Blinding Me With Science! SCIENCE!!!

You know what? When I was in school, I should've had more respect for science. All those years ago, I would thumb my nose at science and math geeks with their fancy schmancy numbers and dorkwad experiments. Little did I know at the time that it would be science that would save the day and answer the question that has confounded me from the very first day I started this blog. In fact, as if by some heavenly intervention, my question from last week regarding the giant chasm between conservatives and liberals has, at last been answered.

Why DO conservatives think the way the do? Why do liberals think the way they think? Well, now I know. Sadly, I also know that my quest to build bridges may be in vain. I have to say, folks, that it's over. It's all over......

Conservatives think the way they do because their brains are different. It's just that simple.

According to a new study from scientists at New York University and UCLA, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

The jounral reports that participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter. Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key).

Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M. Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.

Now, does all this mean that conservatives have smaller brains? Not enough synaptic connections? Are liberals actually smarter than conservatives?

No. What it shows that is that conservatives brains are wired to be more resistant to new ideas or change. Liberals, on the other hand, are more open to new ideas and the parts of their brain that deal with conflict are more active. This is not necessarily a good thing for liberals as they could be more open to (dunh dum dah!!) conservative ideas. Speaking for myself, I wish that I had the same synaptic connections that conservatives do so I could filter out bullshit as well. :)

This explains sooooo much, doesn't it? I mean, look at President Bush. I have always wanted to know why he is so stubborn and now I do. His brain is made that way. He can't process information that doesn't conform with his existing brain patterns. His mind is set...quite literally.

Think of all the debates we have had here over the years that have ended in frustration. Well, there is no need to be frustrated anymore. We have the proof! We have the evidence! I don't know about all of you but I take a great amount of comfort now in knowing that there is absolutely nothing I can do. It's impossible to physically change someone's brain.

Well, unless your last name is....Frankenstein. (Cue chilling organ music), (maniacal laughter)...Hah Hah Hah Ah Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!

Colonel Wilkerson Offers Wonderful Pearls of Wisdom

"My view all along has been that this is a War of Ideas. And not a war of bombs, bullets, and bayonets. And therefore to lead with a military instrument-and I'm 31 years into that instrument-is the wrong way to go. We should be leading first and foremost with our ideas which I think are much more powerful and better than bin Laden or Ayman el Zawahari's ideas. And we should be leading with other instruments of power such as our economics, our financial might, our law enforcement, our intelligence capabilities, and so forth. The military should be the last instrument we're using.

As we use that instrument, we do, in fact, give bin Laden a recruitment mechanism."

Larry Wilkerson, Colonel, US Army (Retired)

Dave and Kevin, I would appreciate your thoughts on this as it responds directly and eloquently to what you wrote in comments.

A Profound Divide

It is has been roughly six years since I started this online community of ours and we have, once again, come around to that time of year again that calls for reflection, pause and taking stock in the tapestry that is Notes From The Front. I am speaking of course, of September 11th. Rather than go into to my usual anti-Bush Co tirade, I thought I would turn the magnifying glass on ourselves as a citizens and ask the question:

How did WE end up so far off track? I mean, I already know why Bush Co is so far off track and how they have been able to do it but what about us? You and I?

Six years ago our country stood as one. Every American stood together proud and strong, not weak and bickering like we are now. The world, aside from the usual crazies, was markedly pro-American and they had our backs. People loved us and we loved each other. We held each other and cried at the depths of the tragedy on September 11th and we gave each other support. We had a moment where Carpe Diem should have been our battle cry. Instead, we pissed it all away. Today, we are right back to where we were on September 10th-a collection of assholes..lazy, fat, selfish, ignorant, afraid, partisan, psychotic and narrow minded. At times, I have to admit, I include myself in some of these categories and it is for this reason that, over the course of this year, I have done some serious self actualization.

I have spent some time making a concerted effort to figure out how people of the conservative mindset truly think and feel. I had the hope (and still do) that I could maybe build a bridge or two...even mend some fences. Possibly figure a way out of this mess? I also wanted to take the advice of some conservative posters, who write here on a regular basis, and go to a blog where I am in the minority, as they are here....just to see how it feels.

It just so happened that when I wrote a column about the Jim Zumbo deal a while back (click here if you want to re-read it), a blogger by the name of Kevin Baker came to the defense of the gun lobby. He posted some comments here that made me think and, I must admit, altered my view. I came to the realization that, while I will never get off on guns, they are, in fact, a personal liberty just as anything else is in this country and if I am going to be against things like the Patriot Act, then I have to be against gun control. Besides, it's not guns that are the problem anyway. It's Americans that are the problem. And Americans like Kevin, and the others that post on his site, are very responsible gun owners.

He wrote on here:

I'm going to disagree with you on a lot of things. This is good, because you learn much more arguing your case with someone who disagrees with you than you do preaching to the choir.

I agree completely. You know that I love all of you but the most interesting discussions are when PL, Crab, Dave, Sarge, the rev, and joe Anonymous get in the mix. I believe with all of my heart and soul that raising the level of debate in this country gets people to think. That's why I think it IS polite to talk about politics. Preaching to the choir is a fucking bore and I would have shut down this site long ago if we didn't have the wonderful ragers we have had here.

So, it was with that spirit I began posting on his blog...the only other blog I post on regularly other than this one. I really felt like if we could come together on the gun thing maybe there could be other things on which we could find common ground. I was buoyed by Kevin's (and others that post there) intelligence, unbiased interpretation of facts and law in regards to the gun issue so I really felt there might be some hope.

But each time the issues of September 11th come up...well...to say I get frustrated would be the understatement of the year. There is, as Kevin himself recently called it, "a profound divide" between the left and the right in this country when it comes to 9-11, Iraq, Islam, terror...the whole deal.

To be honest, it makes me fucking weep.

To truly illustrate what I am talking about, go and read Kevin's post from Sunday, September 02, 2007 entitled Yeah, Hollywood Has Our Back. Click on the comments section and read the ensuing discussion. (Sometimes a click on Refresh is required to get Comments to show up)

A profound divide? It's more like a deep chasm. I am really trying hard to find some merit in what they have said here--and I realize there is some slight variety--but good Lord, their hatred of the left has completely clouded their judgement to the point of insane irrationality. It is THEIR way or....we are all on the side of terrorists. And do you know what the worst part about it is?

They are wasting their time on a phantom enemy (the evil liberals) when the real bad guys are still out there. Let's take an abbreviated look at some of the more salient comments made about yours truly..

...add Markadelphia to the list which includes Rall and DePalma. And I'm quite serious about that. The apologist for a terrorist is but a terrorist. and the apologist's apologist is but a REMF-ing terrorist. Markadelphia is as the mud which clings to a soldier's boots, dangerously slowing him in combat. (Jim from Texas)

...you're guaranteed to become someone else's tool. Tool, Markadelphia, You oughta think about that. (geekwithA.45)

Now here is an apt punishment for DePalma and his ilk. Click here (Yosemite Sam)

Mark, et al...actively propagandizing on behalf of your country's enemies is most certainly treasonous. DePalma has made it absolutely clear that that is exactly what he is doing. (Stephen Rider)

The elites in this country will finally go too far and they will then be removed from power by military force. It will happen quickly and will be overwhelmingly supported by the public at large.(Yosemite Sam)

So, I am a terrorist who is being manipulated by the evil left wing cabal? I should be tarred and feathered as a traitor, giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Others who think like me will soon perish as well? Remember the conversation I had with the nephew of a friend of mine who had just gotten back from Iraq? Remember he felt that it was his mission to kill Democrats as they are responsible for all the wrongs in this country? Several of you told me his was an isolated view.

All of you were wrong. I offer as proof the people listed above.

Now, I didn't respond to these people at the time because apparently I made Kevin so angry with what I wrote that he wanted me to take a break for awhile. I have since come back and am happily posting there again but, after a week's reflection, I realized that how I'd like to respond is virtually the same as what I wanted to talk about on this year's anniversary of Notes From The Front. The answer to the question "how did we end up so far off track?" is quite evident when you consider this:










This is the picture (above top) that was put up, in Kevin's comments section, of a man being tarred and feathered in a public square as an example of what should happen to liberals in this country They all laughed about it. Take a look at the picture directly below it.

Who are the bad guys again?

Well, apparently it's me, Brian DePalma, and the rest of the elitist liberals in this country that even slightly question this administration. It's the media who, anytime they are critical of anything conservative, are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. But it's never EVER anything that THEY are doing. THEY are always right or RIGHT.

The level of denial these people are at is stunning. And I submit it is THE main reason why we are so far off track. In a nutshell, this is why we are losing.

And by losing, I mean everything. We are so blinded by ideology that we can't see that our country is quite literally being destroyed. It's not because we don't support the troops, or are making films about GIs raping Iraqi girls. It's because a group of ideological lunatics have taken over our country and have quite effectively preyed upon the emotional psyches of at least 30 million people in this country.

Most of you who post here know me well. Two of you that post here went to Iraq and came back. In that time, did you every feel like I was "mud which clings to a soldier's boots?" The very idea that I, and the millions of others that think like me, are traitors because we don't subscribe to a psychotic and fervently false ideology is completely and utterly offensive.

This ideology is terribly deluded by rage. These folks are so far gone that they can't see that they are becoming their enemy. They are advocating a state that hides the truth. They want a population that receives an education whose sole focus is to portray the United States as the eternal saviour of the free world. They want the radio we listen to, the TV we watch, and the films we go and see to be "approved" by the "Patriot Police" before it is distributed. They will actively seek out and re-frame any thought or expression that does not fall line with their ideology and label it as traitorous. They foment anger by erroneously accusing liberals of doing exactly the same things that they, in fact, do.

What do you call a state like that?

They can't see this and continue to accuse people like me of being a traitor. A traitor because I don't fall in line and salute what I know to be a completely fabricated answer to a sham of a question, "Why do they hate us so much that they attacked us on September 11th?" They didn't attack us because we "love freedom" and they didn't attack us because they want to take over the world. Would everyone here like to know why they attacked us? Go read this:

Why.

These are bin Laden's words and they seem quite clear to me. We have been fucking around in their land for too long and they got sick of it. So they hit us. It ain't rocket science folks. It's pretty plain to me. You dick around in someone else's Holy Land and, being the psychotics that they are, they are going to fight back.

Ask yourselves this question, wouldn't we do the same if, say, the Islamic Army came into Pittsburgh and started running the steel industry?

Many conservatives are quite fond of telling me to listen to our enemy. Well, I am listening and it's never been more clear to me that in order to defeat these guys, we need to change. I wonder if Kevin, geek, Jim, Yosemite, Stephen et al are listening? Read the link above again and accept the fact that our foreign and economic policies have helped to create these monsters. Take some fucking responsibility for your country's actions for crying out loud instead of thumping your chest and crying "Hulk is always right, traitorous liberals weaken Hulk." Please stop creating an enemy that doesn't exist in this country -an enemy that you have created out of your anger, insecurity, ignorance, and fear.

People fear what they do no understand. And in today's culture, people only want to take the time to understand what's easy and comfortable for them. They don't want to do the hard work i.e. the change that is necessary to eliminate terror as a tactic. They would rather just accuse people like me of being appeasers, continuing to live in their deluded bliss that all "liberals" think the same way. Do all conservatives think the same way? They are so horribly mistaken that it is sad really and quite depressing.

Imagine what would happen if the folks that posted on Kevin's blog lead with their intellect to learn more about the Muslim world and used their words to expose the psychosis that is Islamic extremism. Imagine if like minded conservatives "swift boated" bin Laden and his ilk rather than remaining trapped in tired ideological rhetoric, continually ripping every "liberal" or "progressive" that comes along-damning them to hell for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Until we can figure out a way to break through this ideological barrier, we are doomed. Doomed to repeat the same mistakes that empire after empire has made throughout time when the only conviction they had was their own vanity in believing that they were always right. God, we are soooo there right now. Now the question becomes how do we get back on track? I've got some ideas but honestly, folks, I don't know if I have any real answers.

Do you?

Smiles All Around

Last week, I was extremely heartened to see this article:

The Des Moines Register.

The judge has since stayed his order, thus prohibiting masses of gay people from around the country to get married in Iowa. But this couple, picture courtesy of CBS News, made it and got married.

I think the judge made a smart move though, because, hey, this is Iowa after all! I'm sure the cry of "activitist judges" will be heard long and loud for the next few weeks but to me it comes down to the letter of the law in the state. You can't discriminate against someone based on their race, sex, or creed. Gay people don't have the same rights as straight people. Period. There is no way around this fact.

All I know is that it if it can happened in Iowa, for cripes sake, it can happen anywhere. I guess it's time for me to stop with the Iowa jokes as they are one step ahead Minnesota on this one.

Well, Maybe Not....

Maybe Larry Craig is not going to resign after all. Arlen Specter, senior Republican Senator form Pensylvania, has offered support for Craig. A spokesman for Larry Craig said that they are trying to get the guilty plea reversed.

Based on the audio tape released last week, it's possible that might happen. I think there is a lesson from all of this.....what it is I'm not quite sure yet :)

Just Be Gay

I feel sorry for Larry Craig. I have watched the last week of his life and, quite frankly, feel an intense amount of pity for him.

For those of you who don't know, Senator Larry Craig, Republican senior senator from Idaho, resigned on Saturday because he was caught last June soliciting sex from a male police officer in the men's room at the Minneapolis St. Paul airport. He plead guilty and now is trying to retract (?) it since it become public early last week. Apparently, Senator Craig made several "hand gestures" and "foot taps" in between two stalls in the bathroom-a sign, I guess, that he wanted to have sex.

Rather than feel anger at his hypocrisy, I felt sadness, actually, that is come to this in our culture. Many blame Senator Craig for this illicit behavior but I say that it is a product of our society. A society, that rather than embrace the differences that we all have in regards to sexuality, we force it into hiding-putting layer upon layer of guilt onto generally decent people until they behave in an irresponsible fashion. Why can't he just be gay?

Side Rant- (And why can't we find a new word for gay so when I call someone gay it is
completely NOT derogatory towards homosexuals and is, in fact, a cool term to use to signify that someone is LAME! Let's all try to remember that the original definition of gay was happy and the British definition of fag is a cigarette. Words can mean different things. Can we take the word gay back? Please!!? I could understand if the original definition was homosexual and people were pissed but it wasn't. How about from now on we just call gay guys "dudes" Dudes are cool. )

Anyway, had Larry Craig lived in a culture that was not warped by an outdated, narrow minded, and bigoted belief system-a system that has so perverted the original intent of Jesus Christ-he would've been able to enjoy his feelings with a fellow consenting adult in a more open fashion. He could've been a dude without the bias dudes get in our society. Instead, his mind was at war with what he naturally felt, pummelled incessantly by the rigid structure of what he perceived was the "right" or "moral" way to live.

I mean, what kind of a point do you have to get to....fucking or blowing a dude when, more than likely, less then a foot away someone is taking a smelly, disgusting shit? There are few times when I would NOT desire a woman's ass working on my cock in the from behind position....this would be one of those times!

And, just to play devil's advocate, don't the police at the Minneapolis Airport have better people to monitor than bathroom stall gay sex crowd? Like, um, I don't know....maybe take a look at this picture to the left and GET THEIR FUCKING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!!!!!



Good grief....

Of course, what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) was recently outed as being one of the biggest clients of the DC Madam. He broke the law by soliciting a prostitute, which, the last time I checked was a worse offense than what Larry Craig plead guilty to doing. Was David Vitter forced to resign in disgrace? No, because he isn't a disgusting fucking homo! Not only was he not forced to resign but he was given encouragement by the national Republicans and told to go to marriage counseling. What lovely hyperbole!

Beneath the hypocrisy, however, lies an even bigger reason why Craig was booted and Vitter was told to stay. Idaho, the state that Craig represents, has a Republican governor who will more than likely appoint a Republican choice to replace him, thus keeping the tally in the Senate at 51-49, Dems over Repubs. Vitter, however, is in a state with a Democratic governor who definitely would appoint a Democratic replacement, tipping the balance even further in the Dems favor. So, it's bye bye Larry Craig and hello to someone who hopefully can hold their ground in an already bleak 2008 election for the Republicans.

So, the mantra I have been hearing all week that Republicans "quickly take care of those in their party who break the law as opposed to the Democrats" is completely bullshit. Yeah, they take care of them quickly when they don't meet their unrealistic expectations of what they erroneously believe constitutes morality AND when it is politically convenient for them. Sorry, Larry, but I guess we are going to continue to fuck you up even more.

The Republican Party need to have some very serious introspection and return to the values that started us out. And that is individual liberties and a live and let live policy when it comes to people's private lives.

-Michelle Laxalt, Republican strategist, Larry King Live August 28th, 2007

Can't we just let dudes by dudes?

-Markadelphia, Dean of Minneapolis and co-founder of the Association to Replace the Word "Gay" with the word "Dude," thus enabling myself and others to refer to homosexual men as something mega cool and totally awesome like dude as opposed to the word "gay" which is....well...fucking GAY, dude.

.....punctuated by Insanity

You can always rely on Dick to take it that one extra step for "national security." Last June, his office refused to hand over confidential documents to the Information Security Oversight Office, or the ISOO. The ISOO is is responsible to the President of the United States for policy and oversight of the Government-wide security classification system and the National Industrial Security Program. The ISOO is a component of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and receives policy and program guidance from the National Security Council (NSC).

It's chief goals are:

1. Promote and enhances the system that protects the national security information that safeguards the American Government and its people.

2. Provide for an informed America public by ensuring that the minimum information necessary to the interest of national security is classified and that information is declassified as soon as it no longer requires protection.

3. Promotes and enhances concepts that facilitate the sharing of information in the fulfillment of mission-critical functions related to national security.

4. Provides expert advice and guidance pertinent to the principles of information security.

In June of 2007, Dick decided that he didn't have to hand over documents to the ISOO any longer. The head of the ISOO, Bill Leonard, told Rep. Henry Waxman that Cheney had asserted that his office was not part of the executive branch (!!!???) and was not required to follow certain rules, set forth in presidential orders, regarding the disclosure of classified documents or submit to routine required inspections. In a letter to Cheney, Rep. Waxman asserted that Leonard had inquired after the documents twice, after which Cheney attempted to get rid of the ISOO altogether.

Former Cheney aide Ron Christie said that the legal rationale employed by the Office of the Vice President is that it is not "an entity within the Executive Branch, " due to the fact that the Vice President also serves as the President of the Senate. At the same time, Cheney has used his "executive privilege" to deny congressional information requests. In late June–July of 2007, a number of mainstream media outlets such as TIME Magazine and CBS News began focusing on whether Cheney had created a "fourth branch of government" that was subject to no laws.

Well, isn't that great? Dick seems to think that laws don't apply to him. I wonder why that it is? And why is it that when it comes to the office of the VP turning over documents relating to the NSA wiretapping program that we see stuff like this?

The Vice President isn't in the Executive Branch.....please......what's next? Maybe he'll shoot someone and get away with it...

Establishing Character.....`

I think when you take a look at a man's life you need to look at his past convictions. What drives this man, pictured at left in this sexy shot from 1989 during his tenure as Secretary of Defense, and what makes him tick?

Well, I think this quote sums it up. When asked in an interview in the April 5, 1989 issue of the Washington Post about his FIVE deferments he received in the 1960s during the Vietnam Era, he replied,

"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

Hmm. So basically Dick talks a good game about the necessity of military action but doesn't really want to place himself in harm's way. My buddy Matt, just back from Iraq this month, has a word for that. It's a word that folks in the military use quite a bit.

Chickenhawk.

Click here for a further explanation.

The Week of Dick

This week, I thought I would spotlight our Vice President. Each day I am going to put up a short post and/or video which will illustrate the glory, the power and the passion of Dick.It is my hope that kicking off the week with this video from 1994 will really get the ball rolling in the right direction.

I want to go on record and say that I am in complete agreement with everything Dick says in this clip. Not a hoax. Not a joke. Bobby Ewing will not be coming out of the shower and it’s all a dream.

This video is real and I stand with my Vice President shoulder to shoulder.

Another NIE

Here is another National Intelligence Estimate which paints a bleak picture of the current situation in Iraq. Skip to pages 7-10 for the specific report

National Intelligence Estimate Report of August 23, 2007

And, purely for its comic value, here is the Daily Standard's (i.e. the Bushie's view) of the same report and situation in Iraq.

Daily Standard Joke of the Week

What color is the sky in their world? More importantly, how many more of our armed forces have to die because an ever shrinking group of single minded incompetents can't admit when they are wrong?

Still Waiting

I am still waiting for someone in the Minnesota State Government to accept repsonsibility for the 35W bridge collapse. Carol Mornau still has her job and everyone up there is saying that they had no way of knowing what would happen.

Hmm....this all sounds familiar somehow.

Oh, and it's all the fault of the stinkin' liberals who wanted light rail.

Hmm....this all sounds familiar somehow.

Happiness Is A Warm National Intelligence Assessment

Ah, summer. Take a stroll down Main Street USA and soak in the sights. Children playing baseball, convertible cars cruising down the highways, and, of course, bikini clad women with the honey in their hips swaying me into perfect bliss.

What's that I smell, though, on the grill? Could it be hamburgers? No. Could it be hot dogs? No. Is it corn on the cob? No, it is not. It is the sweet smell of vindication in the glorious form of our recent National Intelligence Assessment. The assessment, culled from the various intelligence agencies in our government (CIA, Homeland, DOD, FBI etc) basically states what I have been saying for the past five years: The Bush Administration's policies have failed to stop Al Qaeda. In particular, the administration's policy in Pakistan, a country long written about on this blog, has been so poor that Al Qaeda leadership has basically re-established itself with bases and operations, located in the largely autonomous and Federally Administrated Tribal Area (FATA) of Pakistan, fully capable of carrying out attacks on American soil. The report goes on to say that the United States is actually losing ground to extremism. In fact, "Al Qaeda has used the Iraq conflict to energize the broader Sunni extremist Community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."

Well, well well. That certainly puts a damper on things, doesn't it? People in President Bush's very own Executive Branch saying he has done a poor job? Ineffective? Al Qaeda is back? Wonderful...

And there are still some of you that think that our president is doing his best to protect us? That the war in Iraq is actually helping us? Good God....what in the hell is the matter with you people? Seriously, I want to have some of what you are smoking so I can be so mind numbingly retarded that life is that simple blur of an outmoded and narrow minded belief system. Remember all that talk a while back from President....."If you are a country that harbors terrorists, then you will be considered terrorists?"

Hmm..let's see here...Pakistan harbors terrorists...Saudi Arabia (15 9-11 hijackers from there) harbors terrorists....UAE (2 hijackers from there) harbors terrorists and oh, is also the new home of Haliburton...Egypt produced Mohammed Atta...Lebanon (1 hijacker from there) harbors terrorists. All are allies...all had Al Qaeda in their respective countries on 9-11-2001 and what did we do? We:

a. Did a half ass job in Afghanistan so we could

b. Do a worse ass job in Iraq, a country that had less Al Qaeda in it than Florida did in 2001.

But the best part, dear readers is this.

Fox News Story

Lovely! Let's give arms to all of these countries and give Pakistan 2 billion dollars a year (!) to "handle" the problem. More mind boggling than this is the 200 million dollars or so we have given tribal leaders in Waziristan in the hopes of winning them over. Hee hee. Sorry, I just have to stop here for a minute and laugh for a second. Bwah Ha Ha Ha !!! HEE HEE!! HOO HOOO! HO HO HO! Our government is giving money to people that are harboring the man behind the 9-11 attacks in the hopes that we win their hearts and minds? How mind-numbingly naive can our leaders be?

Apparently, their buffoonery knows no bounds because guess what else happened? The Defense Department has "lost" 194,000 AK-47 assault rifles in Iraq which now, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates are in the hands of the people trying to KILL US!!! And they are trying to tell us that things are getting better over there.....good Lord.

Folks, help me out here, please. Is it possible to fire President Bush and Vice President Cheney for dereliction of duty? They have completely and utterly failed to protect us. They have made a bad situation worse and sadly, the only thing that is going to convince the 30 odd percent of you out there of this is another attack on our soil courtesy of the single minded baboons we have leading us.

Coming soon to a theater near you!!

My sources for this article (and for your further reading) were:

The Department of National Intelligence

The New York Times

The Christian Science Monitor

From The Godfather

An intrepid reader pointed me to this little tidbit on Ralph Kauzlarich, one of the officers involved in the Tillman cover up.

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Kauzlarich is the commander of a U.S. Army battalion called the 2-16 -- the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment of the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division. He was the Army officer who directed the first official cover-up of the circumstances that led to the death of Pat Tillman.

Kauzlarich was the commanding officer who chose to split Tillman's unit in two, resulting in the fratricide. He was later the officer assigned to investigate Tillman's death. Later, when asked about Tillman's death in an interview, Kauzlarich said the reason Tillman's family was having a hard time dealing his death was that they were not Christians, and later referred to Tillman as "worm dirt."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., suggested in an oversight hearing to military officials on April 25, 2007, that Colonel Kauzlarich's remarks should be punished as conduct unbecoming of an officer. The military has yet to take disciplinary action against Kauzlarich.

References:
Finkel, David (2007-02-25). Washington Post-“Eleven days till Baghdad”
Fish, Mike. An Un-American Tragedy. ESPN.com. Retrieved on 2007-02-25.

The same reader also sent me a link to a very detailed report on Pat Tillman's death. Here it is.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=tillmanpart1

They Don't Want Heroes

I spend a fair amount of time posting on fellow blogger Kevin's site, The Smallest Minority. Kevin raison d'etre mainly is gun rights but he does post on a wide variety of subjects. Naturally, when the subject of Iraq or terrorism comes up, I chime in.

He recently put up a post titled "It's Good To Know Our Hollywood's Back." He had just gone to see The Bourne Ultimatum and was outraged at the political bent of some of the films that were previewed befoe the film. Essentially, to him, Hollywood is filled with "America Haters" bent on destroying our country through their traitorous stories. Any film that depicts America in a negative light is another example of "civil suicide." In his piece, Kevin lamented the good ol' days of the films Sands of Iwo Jima and Strategic Air Command when men were men, loved their country, and never, ever questioned authority.

Aside from the usual frustrations I have with this line of thought, something in his words resonated with me. I wrote some of my usual responses to the "America Hater" rhetoric, trying vainly to grasp whatever it was that was nagging at me...gnawing at me like a festering wound. And then two words floated into my mind...

Pat Tillman.

Pat Tillman was Sgt. John M. Stryker and Lt. Col. Robert 'Dutch' Holland all rolled into one. He walked away from millions of dollars in the NFL to join the armed forces and defend his country after the 9-11 attacks. Thing is though...ahem....small problem....Pat was a "liberal" who didn't go to church, read Noam Chomsky, and had hippie degenerates for parents. His entire life was spent on a journey or a quest, if you will, to become a man of knowledge (see Carlos Castenada). He would not be confined to the stifling, narrow mindedness of bigoted religions and political intolerance. He was a free thinker.

But he still went to fight because he believed, as did I and most Americans, in the war in Afghanistan. He believed our country was wrongfully attacked and that Al Qaeda was very dangerous to our safety as a nation. As time went on in Afghanistan, he began to notice that things weren't quite right. Why can't we finish the job here, he wondered? Why is our attention on Iraq? Why is Pakistan, our supposed ally, allowing bin Laden and Co. to flourish there?

Pat began to voice his concerns to his fellow troops. Even his commanding officer. He was quoted several times as saying that Iraq was a "fucking illegal war" and a distraction from the fight against the people who actually attacked us. He was, in the mind of some conservatives, an America Hater. As a result, on April 22, 2004, he was fragged.

In case you don't remember, I wrote about Pat last April on this blog. I speculated on the unanswered questions surrounding his death on the fateful day in April of 2004. First they said it was enemy fire, then friendly fire and now? Here is what has come out in the last two weeks.

1. On July 27 of this year, documents were released from the Army that plainly state that the doctors that performed the autopsy suspected that Tillman was deliberately murdered. These doctors told the investigators that Pat's wounds suggested murder and urged them to launch a criminal investigation. Supposedly, the Pentagon did launch an investigation but "quickly" found nothing.

2. It has been revealed that there were never-before-mentioned US snipers in the second group that encountered Pat's squad.

3. There has never been evidence of enemy fire found on the scene, and no members of Tillman's group had been hit by enemy fire.

4. The three-star general responsible for withholding details of Tillman's death from his parents for a number of months, told investigators "he had a bad memory, and couldn't recall details of his actions" on more than 70 occasions.

5. Army attorneys congratulated each other in emails for impeding criminal investigation as they concluded Tillman's death was the result of friendly fire, and that only administrative, or non-criminal, punishment was indicated.

Bottom line, on April 22, 2004 he was deliberately murdered by his fellow troops for being a "traitor." The commanders in charge of these men knew it was coming and let it happen. Or they simply turned a blind eye to what they knew happened because they didn't care. To put it simply, these men are actively engaged in furthering a warped sense of patriotism wrapped in a sea of lies. Pat was killed because, like any hero, he questioned the world in which he lived.

Our current leaders aren't interested in people like Pat Tillman defending our country anymore. They don't want heroes. They are interested in brainless golems or snivelling sycophants who say "Yes" no matter how damaging the results could be to our country. As I told Kevin in the comments section of that post, Sgt Stryker and Dutch Holland have gone the way of the dodo, to be sure, but it wasn't Hollywood that killed them. It was us.

We have allowed the people that are currently running our executive branch to tell the story, to frame the picture, and guide our feelings. It's easier that way. We have too much going on in our lives, right? Jobs, the cabin, and laying on our ass all day accomplishing nothing takes up a lot of time. Isn't it easier not to think, just download, and do as we're told.?

Sorry, Pat, but America isn't about heroes anymore.

The Golf Guy

My favorite scene in Sicko is the one with Larry, the golf guy. Larry is a Canadian and an avid golfer who took a trip to the US that ended up costing him thousands of dollars in health bills because he hurt his arm.

The two of them are sitting on a golf cart talking about the differences between US Health Care and Canadian Health Care. The conversation went something like this.

Moore: So, how do you feel about your tax dollars going to help other people--with their health care?
Larry: Well, everyone needs help from time to time. That's kinda what our country is all about.
Moore: Wow. You sould pretty liberal there. I don't know how your attitude would fly in the US.
Larry: Well, actually, I'm conservative--and, y'know, people get sick. Who's going to help them? I don't mind. That's what being conservative is all about, right?

.........

They Pity Us

Here is a scene from the film Sicko that we have been talking about all week. Pay attention to the couple that have just had the baby and how they chuckle about America.

I think the most telling part of this film is how people from other countries and Americans living in other countries bascially feel sorry for us that we have to pay so much for health care.

We see Americans living in Paris lamenting their insured relatives who get mammoth bills from their HMOs. We see citizens shaking their head in fear at our health care system--strangely in the same way we do when the subject of socializd medecine comes up.

It's a hard thing to swallow: We're aren't number one anymore.

Big Beef

My other problem with Sicko is the trip to Cuba at the end. Why? If it were my film, I would've taken them to Canada instead. Or France, which would've really pissed off the conservatives. I mean, that's what he spends the whole film talking about, right? How great Canada, the UK and France are with health care? Taking them to Cuba is trading one corrupt leader for another.

I am soooo sick and tired of people like Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte, and Danny Glover meeting with people like Hugo Chavez. They spend their days ripping Bush for being corrupt and then turn around and meet the same fucking thing with open arms. It's hypocritical and ultimately self defeating as it makes them as much the fool as President Bush.

Left Out--Why?

One fact that was left out of Sicko--and for the life of me I can't understand why he did this--is that in all of the countries he visits (Canada, France, England) he doesn't mention the fact that private insurance is available to anyone who wants it. In Canada, many employers pay for private insurance for their employees. In fact, Canadian health care is privately driven, with doctors and insurance companies managing the system.

So, all of the nail biting fright being lobbed from the right about "forced" health care in these countries is just simply not true. I wonder why Moore left this out of the film as it would've helped his case immensely.

Let Us Begin

I finally got around to seeing the new Michael Moore film, Sicko. It is stunning. But rather than drone on like I am prone to do (and in the interest of being fair and balanced), I thought the first "volley" on this film should be from a conservative and, coincidentally my date for the evening when I saw it. Yep, that's right. We've all been anxiously awaiting his re-appearance. It's the Return Of Crabmaster Scratch.

Let the grand health care debate begin. Take it away, Crab.

Guest columnist this week is Senor Scratch who is still last in line. Thank you to Markadelphia for turning the reigns over for the time being. Moore makes entertaining pieces of work and I like his style of film making. There are very few documentary filmmakers nowadays who can open a film in a wide theatrical release and Moore is top dog at this point in time. The strength of Sicko is that he's arguing for most American citizens as opposed to his earlier movies when he was really arguing against any 1 narrow constituent of people.

Contrary to what many conservatives will say, this is not a left-wing propaganda piece. Everyone - liberal, conservative, and everything else - will come away outraged at the way insurance companies treat the people they claim to work for. Perhaps the coldest of capitalists will be able to rationalize insurance companies' practices as "good business sense," but one would have to be a seriously evil bastard to ignore how little sense those practices make from a medical perspective IMO.

Michael Moore takes aim at the US health care system, how damaged it is, some of the reasons why that came to be, as well as showcasing the successes of the universal systems in four other countries (Canada, England, France, and Cuba). If it works so well in Canada, England, France and Cuba, why can't it here? Well, the first answer would have to be that the insurance companies wouldn't allow it. The second would be that the lobbyists have all members of Congress in their pocket. Third may be lawyers. Mix and match to your heart's content. In my opinion, facts are indeed presented but it's not the whole truth. Did Moore even touch on the subject of the millions of dollars that illegal aliens cost our system? No, he just blames everything on drug companies and insurance companies. Illegals cost the system billions in unreimbursed care. That's not racism. It's common knowledge for those of us who work in the health care industry.

Moore reports that his research shows that Canadian, British and French citizens live longer, healthier lives than Americans but he doesn't say it is because a lot of people here are overweight, don't exercise, and have 15 things going on every night when they get off of work so the only time they find for dinner is driving their crumb crunchers through the drive-thru at McD's. Then you have the people who aren't happy with their lives for any number of reasons and many of those people look for the solution at the bottom of a bottle of booze or some pill. The only pill I ever take is a couple of Aleve if I am sore after a softball/volleyball tournament. Moore takes all the worst-case scenarios he can find in the United States and then compares them to all the best-case scenarios in all these other countries.

Imagine if you did a documentary on poverty and you found all the poorest people in America and then compared their situation to the most well-off people in, say, Afghanistan. I guarantee you the poor people would all universally say they'd rather live in Afghanistan.When Moore takes a look at the health care systems he loves in France and England, he interviews white, middle-to-upper class people (a common affliction of many Americans who travel to Europe - they tend to associate with people exactly like themselves). You wouldn't know that France has a very high unemployment rate or that there are thousands of Muslims burning buses in the outskirts of Paris or that, 2 years ago, the UK government "discovered" that about 1 million UK men had simply disappeared from the Island over a period of 10 or 20 years. That is 50,000 per year or 1,000 men per week moving to another country. When, just a couple years ago, a third of French voters demonstrated their willingness to vote for 80 year old Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front - a party that makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch - all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night don't hold much weight with me. Europe has its own system of haves and have-nots and anyone who is saying otherwise is lying to you.

He shows protests in France where people are demanding free housing from the government. That type of garbage is where I draw the line...buy your own house/apartment because a government that is powerful enough to give you all that free stuff is also powerful enough to take it all away.Nope, only the upper-middle class in England and France get interviewed in this film. When he's in America, its working-class people, inner-city blacks, and one skid row patient who are interviewed. So America is seen right up from skid row, whereas when you go to England, you're now dealing with people who live in $200,000 homes. Yes, Moore found six people in the US who got denied health care. What about the six million who did get their care? I've never had a problem with an insurance company and no one in my immediate family has either. That being said, I know that if you deal with insurance companies often enough you will get burned eventually.All the Canadians, French and Cubans interviewed have nothing but praise for their national health care. There are no dissenting viewpoints, no investigations into the economics that make these systems possible. Moore interviewed the daughter of Che Guevara.she wonders why an impoverished island nation is able to provide free health care for its citizens while the United States cannot. Completely left out of this film was any mention of Cuba's massive Soviet subsidies in the 1970s and '80s of $4 billion to $6 billion annually, which kept the nation afloat and made this system possible.

Also not mentioned is Cuba's subsequent decline once these subsidies ended with the collapse of the USSR.

Go here - http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1936307620070719?feedType=RSS&rpc=22&sp=true

See where it says "But the hospital where SiCKO's patients were treated is an exception in Cuba, where patients of many other hospitals complain they have to take their own sheets and food" in the middle of the article? Again, you aren't and never will get the whole story from Moore.The rose-tinted stories about all the benefits French citizens get like 1 year off for maternity leave and 35 hour work weeks.those type of things are only affordable in a wealthy, capitalist system. Hell many of those countries don't even have to worry about their military.let someone else worry about Iran or North Korea I guess.He goes to Cuba and gets inhalers that cost $120 here for 5 pesos. I'm all for cheap stuff but that fact remains that there is very little oversight or regulation in pharmacies in the third world regarding the medication they sell. Hell I could have walked into that exact same pharmacy and walked right out the door with hundreds of bottles of steroids that would kill me off in no time.

The state of Wisconsin has been trying to get a universal health care bill passed recently. I hope John Waxey will stop by to tell us what he hears about that issue in his home state. From what I have read thus far the plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes!! Looks to me like one big problem is that we are paying a whole lot for health care. Wisconsin would do well to look at Oregon, a state that has malpractice caps as well as a three strike law on doctors who are sued for malpractice. Under the Oregon Plan there are no malpractice lawsuits until a proposed case is reviewed by an Administrative Panel of Health care professionals as well as legal professionals to determine if this is a whiplash Harry kind of case. Under the Oregon plan (written by Democrats), it is illegal for a lawyer to take a percentage of the winnings, thereby taking away the carrot for abuse. Does anybody on here think it is a coincidence that they have the lowest health care premiums in the nation? More lawsuits drive up malpractice insurance, which drives up health care costs, which in turn drives up your premiums for insurance.

With tort reform there would be fewer claims since the frivolous claims would be disposed with, the lottery mentality broken, and just like in Oregon, the costs for premiums would drop. Thought should also be given to capping medical malpractice at $250k. It does not cap actual medical claims, just the difficult to define "pain & suffering". Victims of malpractice would have all of their medical needs taken care of, yet they would not be bankrupting the system while doing it.

I favor a limited universal health care plan for this country that I have posted on this blog before. The bottom line is that, right now, Medicare is the best system we have going right now in this country. IMO there needs to be more of a balance between medicare, private insurance, and co-pay. Congress passed a law some time ago (not sure when) that stipulates that Medicare cannot negotiate prices with insurance companies. I would reverse that so Medicare is allowed to negotiate for prices like everybody else.Therefore I favor a medicare-style plan that everybody is on...sort of a National HMO if you will. 2 ways to go about this, and I'm not sure which way is the best...one way is to have basic hospitalizations covered 100%. Really expensive things like transplants and prescription drugs would not be covered under this. Everybody would have the option to purchase supplemental private insurance from insurance companies to cover such things based on their own or their families needs.

The other way is to have all catastrophic things covered and have the option to buy private insurance for basic hospitalization or whatever else you want you and your family to be covered for. US companies would drop medical insurance as a benefit and they would get to keep that money for their own bottom line. Increase payroll taxes to pay for the plan.Regarding co-pay, it is at about 20% now...increase it to 30% over a period of time...say 10 years or so...don't implement that change right away all at once. You have the option to buy private insurance from private insurance companies to help you out with co-pays.In terms of implementing any new plan, the free market will determine the next great health care plan. When it will be successful will be when there is a market demand for it, sooner rather than later I bet.

Maybe it will be something along the lines of what I typed. Maybe it will be some socialists wet dream, I don't know for sure. Whatever it is will come about because somebody has found a way to work with the free market and will allow people in the free market to sell services for a profit and the market has found that it is cheap, efficient, and is preferable to the current system. People have to want it, not be guilt tripped into accepting it. In other words, it can't be forced. The main problem I still have is that US politicians and US government bureaucrats will be running the plan and the service we will receive and the implementation of the plan will be absolutely horrible and corruption will be rampant. I mean, look at the areas that the government controls now - the post office, Department of Motor Vehicles, VA hospitals, Public Education.areas like those are horribly mismanaged with bureaucracies, corruption, overhead and waste as far as the eye can see, not to mention a poorly motivated workforce who all know it is impossible for them to get fired.

In conclusion, I have learned to take all of Moore's facts with a grain of salt. Sure, there is a ton of truth to what he says, but there is also a lot of editorial discretion in how the facts are presented, ensuring that they back his vision. There always needs to be a "this is the truth, just not the whole truth" clause attached to his work. Fortunately, I do not expect, nor require, all sides of the issue to be contained in Moores work. My main focus is the entertainment factor, the thought-provoking factor - does it succeed? The answer is yes in my opinion. I just have a gut feeling that Moores cure may be worse than the disease.

An Unthinkable Tragedy

I haven't posted in awhile--been busy coaching tennis--but yesterday at 6:05pm an unimaginable tragedy occurred in my hometown. The 35W bridge that runs across the Mississippi River, just past downtown Minneapolis, collapsed killing somewhere between 4-7 people, 20 missing, and injuring scores more...

At this point, no foul play is expected...they are saying it is probably a structural failure....regardless, if you have a comment you'd like to leave or at least check in and let me know you are OK....and let others know that you are OK who read this blog with hometown ties...please do so.

Take a moment today to be thankful for what you have and save positive thoughts for those who are missing loved ones.

Above All Else....Hope

The last couple of weeks, on this blog, have been kinda depressing to me. We have such a wide range of views...in some cases a giant chasm....on how to proceed in the Middle East. I have to admit that lately I seem to have lost hope--any hope really--in thinking that people in this country of intelligence and good nature will prevail over the ones who think slaughtering people is just dandy. Or we can even find any common ground, for that matter.

So, this week, I decided to do what I always to when I feel down: talk to a young person. By young, I mean in the 16-20 year range. There have been times, of course, when this has made me even more depressed, especially when I meet a young person who can't name a single world leader other than President Bush. And doesn't care either. But most of the time their energy and general positivity rub off on me and I feel better. I felt these things and more when I spent some time talking with a friend of mine named Alice Childress.

Alice is going to be senior at a suburban high school here in Minneapolis. She is bright, charming, and I consider it an honor to have a friendship with her. Last week, I loaned her the movie Breakdown and asked her for her reaction. I asked her four questions and her responses were far more profound and intelligent than I expected them to be. She sees her generation with an extreme width of vision and has a balanced view which I think we will all find refreshing.

M: What is your reaction to this film?
A: I have to admit, I’m not quite as crazy about this film as you are. I do agree with a lot of information presented, particularly the interview with the economic hit man and the facts about the United States’ previous involvement in several third world nations. But some of the suggestions, like the idea that our government is to blame for September 11 or anthrax, just piss me off. There’s no other way to say it. But overall I thought it was a very good and mostly factual film. It does amaze me how both sides of extremists can twist, omit and carefully place words and images to prove their point. For as much as the Bush administration has lied and played with information, the liberal extremists probably haven’t been much more honest. The difference, however, is that Bush’s lies have resulted in a four year war and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

M: How do you see the situation in Iraq?
A: Honestly, I don’t see how we’re helping Iraq. We went in there with the goal of helping the citizens, and like the film said, we ended up attracting terrorism and killing upwards of 150 thousand civilians. Real big help, yeah. The liberals will argue that oil, not helping the Iraqis was our motivation for war. A much less noble cause to be sure, but even that doesn’t appear to have been very successful. As a new driver, my life basically revolves around gas and I feel like I have to sell my soul for a tank.
So remind me again, why are we there? I think the current reason is that we’re setting up a democracy in Iraq so it can be used as a model for the Middle East. What America – and the rest of the western world, the World Bank, and the IMF – doesn’t get is that the Middle East doesn’t want or need democracy. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the system in most cases. But the western idea of success in government is very different from the eastern, and until we recognize that giant cultural difference it will be impossible to make progress in the Middle East.

Take a look at China, for example. Americans hate communism; they always have and they always will. But China has the fastest growing economy in the world, a secure government, and its people seem to be a whole lot happier than the Iraqis. Different nation, different values, good result. Yet Americans still believe that democracy is the only savior.

M:How do you see the United States’ place in the world?
A: In regard to this question, I believe that my generation has been fucked…er, screwed…and here’s why: we have no respect for our country. Since first grade, I’ve been indirectly told by young, smiling teachers as part of the revisionist curriculum that I was an ugly white American who killed the Indians, chopped down the rain forest and used to hold slaves. So I didn’t start off being particularly proud of my nation’s history.

I was ten years old when George Bush was inaugurated. I watched CNN in my sixth grade classroom on September 11, 2001, on a television that had been smuggled into the room because the school administration didn’t want to tell us about the attacks. For as long as I have cared, the United States has occupied areas of the Middle East under Bush’s leadership. To people my age, America has been defined by its involvement in the Middle East. That involvement has been personified by Bush. Therefore, America = Bush. It is perceived, at least at my high school, that to love America is to love the Bush administration and to support the troops is to support Bush’s decision to keep them in Iraq.

So, half the young population is convinced that they do not love their own country. This, of course, is incorrect, as we are mistakenly identifying the nation. But we don’t know that because we have been socialized by the media, our left-leaning public schools, and our peers. I believe the result is that there is no such thing as patriotism in people between fourteen and twenty years old.

We are disillusioned, separated, and ungrounded. In thirty years, when we will be the leading politicians, I imagine a very different America will develop as a result of this upbringing. Unless, of course, we all move to Canada because we just can’t take it anymore. I hear the skiing’s pretty good up there, so who knows.

M: Do you have hope?
A: Hope of what, exactly? Getting out of Iraq? Yes, I do. America’s finally starting to get pissed each time another dead body comes home. Not Vietnam-pissed, but if there was a draft I can definitely see it going there. Hope for Iraqis? They need to have their own hope first before mine makes any difference. How about hope for our government? Yes and no. Bush has really messed up and I am certainly looking forward to how history treats him. But there are a lot of leaders before him who have messed up as well. I think the government of this nation will always lie, it will always pursue alternate interests, and it will always be helped along by the media.
That’s just the kind of country we are.

I think if you can accept that and still strive to make it the best government possible, you can have hope. Basically, as a young and mostly innocent person I think I am inclined to be optimistic about the future. And there are several million more American citizens with that exact same natural tendency.

In my opinion, that simple fact seems reason enough for incredible amounts of hope.

She Does It Again

It's been a long time since the token conservative at the Minneapolis Star Tribune pissed me off. I guess she was saving it all up for today. Check out this column. Click here to read it.

For those of you who don't remember, I wrote a column on this very subject last year. Click here to read it.

Normally I don't respond to people like Ms. Kersten because it's like....oh, I dunno...having a conversation with an empty Styrofoam cup but I decided to send her the following email. Think I will get a reply?

Ms Kersten,

Your column today is a shining example of someone who lives in a cocoon of
unreality. If you had actually taken the time to do research on the
Reichstag Fire you would've seen the striking similarities between that
incident and 9-11.

Take off your neocon blinders and see that the people that you support are
criminals who will stop at nothing in their greedy pursuit of wealth and
power. One of things that I have always admired about the conservative
message is its adherence to morality and the law. Apparently, our current
administration is excused from both of these principles and get away with
pretty much whatever they want...thanks to people like you and columns like
you wrote today.

Mark

Part Two

Here is Part Two of my interview with Joanne Tucker, producer and director of the film Breakdown.

M: In the film, you seem to intimate that the US government itself was responsible for the anthrax attacks. What do you think really happened with all of that? We haven't heard much about it and it seems that most people have forgotten.

J: I wasn't directly intimating that our government was responsible for the anthrax attacks of late 2001. What the film shows (in part one, The Message) is Colin Powell making the case for War on Iraq in February 2003 at the UN Security Council, in which our leadership was stating in an unequivocal way that Iraq possessed WMDs.

Powell, always speaking on behalf of his bosses, stressed throughout the key speech that these were not assertions but statements of solid fact. In the film I show one of those statements made by Powell flanked by the Head of the CIA and the US Ambassador to the UN, while holding up a vial of white (probably johnson's baby) powder before the Council and the world's TV cameras:

'This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount, just about THIS quantity that was inside of an envelope. Iraq declared 8500 litres of anthrax..'

The wording is very very clever and very very typical of the government and media persuasion campaign leading to war. I don't put the entire onus on Colin Powell, although he as others allowed himself to be used and I'm sure he as others, is not proud of that chapter.

Notice how Powell is speaking of the anthrax attacks directly after 9/11 that made headlines on every US news show linking it to Iraq or Arabs, and in the very next sentence, he talks of Iraq. But as usual with the Administration's propaganda build-up, it's all about juxtaposition (putting unrelated statements next to each other but leaving it up to the listener, to make the direct links that don't exist.) and omission.

He puts two statements together that are completely unrelated. It would have been much more relevant for example (but not good for a case for War on an oil-rich Islamic heartland state) if Powell had said in statement 2: 'A 52-year-old American belonging to the Aryan Nations, a US-based militant white separatist group, who in 1995 and 1998 was arrested by the FBI for possessing bubonic plague and convicted of threatening to wipe out the city of Las Vegas and the state of Nevada with military grade anthrax to which he had access, has not been determined to be responsible for the so far timely but unaccounted for anthrax attacks of late 2001.'

Powell's other party trick (the omission) is in saying: 'Iraq declared 8500 litres of anthrax..' Yeah. In 1991, before those 8500 litres were destroyed under UN supervision and documented by the UN (again, not mentioned.) No anthrax, biological or chemical weapons were ever found in Iraq. However, our government IS fedexing bubonic plague anthrax vx and other highest-level toxicity germs around the country to send to Lawrence Livermore National Labs in California (and others but primarily Livermore) where in 2004, it began a brand new expanded biological and chemical weapons programme with newly released funds from Congress and taxpayers' billions.

As for accountability? Weird that the Anthrax attacks story disappeared from the network airwaves as quickly as it had massively appeared in 2001, and was never mentioned by officials again. Could that have anything to do with the fact that the weapons grade anthrax spores being sent to TV celebrities was found to originate in an Army bio terrorism facility near Maryland? Newspaper exposures did not remotely receive the same level of TV buzz again or follow up of the investigations in the public interest.

M: I was shocked to see some of the footage of Jimmy Carter you put in the film. He really sounded a lot like our current president in regards to Middle Eastern policy. Do you think US Foreign Policy is better or worse depending upon whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in office? How is Bill Clinton that different than George W. Bush, for example?

J: Carter's very famous statement in his 1980 State of the Union Address: " Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force…" has to be understood in the context of US superpower ambitions and designs on the Persian Gulf region. It's irrelevant that Carter's a Democrat. He has since come clean about a lot of the hypocrisy and double standards.

When it comes to the Persian Gulf and Israel, Democrats and Republican are one and the same party. The solution does not have to be military or exclusively unjust. America can get all the oil it needs and all the friends it needs in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East without backing (Arab or Israeli) dictatorships or ethnocentric regimes in the region, without giving the most foreign assistance in grants weapons and contracts to Israel to the tune of more than $3 trillion dollars since 1973, to continue to fuel an unjust conflict where right and wrong are as clear as day to both Israelis and Palestinians, the vast majority of both of whom want to live in one country in peace. United States policies will not allow peace in the region, period.

Israelis recognize and write about this regularly in their press, as do neighbouring countries particularly Lebanon, especially since the spectacular failure of last Summer's Washington conceived, Israeli-executed War on Lebanon in 2006 which killed more than one thousand civilians and destroyed an entire country's infrastructure.

America can get all the oil and Arab or Israeli friends it needs, both of whom admire US values, striving to save democracy in their own countries so often blocked by US policies, without creating al Qaeda and spreading violence in the world's most sought after region throughout history, without diverting multiple billions of American taxpayer's money (supporters of long term injustice in the ME love to talk about small government and lower taxes but say nothing about Americans' money being flushed down the toilet in the cause of invasions, war and unjust escalations) to create an ever-growing arms race, pouring money and wmds into Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to name a few of our closest allies.

Only when Americans are informed about their country's policies will they correctly influence and lead their politicians' policies and decisions rather than be led by Arms, Israel or Oil lobbyists on the issues.

M: You mention Israel a lot in this answer and that leads me to the one area of the film with which I disagreed. The Israeli-Palestinian segment...It seemed a little one sided. Was that on purpose? What is your view on Hamas?

J: Hamas is a national liberation movement that uses its popularity in the political arena, an armed military wing and terror operations to achieve aims which for Palestinians are enshrined in long-passed but never enforced UN international laws and resolutions.

Which liberation movement in history apart from Gandhi's millions-strong non-violence movement in India, a luxury the Palestinians don't have being denied movement from one town to the next, connections to one another, their homes gardens or farm lands when annexed by the Army and even return to their families and residencies on a regular and arbitrary basis, so which independence or liberation movement in history has not used terror against more destructive sophisticated and widespread state terror, to achieve freedom?

Terror is not a one-way street and it is deeply tragic not only to Israeli families and victims who lose their loved ones but to Palestinians. Palestinians are the minority but Palestinian civilians have been killed in the 50 year+ conflict as a deliberate policy of state terror to force a settlement on Israeli terms (which has never worked) and in far greater numbers. Israeli settlers walk around Palestinian majority residential areas (such as East Jerusalem and Hebron) with M16s that they are free to use, but the more than a third of Palestinians killed by Israel's Military are under 16 according to the UN. The vast majority of Palestinians killed in the double digits daily are unarmed civilians. Israel has become great (the very best) at occupying civilians and capturing detaining or fighting unarmed civilians while at the same time, becoming extremely bad at the Art of War or strategy, because the Occupation is corrupting Israeli society and creating profoundly avoidable tragedies on both sides.

This is the model that the US is now emulating in Iraq and across the so-called New Middle East. Dr Rice called last Summer’s War on Lebanon ‘the birth pangs of a new Middle East.’ If this is the new Middle East, say the vast majority of people including Israelis who live there, give us the old unjust paradigm but where the violence was predictable and contained, any day of the year.

Got a question or comment for Joanne? Click on comments below.