could Democrats have waited until... two decades from now to break out the big guns against Jack Abramoff? Democratic and Republican strategists exist to use every bit of news, scandal, and their opponents missteps or fabricated missteps to boost the chances of winning for their candidate.

That is how Washington works. I think the "OMG it's outrageous that you would expose this time bomb now" mentality is coming out of the woodwork because nobody expected the Democrats to grow a backbone, adopt Republican strategies and come out swinging.

Ideally campaigns should be about issues and not dirty laundry. That is something I will explore in my next post, right after I bake my pizza.

Trading respect for a few minutes in the sun.

2006-10-07T00:53:00.000-04:00

Dear Chris Kulawik,

You just went on Bill O'Reilly and sold your fellow students out. When asked if you thought that the failure of communication that occurred during the Gilchrist speech was the norm, you flatly said it was. In fact you stated that you believed that Avi Zenilman was being extremely irresponsible when he said that what occurred was largely an isolated incident.

Anyone who has gone to Columbia will be able to tell you that the events that transpired during the Gilchrist event are not indicative of the larger population of Columbia. For you to even espouse that sort of nonsense is to me, offensive and irresponsible.

You brought up the racial remarks assailed at a minority student that served in the military. Once again, I seem to recall the three students were members of the ISO; even then that incident involved three students.

The homophobic/anti-Semitic graffiti; again, two students.

At worst we have a handful of bad eggs and a basket full of some of the world's most brilliant minds, yet it has become your prerogative to tarnish the reputation of the University. Yes, we all know that University administrators have had a slow response to these allegations and issues and that is regrettable, but this is completely irrelevant to the 23,000 students that are not part of a Kool-aid drinking, "fascist-liberal-anarchist" minority that is supposedly being indoctrinated by university professors. We were not the perpetrators of hate and the free flowing dialogue between disparate ideologies has in my experience been the norm. For you to make such a blanket statement to the world about Columbia University was irresponsible. Were you being disingenuous so as to not incur the wrath of FOX commentators I would understand somewhat, and if you do truly believe that disruptive protest is the norm, it is my opinion that you are by all accounts incorrect.

When asked about the motivation for bringing Gilchrist to Columbia you responded that you wanted to give the student body the opportunity to listen and respond to different views. Surely, you and I agree that hijacking the stage was poor decision making, but I question if you are able to understand that the content of what Gilchrist and Stewart were speaking of (or planning to speak on) was such an abominable position to the protestors that it was obvious that there was no room for debate and that very few wanted to hear what he had to say. You yourself have openly criticized the university for their choices of invited speakers saying that you are outraged by the extension of an invitation and that allowing them to speak gives such speakers more legitimacy; that has been your position for Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, etc. So perhaps you might identify with the outrage that protestors felt at the invitation of Gilchrist that you (and most people felt) at the invitation of the aforementioned. In those cases I think you, me, almost everyone, that their beliefs and actions are so offensive to a group of people that we would not give their point of view 2-seconds of rational discourse and would express our outrage given the opportunity. That is exactly what happened at the Gilchrist event. When presented with a speaker that is so far from what students believe as having a legitimate voice and is so intimately tied to who they are as individuals, there is no listening and only responding. The difference however is that with Gilchrist, things got out of hand and the students pursued a means of expression that is regrettable. Isolated incident that got out of hand; not a widespread assault of free speech.

I’d like to remind you of the 2003 Iraq War protests that occurred on Lowe Steps. There was a protest and a protest against the protest (in usual Columbia form). There was a exchange of passionate ideas and beliefs and there was no incident, nobody’s voice was silenced.

I’d like to remind you of the 2006 Columbia College graduation commencement protest against Senator John McCain. Again, a peaceful protest, during which a fairly successful campus and internet discussion arose. The discussion pages were RIDDLED with ad hominem attacks against protestors, I will give you examples:

Kate Mahoney,

Oh Kate, you also come from a spoiled upbringing. You also got indoctrinated in the ways of elite. And to make yourself feel good you oppress others with your intolerance of other ideas. but keep up the work, because of people like you the voice of liberals is subdued and you hate is evident.. \Shame on you... Hater
Bob Kerry (CC '06)

-------------------------------------------------------
Laura Cordetti,

You come from wealthy family. You are pampered and have no idea what the real world is like. Ive got an idea, give up all your money and get a 60 hour a week job. But please stop preaching you spoiled BRAT who has nothing better to do...
-- Laur is spoiled rich girl (CC '06)
-------------------------------------------------------
Kim Sue,

Please dont "enter the world". Please spare us your agenda on hate.. You hate all who disagree with you. You hate all who speak up for what they believe but you dont.... KIM SUE YOU ARE A HATER
-- KIMSUEHATES (CC '06)
-------------------------------------------------------
Laura Cordetti - GET A LIFE and get a job too. You poor thing!
-- Tom (Contributor)

This is surely not the intellectual discourse that you were hoping to observe at Columbia, and it raises the point that “liberal jihadists” are not the only ones guilty of vitriol nor are non-liberals not free/afraid to speak their minds.

Chris, I believe you owe your fellow students an apology for publicly lambasting them and your university to the entire nation. While Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity exploded with vast generalizations and slander against the student body of Columbia, you did not speak up and defend us. You sat there, nodding your head in agreement, ignoring the high quality of education that Columbia University has provided you with. You wondered why there have been so many negative attacks against you online and behind your back; it is because you’ve failed to come to the defense of your university and your peers.

Yours truly,
Stephen Wang ’06.

The Power of Misrepresenting the Truth

2006-10-05T20:58:00.000-04:00

Last night, the Columbia University College Republicans invited Marvin Stewart and Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project to speak about the state of illegal immigration. This group describes itself as a citizens organization that takes border patrol between Mexico into their own hands. Marvin Stewart was antagonizing the crowd and the crowd shouted back, Gilchrist was not even able to get through a full 10 minutes as protestors leaped on stage and held posters reading "No one is illegal". Columbia students shouted that Gilchrist and Stewart were racists, that they actively recruited white supremacist, that Stewart was an African American sellout, etc.

Stewart went on Bill O'Reilly's show tonight and claimed that the crowd called him "the N-word". I find it hard to believe that Columbia students would be so stupid to call him anything of the sort while they were protesting against racism that they believe the Minuteman Project to be associated with. Stewart went on to claim that he was "informed that the Arabic on the posters denied the Holocaust". While watching this, my jaw dropped, as it is ridiculous and outrageous to throw such an accusation on the podium of discourse. The Arabic on the poster said "no one is illegal", it was written in English, in Spanish, and in Arabic. I even bothered to go match a video capture of the poster with the Arabic translation, and it is pretty obvious that any claims about Holocaust denial is a complete fabrication. When one is in the spotlight of prime time cable TV, on a show that tips the moral high ground to Republican viewpoints, perhaps it is easy to exaggerate/misrepresent the truth just to add more fuel to the fire.

Stewart did not deserve the out of control display from the crowd, but it just adds more legitimacy to the criticisms of Stewart when he fabricates racial epithets thrown at him and imaginary posters about the Holocaust. Chris Kulawik of the College Republicans as well as the out of control crowd has tarnished Columbia University's reputation as it is pretty obvious that we are not going to hear the end of this from right wing news organizations and blogs for a long time. Stewart's claims will be taken as fact as nobody of influence is going to confront him on this issue. I blame Chris because he has taken no steps to protect the reputation of his University and peers when they are slandered by right wing media (only cares to stir up controversy and throw fuel on the fire), and the crowd because... I think that part is obvious.

edit: I've been informed by commenter RonL, who was there last night, that Stewart was called a "House N-----" and an Uncle Tom. That's unfortunate although I don't think it was meant to be so much racist but to call him a sell out to the black community. Then again I don't know what "house n-----" means. Still, as Columbia students we should have known better.

edit2: the commentor RonL is Ron Lewenberg, Vice President of New Yorkers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and former leader of the Columbia College Conservative Club. I am informed that he, along with Marvin Stewart, were the only or of the few that heard any sort of racial epithets. Once again, the media has made it out to seem like the crowd was racist where as it was a few individuals hurling the N-bomb to point out what they saw as the hypocrisy of Stewart's participation. Columbia University is one of the best universities in the entire world and it is slanderous for journalists, news commentators, bloggers, etc. to transpose the actions of a few to the University, its faculty, and the entire student body. I think someone is mad that they didn't get admission.

edit3: for a video of a Minuteman kicking a student forcefully in the side, http://www.bwog.net/index.php?page=post&article_id=2307 . I did not see any violent protestors but I did see a female student get dragged off stage, a minuteman wrestle and drop a male student to the floor, a Minuteman have a really aggressive tug of war on a banner, and another minuteman brutally kick a student in his side as he was walking past the front of the stage (not trying to jump onto it mind you). I am not an apologist for the protestors rushing the stage, however, the Minutemen's disproportionate use of force is obviously ridiculous. Students holdin

GOP is the Guilt of Persona

2006-10-05T00:12:00.000-04:00

In 2004 there was a minor hubbub concerning the Florida Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Senator Bob Graham. Mark Foley was THE candidate for the Senate however he dropped his bid early on, the 2004 elections were over, and Mel Martinez was the victor.

The hubub was not so much over Foley's political views (which by the way are more moderate than your modern day Santorum morality slinging neo-conservative), but over his sexuality. Florida newspapers badgered him with questions, he blamed the democrats for directing this against him, but in the end he responded that the sexuality inquiries were "revolting and unforgivable". I would not go so far as to say they are revolting, but the essence of what he was trying to say was well intentioned; his sexuality should have no effect on his ability to be a public servant. If anything his sexuality may have given a more intimate, well informed view of the needs of his constituents as he had been a long time advocate of LGBT issues.

In the era of Karl Rove, your moral compass no longer matters. One of Foley's main competitors in the 2004 Senate race was Mel Martinez who would eventually be groomed by Rove and win the seat. If you followed Martinez history you would see him as the type of rags to riches story that the GOP loves to peddle off as a success of trickle down economics. Sent to America from Cuba by his parents, he rose to become the Mayor of Orlando and a prominent trial lawyer especially active against tort reform.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/florida_senate_race/index_np.html

If you want to win, you have to sell your soul, your message becomes a message pre-concocted in a formula that is nearly guaranteed to win as long as you follow the play book. It is a strategy sans morality and all about getting the prize. Martinez was chosen for his background and his story, after which everything was abandoned and Mel became a mouth-piece for a no-fail strategy. Martinez called his competition out, his campaigned rallied against Bill McCollum, labeling him "the new darling of the homosexual extremists." for supporting a bill against hate crimes.

When you wake up in the morning and you have said these things or sanctioned them, how do you look yourself in the mirror and live with yourself? In the end the St. Petersburg times newspaper withdrew their support for him, Bill McCollum looked like he was going to strangle someone during their debate, and Jeb Bush had to shake his head in disgust and tell Martinez to stop. Martinez blamed the anti-homosexual flyers on his staff, and one chief staffer blamed it on a junior staffer. As you would expect, nobody knows who was fired and nobody was willing to be held accountable. What is surprising... but also not very surprising at the same time, is that two prominent members of Martinez's staff at the time were gay. As with everything, the gay bashing was a one man operation that everyone can claim to be unaware of, no one took a stand, not even those that it affected the most and in the closest proximity.

Perhaps times change and so do people. As we return to Mark Foley, the once pro-gay rights congressman, we notice that Foley voted for (and passed) legislation allowing faith-based groups to throw anti-discrimination laws out the window. Foley was lucky at the time that Katherine Harris (who proudly states our constitution is directly based on the 10 Commandments) and Rick Santorum (who equated that homosexual acts between consenting adults is on par with bestiality, bigamy, adultery, and incest) are not in control of the US Government as they would most likely label it as a faith-based group and outlaw homosexuals from it.

That brings us to the Mark Foley of October 2006. The Mark Foley who is about to be under investigation for pedophilia, wrote lewd emails to congressional pages and had cyber sex with them at times before congressional votes; the Mark Foley who is the shame of his party and of his peers. I honestly feel bad for former congressman Foley. Here was a man that liked young boys, while ironically being a champion for the drive against child pornography and child exploitation. His whole world has fallen apart. While in typical fashion the apology given was not for his misdeeds but other things. His lawyer lets us know that he has checked himself into rehabilitation, was abused by a clergyman, and is a gay man.

While Foley was right when he said that his sexual orientation should not affect his ability to serve our nation, he is very much in the wrong in moving the conversation from what is wrong with him to what is wrong with the world around him. He is doing a disservice to the gay population at large by outing himself alongside a string of apologies. We are left with the impression, not that he was a pedophile, but that regardless of politics, gays are a danger to our impressionable children. This was not the message that should have been sent to the world, he's done everyone a disservice.

Joementum Sputters

2006-09-30T22:42:00.000-04:00

The voters of Connecticut chose Ned Lamont to represent them in the Senate race of 2006. Despite years of service to the state, voters felt that the cozy relationship between Lieberman and the Bush administration was not what they were looking for. Again, like his Presidential candidacy, he came up short, tied for last place. All he really needs is some Joementum, right? Now he feels that his fellow politicians spited him by supporting Lamont after Lamont won the nomination.

"I'm talking specifically about Chris Dodd, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, people like that, none of whom are supporting your campaign," Simon asked. "How do you feel about that? And will you be able to forgive them?

"Oh, I'll forgive them. I probably won't forget, to tell you the truth," Lieberman replied. "And, you know, this is politics. And it's been disappointing."

I don't quite understand why Lieberman says he won't forget, as if he was screwed by Dodd, Gore, Kennedy, the Democratic party. He lost, people don't support a loser. It is curious why Lieberman didn't petition to remain the democratic candidate for president when Kerry won after coming in a unrespectable tie for fourth place. Let it go Joe, let democracy continue without impediment.

Wasting Time

2006-09-23T14:22:00.000-04:00

For your typical off the shelf political conservative, there are a number of issues that really get their heart rate up and make them red in the face. Some of them are obvious, abortion, the “vast left wing media conspiracy”, national defense; others are not as prominent but continue to have a vocal backing that will make your head spin if you even begin to argue to the contrary. We have such an issue in global warming.

Why are members of the conservative movement so adamant that global warming does not exist? When I have written about global warming in the past, amongst the negative replies there is a common theme, the costs we would incur pursuing an imaginary specter are wasteful. Such environmental causes are said to be political scare tactics to drum up support for the base during election years and the factual basis of events like global warming are proclaimed by these online experts as being non-existent. As there are a number of issues that we can safely say are conservatives’ bread and butter issues, similarly there are groups of people and their causes that result in a knee jerk reaction. Conservative claims that global warming warnings are counter-factual seems to me to be a result of not an analysis of fact, but a reaction to environmentalism. No doubt there are many conservatives that are interested in the preservation of the environment, but there is no doubt that the large part of American legislation that is decidedly not pro-environment has been a product of the Bush administration. Perhaps when I pigeon hole global warming as a conservative hot button topic, I should clarify it as a conservative, Bush administration supporter topic. It is telling that even magazines like Field and Stream, have published an increasing number of editorials critical of the Bush administration’s environmental policy. It is difficult to avoid cringing at the environmental record, especially when the President attempts to end the Clean Water Act and touts a net wetland loss of zero (a 523,000 acre loss of natural wetland is offset by golf course water hazards).

“Rod and gun in hand, and backing the Second Amendment right to own firearms, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have won the hearts of America’s sportsmen. Yet the two men have failed to protect outdoor sports on the nation’s public lands.”- October 2003

College Republican leaders such as Columbia University’s Chris Kulawik note that global warming is “a great debate for our generation”; a debate that once it finally begins may be too late. My sort of thinking is often dismissed as “alarmist”, but when one is confronted by fact it is hard to react like former Vice-President Gore and demand immediate change. Fact however is a funny thing; while fact exists, it can be interpreted to serve either side of the argument. Since the 19th century, the earth has experienced a 0.6º C increase (a little over 1º F). This amount may seem inconsequential, but as you can observe in the environment around you, there have been profound effects including an exponential decrease in glacial thickness, increased droughts in Africa, and increases in natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes. Critics are quick to point out that our current temperature increase is part of a natural cycle of heating and cooling. However the point that they fail to miss is that, although they are correct in saying that historically earth has experienced a cyclical hundred thousand year period of rising and falling temperature, that data was based on a static amount of CO2 that varied between 200 and 270 ppmv during the low and high temperature variation periods, respectively.

We are not living in a time when we can use prehistoric carbon dioxide levels to predict climate change for we are not living in the same conditions. Since the Industrial Revolution we have been steadily increasing our CO2 output to the point where we stand at ~ 370 ppmv which is a 137% increase. Do we have data that we can rely on that will predict climate change with such an increase in CO2? Unfortunately we do not.

Earth’s orbit is not circular but elliptical. The eccentricity of orbit causes a variation of the sunlight that reaches earth; this event known as Milankovitch Cycles has a period of about 100,000 years. This seems to match up very well with the earth’s heating and cooling cycles. As we will undoubtedly encounter another cold period, where presumably the glaciers will begin to reform, the burning questions exist in the immediacy of now. Glacial observations have shown us that every year our glaciers are melting and breaking off at a rate far greater than we had predicted; large chunks of Greenland have disappeared and Antarctica is showing similar behavior. It is indisputable that glacial melting will create an increase in the amount of water in our oceans as well as a change in the composition of it (fresh water vs. salt water). The effects of increased freshwater is hypothetical as of now, but the predicted effects are not for the best.

Human beings are quite obviously the cause of carbon dioxide increases and we are quite obviously experiencing increases in temperature. It is irrelevant that temperature change and climate are affected by Milankovitch Cycles, as the earth will operate on its own scale of time. Earth will eventually cool itself as its orbit pushes it farther from the sun, but that cooling period is hundreds if not thousands of years in the distance. However earth is currently heating up and our topography is being radically altered. If Hurricane Katrina showed us anything, it was that we need to be prepared for the worst. Without a global effort, one that includes the United States, advancements in technology and society will continue to drive the demand for fossil fuels; CO2 output will continue to increase, temperatures will continue to increase. While one degree Fahrenheit seems insignificant, one degree could dictate whether a glacier stays frozen or melts into the ocean.

Refusal to take action now jeopardizes the human race. There is no reason why we should not take preventative measures to ensure that global warming does not become the reality that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth foresees. In another ten thousand years the earth will return to normalcy, who will be the one accountable for allowing the human population to be engulfed by a statistical deviation in temperature?

9/11.

2006-09-12T00:27:00.000-04:00

I parked my car in our dusty unpaved school parking lot and walked through the field to pre-calculus. After I stepped into the door of my first period class and sat down, none of us moved for the rest of the day. I sat on the floor for the next three, it seemed like forever, hours; unable to look away from the television. Nobody could have imagined planes colliding with the World Trade Center towers, the horror of desperate men and women hurling themselves out of windows hoping for a miracle or a quicker means to an inevitable finale. Even then it hadn't sunk in that that day would be a day I would remember forever.

Earlier in my highschool career we were tasked with writing a history essay employing only primary sources. I had interviewed one of my mom's co-workers who recounted to me living through World War II and the fear they had felt as his family had gathered around the tv watching and waiting as President Kennedy navigated the Bay of Pigs invasion. I didn't occur to me until a few years ago that those were defining moments in history, events that shaped modern society, events that a generation had the tragic privilege of living through. At this point, I think there are very few people who do not have a story about where they were on September 11th, 2001. It is not because the Bush administration repeats that that was the date where his outlook on the presidency changed, admonishes those who haven't "adjusted to a new paradigm of the world", but simply because it was a national tragedy that reached everyone's heart from the left coast to the Atlantic.

That following year I made the decision to accept my enrollment to Columbia University in New York City. At our commencement address only four months ago, President Bollinger said of our enrollment decision as being, "difficult not just because picking a college is a big decision, but for a far more momentous reason: you were among the first group of college students to arrive in New York after September 11. Your choice, in the aftermath of the attacks, must have seemed risky. But in choosing this city, at a time of such upheaval, you sent a very clear message. You said, in effect, "I want my education to be in and of the world."

In a way it was terrifying to be away from home in the most important city in the world. It was a city that was known for indifference to its inhabitants, a city where everyone could be somebody and everyone could be nobody; it was a city in which I knew no one (I do believe now that New Yorkers are amongst the best people I have ever met in my life, in no way deserving the cold reputation that they are attributed with). At the end of my stay at Columbia, I left with a sense that there is much to be done in the world and many injustices to be fought against. I had my eyes opened to the best that the world had to offer and the very worst that is at times present in the best. September 11, 2001 did not fundamentally change me as a person, I had no shining light moment telling me to live each day like my last or to dedicate myself to humanitarian causes, or even that the Apocalypse was approaching. It did hasten my realization that we as inhabitants of this planet can do much better and that accountability always comes full circle.

"When we look at the modern man we have to face the fact that the modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of the spirit, which stands in glaring contrast to his scientific and technological abundance, we have learned to fly the air like birds, we have learned to swim the seas like fish, and yet we have not learned to walk the earth as brothers and sisters." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

The Path to 9/11

2006-09-10T21:06:00.000-04:00

Tonight ABC began it's 2-part mini series looking back at 9/11, bringing viewers "behind closed doors at the CIA, the FBI and the White House and into the world of Richard Clarke, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Sandy Berger and CIA Director Richard Tenet". This is however not a documentary and has been filed under "docu-drama". "Docu-drama" apparently is another termed used to describe a historically based film where the writer and producers were able to take liberties fabricating history.

Now "The Path to 9/11" is advertised as having Governor Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, as the senior consultant. One would expect that such a film would be honest and try to represent the facts as clearly and undistorted as possible; writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, even said that he was trying to preserve the tone of the 9/11 Commission's report. What then do Governor Kean and Nowrasteh know that the rest of us do not? ABC's series frames the path to 9/11 as centering around the failings on the Clinton administration, claiming that the administration and intelligence agencies had numerous opportunities to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden but failed to do so for reasons of politics and logistics.

The Clinton administration did not have superior intelligence agencies to that which was on hand for President George W. Bush, the problems existing with inter-agency communication was then as much of a problem as it is now, but to frame the blame on President Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and Sandy Berger is ridiculous. By not labeling the series as a documentary, they are able to get away with a lot while still delivering a powerful message to the American public. There is and never has been any evidence that our military, covert agents, etc. were ever in a position to get Bin Laden. "CIA agents weren't on the ground, they weren't with Massoud, nobody had bin Laden in their grasp, and Berger never refused to give the order to get the guy."

The outrage over this film is extremely vocal. Inaccuracies from this film are tantamount to libel, it is outrageous how much blame is placed upon Berger and Albright. It is one thing if it was historically accurate, it is another to fabricate it for dramatic effect; however this is not just for dramatic effect as hesitation on Clinton's national security team's part is the crux of the plot.

Many have spoken out, including Albright and Berger, 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben Veniste (Chief of Watergate Task Force), a slew of top university historians, friends of agent John O'Neill, the FBI agents who left their advisory positions on the series citing gross inaccuracies and unwillingness of the producers to alter the script, a lot of conservative pundits including (suprisingly) Chris Wallace and Bill O'Reilly. What do Keane and Nowrasteh know that everyone else does not?

This film is particularly outrageous because of the position that 9/11 holds in the American psyche. Many events are still unclear and many widows, friends and family are still seeking closure and for ABC to air a "docu-drama" that is riddled with inaccuracy is hurtful to everyone. It is entirely possible that this film be taken as a factual reference point that serves as the majority of America's recollection of the September 11, 2001. For that reason it should have been important to the producers, writer, and ABC that historical accuracy be well maintained and that fictional dramatic liberty be held to areas of the inconsequential. However, it is not surprising that this has occurred as writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, was a member of the panel: "How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood's Next Paradigm Shift". I hope America pays attention and does not let the wool cover their eyes to what is the truth and what is not.

uh oh!

2006-08-27T22:57:00.000-04:00

That's just great, hurricane heading right for me. Duck and cover!

rethinking the paradigm?

2006-08-20T23:10:00.000-04:00

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1854305,00.html
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/18/steorn-inventors-of-infinite-energy-destroyers-of-laws-of-ther/
http://www.steorn.net/en/technology.aspx?p=5Irish company Steorn claims they have developed a method of using the interaction between magnets to produce energy. This energy is "free and unlimited", a statement that flies in the face of accepted modern physics. Could it be that we are violating conservation of energy or are we using a fundamentally flawed paradigm about energy creation? Perhaps we aren't creating energy out of thin air but rather converting energy from one form to another by means of a perfectly efficient transfer method.

Steorn has challenged academics to verify their findings and well... if no flaw is found we could be living in a drastically different world. This is beyond an energy dependence problem where the US and China are consuming increasingly huge amounts of energy, this could change the balance of international wealth. I can see the countries that stand to lose from a discovery like this is those middle eastern economies that are entirely oil dependent. Middle eastern nations like Saudi Arabia have long been warned that their dependence on oil exports was a flawed policy, one that would doom them when their oil reserves ran dry. Oil reserves running out is a outcome that can be prepared for, a change in sources of energy could render their presence obsolete. Can you imagine the social unrest caused by rapid economic change? Terrifying.

Israel Overkill

2006-08-13T17:15:00.000-04:00

WWII suicide bombers and modern day Arab suicide bombers are worlds apart. What sets them apart is that Arab terrorists have been successful and they have a community that believes they are making a noble sacrifice. I don't think you're going to see any extremist Muslim deciding that his/her suicide bombing is ineffective; every life they take is supposed to be some sort of statement to the world that they will attempt to win at any cost.

While I'm sure members of the IDF and Israel are not proud of killing civilians and mourn to some degree, I have to think that most take the stance that you do (edit: this was a blog comment response to Matt Rutta), that it is an accident when civilians are killed but that is a by-product of war.

What troubles me is that it really isn't an accident. Israel knows full well that the areas that they bomb are heavily populated and that the civilian death toll will be high. Yes, Hezbollah does use "human shields" if you mean attacking from public spaces and they are endangering their own people. However, Israel being the obviously stronger party in the mix might take care to notice that their campaign against Hezbollah has resulted in the deaths of about 50 Hezbollah guerrillas, ~ 20 Lebanese soldiers, and 700+ and growing civilian deaths.

At this point calling this an accident is becoming a joke, regardless of how Hezbollah chooses to wage war; Israel is supposed to be better than this. Carpet bombings leveling entire towns and the use of white phosphorous is overkill. At this point if you can justify the staggering accidental deaths of civilians as a unfortunate product of war and the leveling of cities because guerrillas are launching rockets from the centers of towns, you might as well completely destroy Lebanon if that is your mentality. From their justification, what is sparing anyone in Lebanon? Guilty by geographic proximity.

i was used!

2006-08-08T21:33:00.000-04:00

My job has been great, keeps me mentally stimulated, exciting to work on new products, and best of all the people are really friendly.

I am always a great judge of character, I should have known there was something wrong when I first met one of my co-workers. I had originally gone out to lunch with him back when I was "the new guy". He had all sorts of life advice for me; own your own business, make residual income, maybe use my Columbia education to write a book about how I've been "successful" through my life, and he leveraged it with his worry about his own job. It is true that Motorola has laid-off a number of people in the past few years and job security is not what it used to be. I completely felt bad for him, late 40s, wife, kids, what do you do if you lose your job? Can you uproot them to find a new one?

Yesterday he had arranged a lunch meeting with me for this afternoon, I should have noticed when he was trying to be secretive about it, but I thought he just wanted to impart more life advice on me. I went home and I was worried that he was trying to steal company secrets and I would have to report him and I was even paranoid that he was desperate enough to kidnap me. My other co-worker brought up a good point today, who would kidnap me? I couldn't even be sold as some sort of exotic sex worker. You don't kidnap asian males to be sex workers, let's be honest.

So today I was worried. I pushed it out of my head and figured he just wanted to sit down and have lunch and talk about life. That's when all the cards fell. Lunch location: Denny's. The second I stepped in, I met another employee that was recruited for the same purpose as me and I was faced with our recruiter and his business partner. No conflict on interest, it was nonetheless stupid. He had brought me there to have him and his partner give me a presentation on "distributed networking" or you may know it as "multi-level marketing" for a vitamin company. Apparently Forbes named them the #3 small business last year and have been rather successful. However successful, it was obvious that it was just a corporate-ized pyramid scheme.

I'm no idiot and honestly, I felt my intelligence was insulted. I know when people are setting up a story and dropping words and details they want me to hear.

"Hi, good to see you, I just got back from a resort vacation with my kids".

"Be ambitious, do you want to continue working in a traditional linear system where you get paid little for your work or do you want to want to make money on your effort and the effort of your peers"

"This 3rd party analyst who wrote this book so and so said that this industry is poised to make trillions by 2010"

"What are you passionate about? I'm passionate about world health, curing AIDS, affordable healthcare, but i'm also passionate about Maybachs, Cartier, and money".

"You can make $50,000 every week, I'm 42 and retired".

I'm sure, that lucky 2% of people, and those people who got in early are making a lot of money. I'm not so jaded to think that I can come in, with the little time that I do have after work and make a fortune on the side. I told them, "do you see how long it's been and I am unconvinced about your business model, your product, your approach to marketing and your pitch, how exactly do you expect me to make this pitch to my friends?; the money is getting people to believe you."

Usana vitamins and skincare products, not worth my time. I am just angry because not only did he waste my time when I could have been eating lunch (I didn't eat lunch today!@!&^&^%!) when he had told me I was there for a different reason, he tried to get me in on his sob story of life unfulfilled to give him an in to recruiting me for this. To top it off, I told my friends at work what happened and apparently he had done it before, albeit with a different approach. Completely innapropriate for the work environment. Desperation makes people dicks.

back and forth with zionism part 3

2006-08-04T00:50:00.000-04:00

anonymous @ Yeshiva:

In any case, with all due respect, I think you need to check your facts. Nearly a million Sephardic Jews were kicked out of Arab lands in 1948 -- their assets, worth billions of dollars were stolen from them by these Arab countries. This was not "10,000 per year" immigrating to Israel on their own volition -- it was mass expulsion of Jews from Arab countries. The reason you don't hear about this so much today is that Israel almost immediately absorbed all of these people into the country (though they were treated very poorly by the Ashkenazi Jews in Israel at the time). In contrast, about 600,000 Arabs left or fled Israel in 1948. The reason I say left or fled is that while some were in fact kicked out of their homes, many of them left on their own volition, prompted by their leaders who told them they would return in triumphant victory once the Jews were annihilated (Azzam Pasham, head of the Arab League at the time, compared what the Arabs intended to do to the Jews to the the Mongol massacres.) All of this is documented so you don't have to take my word for it.

Also in contrast to the Sephardic Jews, the Palestinian Arabs were not absorbed into any of the Arabs' 22 countries and have been kept as "refugees" by these countries, with the help of UNRWA of course, for all these years. These people are being used as pawns in the Arabs' struggle to destroy the Jewish state. It is a political and PR tactic that thus far has been working quite effectively. This is unfortunate both for Israel and for these Palestinian Arabs.

"Palestine" was recognized as the Jewish homeland for thousands of years by the entire world, even when the Jews did not control it. Except for the short-lived Crusader kingdoms, only the Jews had a nation in Palestine (on both sides of the Jordan River). These areas were conquered by others, but always they were part of larger empires. For example, under the Ottoman Turkish Empire (from 1517 to 1917), Samaria and Gaza were Districts and Judea was a Sub-District of the Empire.

In any case, the Palestinian Arabs were not an indigenous nation. They have no legal claim to the land. On the other hand, the Jewish people's historical claim to the land was recognized and affirmed by international law in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. In short, it was never "their(the Arabs'_ country," as you claimed in your argument. International law provided for the reestablishment of the "Jewish national home" in Palestine (all of Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River). However, the British in 1922 "suspended or withheld" the Jewish right to settle and set up their national home in Eastern Palestine -- 78% of the land that was supposed to be the Jewish national home. In 1946, the British flat out lied to the UN, claiming this land was under a separate mandate (which it was not), and thereby established the Kingdom of Jordan -- which is a Palestinian Arab state. The Jewish people were left with only 22% of Palestine, and even that the Arabs want to shrink further (Israel is roughly the size of the state of New Jersey, just to put things into perspective. The Arab countries are over 500 times Israel's size and they want Israel to cede more territory which legally belongs to it).

The claims that this is a conflict about Palestinian Arab statehood are completely bogus. The Palestinian Arabs were offered another state in 1937, in 1947, in 1999, in 2000, etc. Each time they turned it down and renewed their attacks on Israel because they simply want the Jewish state wiped out (Hamas and the PLO says this outright in their charters btw). The attacks against Jews did not start in 1948 -- Arabs massacred Jews throughout the 1920s and 1930s in Palestine (e.g. the Hebron massacre in 1929). I guess it must have been because of the "occupied territories" that Israel liberated in 1967. And the war of annihilation in 1948 and the creation of the PLO (dedicated to armed struggle to liquidate the Jews) in 1964 -- all that was because of the lands Israel won in 1967 right? The fact of the matter is, if the Arabs had not started the wars to annihilate Israel, no Arabs would have been kicked out of the land.

As for Zionism harming the livelihood of the Palestinian Arabs, in fact the exact opposite is true. With increased Jewish immigration, the land which was previously a barren, desolate wasteland, began to thrive. Living standards of Arabs living in these areas rose substantially with Jewish immigration, and in fact, many of these Arabs actually only moved there for this very reason in the decades immediately preceding the establishment of the Jewish state.

I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make with the Golda Meir quote -- I believe the quote you gave just reiterates what I said before. The Palestinian Arabs were part of the Arab nation, or part of Syria (at least according to all their leaders from the early 1900's until about 1967), not a distinct nation. Golda Meir was merely stating a fact. There was no such people. Most of the Arabs living in Western Palestine when Israel was created left on their own accord, as I said before. Some were displaced, as happens in pretty much every war. Others chose to stay and when Israel was established, they were offered full citizenship in the country. Those who accepted it did in fact become full citizens with full voting rights in the new democratic state that was established. Today, Arabs serve in high position in the Israeli judiciary and government. Ten Arabs currently serve in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament).

I have not even touched upon the religious claims the Jewish people have to the Land of Israel -- I am an Orthodox Jew and believe in them fully. Needless to say they are well-known and do not need to be restated here. If you do not believe in the Bible or Torah, then my other arguments based on history and international law should suffice to establish the Jewish claim to the land. But yes, if you are so bold as to presume to know what Judaism has to say on something, you damn well better have studied Judaism. Hence my question which yeshiva you studied at. Judging by your non-response, I take it the answer is that you have not studied in a yeshiva at all-- it therefore demonstrates profound chutzpah on your part to tell us all what Judaism says. I for one have been studying Judaism my whole life (since it is such an integral part of my life), so when I venture to speak in the name of Judaism, I am prepared to back up my claims. It is a free country and you can comment on whatever you like, but my advice is stick to commenting on issues you know something about.

The Palestinian Arabs are people, though the majority of them support terrorist animals like Hamas and the PLO, (who are, incidentally, the ones who dehumanize and embrace the death of their "opposition."). They are not however, entitled to a state in Western Palestine in any way -- historically or legally. Furthermore, at this point in time, giving them a state next to Israel would only create another existential threat to the Jewish state (as evidenced by their election of Hamas, their mass smuggling of weapons, their inciteful media propaganda, etc.) by creating a terrorist state on Israel's border. So the point would be moot even if you were to claim that since 1967 a new nation was suddenly created.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response:

You are right, I did not study at a yeshiva. Suprise suprise. I ask you though, being an Orthodox Jew, does the Talmud not say that a Jewish state may not exist through human means until the coming of the Moshiach? Did Israel not gain recognition through much blood shed and terrorism and has the Moshiach arrived? Feel free to enlighten me.

History is meaningless without any context, so it is best that we frame it in what was happening at the time. The 1900s and even earlier had strong sentiments of anti-semitism and the jews were forced by the Spanish, Portuguese, French, etc. from their countries and Arab nations took in many refugees. Let's not pretend like Jews were treated fairly in the Arab countries, they lived in ghettos, but at the time, at least they had a place to live. Towards 1948 Jewish immigration had increased following the end of the war and the Jews were pushed out of the countries for 2 reasons.

1. Some Arab nationalist leaders were pro-Nazi and carried anti-semitic sentiment and wanted to get rid of the jews.

2. Increasing immigration into the Arab countries after the Jews were forced by anti-semitism in Europe caused increasing social instability between the Jews and the Arabs. This is not exactly unexpected, huge immigration is never met with open arms.

Palestinian Arabs were not hostile to initial Jewish immigration, BUT the Jews having no other recourse due to anti-semitism all fled to Palestine. Rapid immigration.

The Jewish expulsion was about 900,000 and is an aggregate of all Arab countries with jews residing with them. The number you gave of 600,000 is the Israeli gov't figure on Palestinians leaving the area that would become Israel. The UN marks that number at 700,000 and the Palestinians mark it at 900,000. Compensating that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders are trying to evoke sympathy for their cause, the numbers are not disimilar. Let's keep in mind that it was 900,000 Jews from Arab countries, and almost the same amount of Palestinians were forced from Israel (ONLY ISRAEL).

Your argument that Israel had a NATION and when Arabs controlled the land the disputed land was only a territory/district is a bit of semantics. The issue is not the governmental structure, it is the people who inhabited the land. I think you would find it hard to argue that during Ottoman rule, there was a large majority of Arabs residing in Palestine. It doesn't matter that there was no grand concept of nationhood by those residing in Arab Palestine, the Arabs lived there and layed their roots there. Such is my argument that Israel's claim to the land is no different from that of the Palestinians... historically that is.

I find it hard to believe your claim that while there was a civil war in Palestine in 1948 between the Jews and Arabs that the overwhelming majority (at least in the earlier years of Jewish immigration) just decided to get up and leave. It makes no logical sense why they would leave on their own accord. You simplify it to the point where it seems like people happily left, it is of record that most left Palestine because of forced expulsion or fear of further violence upon their families. Your argument is like saying that the Jews that fled Germany during the Nazi regime, left of their own accord under no threat. And what is emphasized in the Golda Meir quote is her advocacy of "throwing them out and taking their country", them being the Palestinians; this is Golda Meir describing the Jews entering Palestine and kicking the Palestinians out. What is difficult to understand about that quote? Others stayed in Israel, bc part of the Palestinian leadership urged them to stay. Other Palestinian leaders took credit for the leaving of Palestine as a way of saving face and pride from being forced out of a country that they had for years been the majority.

In another instance of your misreading my post or misunderstanding, I did not ask you if Zionism hurt the livelihood of Palestinian Arabs. Zionism led to mass immigration into Palestine, in fact just as you stated about the Palestinians, most Jews in the early 20th century did not want an Jewish state as they believed that that was not the path that Judaism had called for them. This is before the spread and popularism of Zionism. What I asked you was, since you legitimitely deny that there is a Palestinian state, if the popularism of a Palestinian national identity is a direct product of zionism and its pushing out of Arabs from the country they resided in. Did Zionism (Jewish national identity) not rise out of anti-semitism and their being pushed out of their homes? Do we not see the parallels?

From all of your study of Judaism and Israel, you still are able to paint a rosy picture of Israel and its fine moral grounding and label the British as liars and Israel as being cheated. Let us not forget that Israel's creation is grounded in the Zionist led immigration into Palestine leading to social unrest and the Arabs to start a war. Zionsim turned a majority's land into one that did not represent its culture, religion, and all disruption that a short period of radical social transformation leads to (100,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine in the 1920s ALONE). Israel with its larger numbers from immigration overwhelmed the Palestinian Arabs and despite whatever sunshiny emnigration you think happened, caused the Palestinians to lead en masse in fear of their lives and that of their families.

What was their to fear? Israel was won through force, military force and that of terrorism that it now screams foul at the Palestinians for. Zionist violence and terrorism of Irgun and Lehi are no historical mystery or unknown. They attacked the UN, they attacked the British, they attacked the Palestinians. Hundreds of Palestinian women and children were killed in their village by Irgun at the Deir Yassin massacre. To say that the British was unfair in their distribution of land is ironic.

No Israel is not entirely or in the majority at fault, but the untainted image of Israel that you try and present is not indicative of historical context and paints the Palestinians as wild inhumane misguided zealots. It is suprising as, at least for me, the examination of history increasingly leads to parallels between recent Palestinian nationalism and the Jews' 20th century pursuit of legitimacy and statehood. The Jews should understand the Palestinian dilemma better than anyone else, though most on this board continue to preach a one sided explanation of the middle east crisis.

I do not question the legitimacy of Israel, but I do point to Israel as the catalyst for the existence of Hamas and Hizbullah, however misguided those two organizations are in their tactics.

back and forth with zionism part 2

2006-08-01T01:58:00.000-04:00

my words from facebook thread w/ an undergraduate (who has asked me to remove his identity from this post) at Yeshiva's replies. Interesting conversation, but can you tell who is entirely one sided? I'll give you a guess, I don't think it's me.

Stephen Wang:
I support Israel's current campaign against Hezbollah, in so much as if Hezbollah (and Hamas for that matter) want to promote themselves as worthy governments that are supportive of their peoples they should not be participating in kidnapping and indiscriminant missile firing. Israel has no choice but to fight back and target Hezbollah, lest this struggle continue tit for tat.

However. I am disgusted by many of the views in this thread regarding the Palestinian people. Palestine and Israel, in their desires for legitimacy are not much different, it is wrong to lump all Palestinians into the same box and to label them as the problem. It doesn't seem like anybody wants to actually debate as witnessed by Ahmed's posted email. By the way, it is wrong to post a private message without the other parties explicity permission, I don't understand how you can rant about respect and such things while expressing none yourself.

Pro-Israel advocates like Jaclyn seem to forget... or not know Israeli history. Jaclyn equates the Palestinians as a group that enters your dorm, takes advantage of your hospitality and tries to take your room from you. This is clearly a over simplication and misleading metaphor. Ahmed tried to clarify to you, however you did not respond, probably because you did not care to.

Ahmed's reasoning concerned Israel's legitimacy and Palestinian's losing their land. To Jaclyn, this matters not because Israel's legitimacy is taken as a given. It is a shame when people do not know or care about actual facts and then touts their going to Oxford when they are 16 (who cares?).

The fact is this. Israel exists because of a chain of favorable events, nothing to do with Biblical prophecy or land ownership. Come to think of it, if you read the Bible, you will see that the Israelis were cast from Israel and there has been no signal that they are entitled to Israel at this time. The Ottoman's lost WWI and the Jewish immigration into the area increased (the Ottoman's allowed small numbers of settlers into the land known now as Palestine). After WWII the land was again divided by the British to the Jewish people after the Jewish terrorist groups attacked them and occupied the area. There was a resolution to give the land to the Jewish people and establish the state of Israel. Public sentiment after WWII was extremely favorable to the Jewish people (as it should have been) and bolstered their case for the creation of a Jewish state.

The Palestinians DID occupy those lands that are now Israel. Borders change in times of war and it is understandable. However the Palestinians were displaced following the creation of Israel and it is not difficult to see how they believe the land is/was theirs and should be taken back. Israelis should recognize this struggle as there was a time when there was no land for the Jewish people and they were people without a home.

It is sad that people like Jaclyn in her support for Israel must hate and identify anything other than her views as propaganda and lies. Hate was not something I learned at school.

-------------------------------------------------------------
anonymous @ Yeshiva:

Blah blah blah. Are you done yet? Allow me to sum up your little "mind-numbing" argument: Israel has no right to exist. Terrorism is justified.

That about it?

Now here's a key difference between Israel and the so-called "Palestinians" -- the majority of Israelis voted in left-wing parties (Labor, Kadimah) dedicated to giving away more land (and kicking more Jews out of their homes) for the prospect of peace. The so-called "Palestinians" voted in Hamas, the majority of them support kidnapping Israeli soldiers and firing missiles at Israel. I think that's a pretty huge difference.

Israel's right to exist is not up for debate. It exists and is not going anywhere. The Jews have returned to their homeland -- we not only have the historical and religious claim to the land, but we the legal right to western Palestine -- Israel -- as well (please see the Mandate for Palestine).

As for the so-called "Palestinian people," there is no such thing. It's about time we started calling a spade a spade here. They are Arabs, part of the Arab nation, living in what was once the geographical region called Palestine. Every Jordanian is a Palestinian Arab just as every Jewish Israeli is a Palestinian Jew. Until about 1967, there was no mention of any "Palestinian nation" -- most Palestinian Arabs rejected this idea, claiming it was an invention of the "Zionists" and that they were part of either Syria or the Arab nation. In fact, the Jews were known as "Palestinians" before that -- hence the Jerusalem Post was once called the "Palestine Post," and the Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra was created by the Zionist Jews.

There is no such thing as Palestine, inasmuch as it denotes a distinct nation or a sovereign state (which never existed). Palestine was the name given to the Jewish state by Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 CE (after he crushed the Bar Kochva Revolt) in order to humiliate the Jews (he named it after the biblical enemies of the Jewish people -- the Plishtim, or Philistines). Just imagine, if Hadrian had not decided to rename Judea to Palestina, and on every map throughout the ages and throughout the various empires it said "Judea." Would we now be fighting the Judean terrorists?

To quote Golda Meir: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian Arab nation . . . Palestine is a name the Romans gave to Eretz Yisrael with the express purpose of infuriating the Jews . . . . Why should we use the spiteful name meant to humiliate us?

"The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity."

So why the myth of a Palestinian people?

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
--Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977 and Pakistan Today.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Wang <---- that's me!

You are absolutely ridiculous. It really bugs me when people formulate a summary in their heads about what they are reading without actually reading. I was not questioning Israel's legitimacy as a nation nor was I justifying terrorism. However you took it upon yourself to quote the zionist 'why palestine sucks' guidebook word for word and lump me into the anti-Israel crowd, that was big of you.

My point was that the land that everyone wants to be theres has changed hands repeatedly throughout history. As anglos were not the first to inhabit America, the jewish peoples were not the first to inhabit the area known as Palestine; it was the Philistines.

Let's not use the Old Testament as a proof of legitimacy; yes God said that he promised the land to the Israelites but it also said God himself would bring the Israelites out of their exile. What do you know, that hasn't happened yet. The religious foundations are best left alone. Zionism is an invention void of religious context, in fact it is founded in Theodore Herzl, who began Zionism as a path to escape anti-semitism.

Historical foundations are not much better. The land went from the Philistines to the Israelites to the Romans to the Muslims and Ottomans. Each group had boundaries established as well as a functioning ruler and governmental system. You are saying that Palestine has no right to exist because there is no such thing as a Palestinian in the way that there are Israelis. This is a game of semantics that you are playing though. Reduce the names to Arabs and the Israelites. Both historically had claim to the geographic region of Palestine and both lost it. It is only natural for both groups to take what they lost back. Israelites won the land from the Philistines the same way that the Arabs won the land from the Romans.

If there are no Palestinians there are no Israelis. We can refer to them as Arabs if you like, encompassing the Syrians, etc., just in the same way the Jewish people were scattered throughout the middle east and eastern europe. The Israelites did not originate in "palestine" any differently from Arabs that originated there. Do not mistaken biblical reference to "children of Israel" as that is a reference to Jacob. Jewish culture grew from its roots in Israel, is it no different that Arab culture reached its pinnacle of greatness from the same location.

Terrorism is terrible and woe unto those that use it, let's not forget though that at its root this is a struggle for reconquest of a land that was lost. Yes Hamas and Hezbollah engage in terrorist activities and they are wrong to do so. But because they engage in those activities does not subscribe their entire population to the same beliefs just because they were democratically elected. Those groups are the only ones that have demonstrated action on the humanitarian front for their people. And also let us not forget that it was the Muslims and the Arabs which allowed the Jewish peoples into their lands to take refuge as they were being persecuted by the Christians and the Romans.
--------------------------------------------------------------
anonymous @ Yeshiva:
I don't know what to correct first -- your gross distortion of history or of Judaism. I love it how you presume to tell us all what Judaism has to say on the issue of Eretz Yisrael. I was wondering, which yeshiva did you study at?

The "Zionist 'Why Palestine sucks' guidebook" huh? Where can I find me one of those? :)

The Philistines were not the original inhabitants of Israel. The Jews conquered the land from the Canaanites. The Philistines occupied 5 cities on the coast of the Jewish state. They have no connection to any Palestinian Arab, save for a similar name (thanks to the Romans and some clever PR by the Arab world after 1967)

In any case, the Jewish people's religious claims to the Land of Israel are very strong, and they do not need to be left out of any discussion. Zionism did not begin with Theodore Herzl. For over 2,000 years Jews have prayed thrice daily for the return to Zion. Since the destruction of our Temple we have yearned for its reconstruction. At every Passover Seder we say a small prayer "Next year in Jerusalem." Needless to say, if you think our claims to Eretz Yisrael started with the secular Zionist movement, you are sorely mistaken.

That said, many people are not religious, and will not accept the Jews' religious claims to the land. We of course have historical claims also -- our presence there predates any opposing claim, and the land of Palestine was always associated with the Jews throughout history, regardless of who controlled it. Other than a couple short-live kingdoms Crusader kingdoms, only the Jews had a nation in Palestine.

Furthermore, if you're not satisfied with the religious and historical claims, the Jews have a legal claim on the land. The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, adopted in 1922, states that the Jewish people are to reconstitute their national home in Palestine.

There was never such thing as a "Palestinian nation," and the Palestinian Arabs are not entitled to another state in any way. The Arabs already have 22 states, including a Palestinian Arab one. Jordan is on 78% of the land which rightfully should have been part of the "Jewish national home." Jordan was created in 1946 because the British, perfidious Albion, outright lied to the UN to serve their own self-interests.

So I'm sorry if you or the Arabs don't like the fact that the Jewish people have returned after thousands of years in exile to reconstitute their homeland on the remaining 22% of Palestine, but frankly, tough. Israel's not going anywhere.

As for your last paragraph, the majority of the Palestinian Arabs voted in Hamas -- a well-known terrorist organization that openly states its aims of destroying Israel and exterminating the Jews. And this is supposed to be ok because they "demonstrated action on the humanitarian front for their people?" Let us not forget that a certain German dictator and his party also provided "action on the humanitarian front for their people." The Nazis were voted into power with a plurality of the vote (not even a majority like Hamas had). They also wanted to exterminate the Jews (assisted by Palestinian Arabs like the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini of course).

It was also the Muslims who treated the Jews as second-class citizens under their dhimmi laws and the Arabs who expelled over a million Jews from their lands (confiscating billions of dollars in assets) since 1948. What exactly was your point again?

------------------------------------------------------------------
and drum rollllll, my latest response:

Stephen Wang <--- me.

Do I need to study at a yeshiva to participate in this conversation? I wonder how many people in this thread have any talmudic study. i didn't realize there was a restriction on who can comment.

First of all I do not believe I said that the Philistines had any connection to Palestinian Arabs. I did however say that the Philistines existed in Canaan prior to Jewish arrival in the area. My point was, and i'll repeat myself, that the land of Palestine changed hands many times, and it is not accurate to historically attribute it to "belonging" to a particular group any more than another. From the Canaans, to the Jews, to the Arabs, to the Romans, to the Ottomans, Assyrians, Persians, Byzantines, etc etc etc.many people have laid claim to the land and established rule over it. Israel may have been the first large scale monarchy the region had experienced, but monarchy does not equate to indefinite and infinite property rights across time.

Contrary to your claim, there have been many nations erected in Palestine; namely the Babylonians and Assyrians.. and the Romans. Are spans of ownership 200-300 years+ count as "short lived"?

One could say that any number of cultures could name Palestine as their national home. Whose claim is stronger, your statements don't present the Jews as having a claim any more compelling than anybody else's.

The meat of the argument is that there were large populations of Jews and Arabs that existed in Palestine which gradually pushed the Palestinian Arabs out at the conclusions of 1948 and 1967. The Jews repopulated in the area due to gradual immigration towards the tail end of the Ottoman empire; the land was just as much these Jews' home as it was their Arab neighbors that they cohabitated with. However consider the fact that in the 1920s there were 800,000 Palestinians compared to 80,000 Jews in Palestine. To me it was a mistake but an eventual occurence in history that war broke out and one side had to leave.

I will not defend Hamas, you and I both know that they have done more harm than help. However, although you will keep trying to put holes in this, the Muslims were the only ones that offered land and assistance to the Jews in the intial periods of anti-semitism. Your claim of a million expelled Jews, is that an aggregate from the last 100 years? 200 years? It is pretty well known that it was the large influx of jewish immigrants after the mandate of palestine that prompted the Arabs to incite the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. Expelling a million Jews? I do believe it was the immigration of at least 10,000 Jews a year as zionism became a rallying call against anti-semitism.

It was interesting that you plucked a choice quote by Golda Meir, when she said there was no such thing as Palestinians she also said...

"There was no such thing as Palestinians. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist."

Did you ever think the Palestinian national identity was a product of the Zionism that threatened the livelihood and property of Palestinian Arabs living in Palestine before being thrown out and having their country taken away as Ms. Meir warmly acknowledges? If you ignore the rest of this post, at least answer that question. I don't know how most people on this board are willing to take a perspective where their "opposition" becomes less than human and are so willing to embrace the death of their neighbors.

back and forth with zionism

2006-08-01T01:53:00.000-04:00

The conversation began like this, a stand off between pro-Israel (who decided it was appropriate to publicly post a private conversation with her opposition) and pro-Palestine: (none of these posts are mine)
-------------------------------------------------------

"my orig message (Jaclyn from Indiana Univ)

-
ahmed, When was the last time Egypt or any Middle Eastern country ever cared two sh*ts about the Palestinians? Now you are probably thinking about the time when Egypt promised a "safe haven" to Palestinians and promised to treat them as regular citizens. This was all true until a radical Palestinian group in 1978 assassinated the Egyptian cultural minister, Youssef al-Sibai in Cyprus. All bets were off, and Egyptians were quite angry. Ever since, the Palestinians have been treated like second-rate serfs in your home land and aren't even granted the same rights as its other citizens. Actually they aren’t considered true citizens. Wow, Egypt doesn’t want these people- shocking. Well, if they are being used as human weapons- then I guess the other surrounding countries deem them “useful”.

Why don't you move some refugees into your dorm room that have bombs strapped to them and claim that they are entitled to the A+ term paper you did all the work on? At least Israel was willing to (multiple times). The only problem is, the Palestinians didn’t just want the “paper” they wanted all of your stuff and they also wanted you dead. That’s kind of what its like for Israel- only its their country, that they built and now have to fight for.

Lets say there are aprox- 500 million Arabs in the Middle East and 5 million Jews (roughly)- do you really care all that much about Jerusalem that you have to fight with us on Facebook about it? You ask “have you ever been to Palestine?”. Well have you ever been to the Dome of the Rock, or the Arab quarter in Jerusalem? It was sure nice of the Jews to preserve it. Too bad the “Palestinians” couldn’t do the same with site of the last super for the Christians. It’s a little messy – and I should know, I’ve been to Israel.

Now, you go to school in Pennsylvania. When terrorist attacked the U.S on September 11, 2001 and a plane headed towards the White House crashed in Pennsylvania. Do you know what Palestinians did? They danced in the streets. So who are you trying to defend here, people that your home land hates or people that hate your new home?
Salaam.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ahmeds responce
Subject: Wow
Message: Jaclyn,
Your reply was nice and long. So is this one. let me tell you something, that video about palestinians dancing in the streets was FAKE and discredited a week later, and the people that showed it, i don't really know what happend to them. The tape was actually of a religiuos celebration. Notice in the Video not one American flag wa sbeing carried anf all the poster where in arabic and english talking about a relgiuos celebration. So there goes your whole video thing. Now Egyptians must really hate palestinians to have 1 million people protests in Cairo for palestine. Why don't you take the Isralies that moved in two palestinian homes and took over their land into your dorm, except they won't let you eat any food and they won't let anybody give you a job. Thats what they are doing to palestinians with all their economic sanctions, all because palestine elected hamas to be their leaders. I am sure Jeruslem is nice now with all the israelis in it, but what does that have to do with anything, I am sure if some one moved in to your home they could make it alot nicer, but that doesnt mean you dont have the right to live there, jeruslem is their home not a tourist attraction. Israel is really making a holy place on earth look very holy, especially when it was featured on entertainments "Wild on" you know the show for all the crazy parties and drunken sex. I am sure the Jews, muslims and christians in the world would approve of israel being a hot spot for horny college students. Cancun WATCH OUT!,

Now lets go back to the political aspect, the governements of the arab countries(not the people) are a bit afraid of Israel, they have an ally called America and if your a good politician you know you dont mess with good old U.S.A. Now these palestinians are oppressed and they are mad, if a person's child just got killed by an Isralie soldier, and nobody will help you, chance are you will go crazy and strap a bomb to yourself and try to kill a few Isralie soldiers. Israel started as a peacful country, but they are pushing their powers to the limits every year, and you know it. 350 civilians don't deserve death because two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, thats a cruel and unusual reply by Israel, no?
You need to stop going back so far, you can say what you want, because most Arabs will tell you that they support Palestine and think they should have a country, the rest will tell you that palestine should be a country and Israel should not be a country anymore. Israel could very well start world war three, and for what two kidnapped soldiers?
---------------------------------------------------------------
my responce back:
side note- i apologize for a lack or spelling, grammer and. f*ck it, this is facebook- so who cares.

dude that was nice and long. listen, you stick to your propoganda and i'll stick to the New York Times. By the way- the palestinians did shit with Israel. It wasnt till the Jews moved in that you had irrigation and normal pluming. thats why Israel doesnt smell like Oil and Diareah when you step off the plane. Ii support israel because its democratic and is a safe haven for all. they have muslims and christians in their elected government. i cant say that about anywhere else in the region (Egypt is not a democracy, don't fool your self) . so you ask me two soldiers? yep- they can do what ever the hell they want becasue America would too. The Israelis pull out of the west bank and for what? nothing. they got no peace. some people dont want israel. but the thing is they do. they want an israel with out the jews. and that just wont work since the jews built the country. i'm sorry ahmed but its their blood, sweat and tears that got you aim and motorola. bill clinton said he would die for israel, and george bush- well we know how he feels. so i guess if its good enough for them thne its good enough for me. israel isnt pushing anything. You say Israel started off peaceful. Nope, THE DAY Israel became a state- good ol' Egypt attacked it (classy). so its really never had a chance to breath. next time you go back to egypt and admire those pyramids remember one thing- MY ancestors built them and they built Israel too.

this has to be said

2006-07-26T22:37:00.000-04:00

Audrina on MTV's "The Hills" is the worst character/actress ever. It's been a long time since I've seen someone where my first inclination was to knock on their head to see if there was something inside.

Always read your horoscope

2006-07-16T17:54:00.000-04:00

I've finally moved into my apartment and settled down to some degree. I have a couch, bed, dining table and coffee table. Being able to lie down and read a book is a really big step for me as I've had many cracks in the road that I've tripped all over. I can't help but think I could have avoided some of the trouble if I had just opened up the newspaper and read my horoscope.

After I returned from my trip to NYC (which was awesome by the way; visiting friends always is) I discovered that my laptop was missing. Sure I had been talking about buying a new one for a long time; I had drooled all over the black MacBook I had seen at the Mac Store, but I wanted to buy it when my trusty tank of a HP was on its last legs. I had put together my desktop so laptop usage was at an all time low and I had put it in a pile of papers next to my bed. When I needed it a few weeks ago to retrieve some paper work for work, POOF! Gone. After blaming myself for it, and having my whole family make fun of me for "losing" it (I have a history of being absent minded), I think we all narrowed it down to the stolen category. Where's my finger point? The cleaning lady's daughter or someone that came to clean with her while I was gone.

Things didn't get much better after that. I had everything ready to purchase my new car; price was negotiated, hands were shook, and I had a pink slip in my hand. Stupidly I didn't think twice when they said they trusted me and didn't ask for a cash deposit. How surprised was I when the day the car was supposed to be delivered to the port, it wasn't there. I gave the dealer the benefit of the doubt, that's what I do, how could anyone stab a customer in the back like that. A week went by and I had three days left before I had to drive south to move in to my new apartment. The dealer's explanation? Disappeared. Either it was traded at port to someone else or it had been sold to another buyer offering more money. Either way, I got screwed.

There's been a whole string of other things, but I'm just glad I still have my health and my friends. The day I left for my new home I opened up the newspaper and there it was staring right at me, "Capricorn: You are in a gullible phase, stay near those who tell the truth". Thanks astrology, I wonder if it would have told me earlier in the week, "Don't do that, you're going to get fucked".

Halt!

2006-07-14T11:28:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the lack of postings. I am in the middle of moving in to my new apartment in a new town so I can start work bright and early this coming Monday. More to come when things settle down. Cheers!