Appeal To Fear

Right before the election last year, President Bush said the following about Islamic radicals.

"They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call caliphate, where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology ... This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia."

I thought of this recently because a friend of mine at the gym mentioned this to me in relation to Iran. Many folks I know, of the conservative ilk, have been talking about this quite a bit lately, insisting that if we don't continue to do exactly what Bush-Cheney want us to do in the Middle East, our entire nation will be enslaved in the caliphate. So, when conservatives talk, y'all know I listen!!! After all, they're just as rational as anyone, right? Actually, it's serendipitous because I have actually been thinking a lot lately about Iran, Pakistan, Islamist radicals, and their plan for the future of the world.

I have to say, though, in looking at all of this, I'm pretty underwhelmed and, quite frankly unimpressed. A caliphate? Really?

A caliphate is the only form of governance that has full approval in traditional Islamic
theology. It is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The simple fact that the word "unity" is included in this definition causes me to seriously wonder if this is possible. I spend a lot of time watching news from the Middle East and, even with taking Israel and the United States out of the equation, folks in that part of the world seem to do a pretty good job being just about as disparate as possible.

To hear some conservatives talk these days, it would seem that legions of angry Islamists are at the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate bridge ready to pounce, forcing into conversion, slavery or death. Now, I don't want to play down the threat from people that use terrorism as a tool but let's really take a look at these folks and tell me, honestly, is it really possible?

As much of a threat as bin Laden is (and I do think he is a threat), he has never really been able to establish unity with any serious country. All of them, save one, have kicked him out over the years. Iran? Well, they're Shiite and we all know how well they get along with Sunnis (see: Iraq). Honestly, even with one or two atomic bombs, is their military really up to the task? They had a defense budget of 6 billion on 2005, lower than any other Persian Gulf country. They haven't fought in any major combat since 1989. I have to say that I am really beginning to question how much of a "threat" they actually are and how much of what we hear coming out of Bush-Cheney's mouth is geo-political maneuvering to get their oil.

To be sure, these "threats" might disrupt our nation with more attacks and many lives could be lost but do you think that we, as well as the rest of Western civilization is going to collapse to a caliphate? I asked this question of my gym friend and he told me that it is already happening in Europe due to the large number of Islamic immigrants living there. "They have set up their bases," he informed me, "and are readying their forces." Readying their forces? Hmm...I think this may come as a shock to the European Union as well as the individual heads of state of each country. After some careful thought, I began to realize that what he, and many others including myself have been a victim of these last six years, is "Appeal To Fear."

Appeal To Fear is a logical fallacy in which a person (in this case President Bush, VP Cheney and minions) attempts to create support for his idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is extremely common in marketing and politics. It works something like this:

If P, then Q
Q is fearsome
Therefore P is true.

An example would be the following. Hitler never wore a seat belt. Neither does my friend Crabmaster Scratch (true btw). Therefore, Crabmaster is just like Hitler.

This is exactly what certain people are saying now with this whole caliphate business. They are using our fear of the unknown to allow them to pursue their agenda which, in all honesty, has nothing to do with protecting us from a caliphate. Just because Islamists say they want to do it doesn't mean they can do it. Nor does it mean that all Muslims are going to support it. By exaggerating the threat posed by those who would use terror as a tool, Bush etc is completely fucking us over from a strategic standpoint. How do you get a factional Muslim world to unify?

Gang up on the Crusaders. And that's pretty much what is going on now in Iraq.

In the end, what really astounds me is when you call people on their appeal to fear they respond by using.....another appeal to fear. Some of my conservative friends have howled back to me with retorts of "Appeaser!" and "Munich 1938!" My favorite: "Are you a FOO?" (Friend Of Osama). So basically, if I don't believe their paranoid and wildly unsubstantiated fear, then I am naive and foolish. Now I get it!!

For the rest of this week, I am going to post some logical, intelligent, and rational thoughts regarding what I think should be done about the ACTUAL threat of radicals as opposed to the Tinkerbell version. As always, I am interested in your views as well.

Friday Fun

I have received several emails over the last few weeks requesting that I rant about something other than politics. I thought I did sometimes? Anyway, starting on Fridays, I am going to rant/rave about sports and entertainment. They are two topics I am just as passionate about as politics so I figured why not?

I know this sounds very played but....do the Minnesota Vikings absolutely suck or what? Good gravy, I don't think I have ever seen a more harmless offense. Every Sunday I sit in my chair, watching each game, and I can tell what flippin' play they are going to run. Imagine what someone (i.e. professional football coach) who watches 60 hours of film a week is able to do.

And the pass defense? I don't think I have ever seen a more terrible unit. When 3rd and whatever comes up, it's a 15 yard pass play straight up the middle to a wide open player. EVERY SINGLE MICKY FRIKKIN' TIME!!!!!! Argh!!!!!! Charlie Brown's stomach, after Lucy pulls away the football, isn't even as close to as sick as mine. The funny thing is...the coaching staff of the Vikings doesn't seem to notice. They are so trapped in their own hubris, from the little major right on down, they can't see that their "system" doesn't work.

Word of advice to prospective athletes: when you hear the word SYSTEM......

RUN SCREAMING!!!!

FEMA FOLLIES

Last week, I received the following email from one of my uncles.

Hey Mark,

Did you hear that FEMA did a short notice 'mock' press conference with
FEMA employees asking canned questions of the FEMA leadership regarding
their 'most excellent' response to the wildfires v. katrina....they
didn't let the press know until 15 minutes before, so offered a "listen
only" teleconference to the press and then asked their staged
questions..."nice job Brownie!'

Further research turned up the videos below this post. The first is when they broke in live with the "press conference" and the second video is the aftermath.

FEMA's fake press conference

Fake News Reporters from FEMA concerning Calif. Wildfires

Another Gem from The Godfather

Got this email earlier in the week from my Godfather. He writes:

Hey Mark,

I was catching up on the blogsphere and finally read you post of the 23rd re: Hillary and Rudy. I'm no fan of Hillary (Richardson is the most qualified of all the candidates) but Rudy, or any Republican, as President in '08 would guarantee the continued destruction of what I believe to be the best of American values and traditions.

Should the GOP continue to have the ability to pervert government structures by aggrandizing the executive branch's role and the power to diminish the judicial branch by swinging the courts further to the right, especially the Supreme Court, this country will be paying the awful price until your kids are great grandparents. Hillary may be a less than inspiring candidate to us but in a contest between her and any Republican, she is at least the lesser of the two evils.

Well, I see his point but I am still not ready to vote for her over Rudy. I just don't think Rudy is a party guy. He used to be a Democrat! I still maintain that he is lying about what he is going to do to get votes. And why do we have to be back to the lesser of two evils? Is there ever going to be a time when we have two very qualified candidates from each party?

Eyewitness Iran

I have decided to turn this week into a mailbag week. I have received some interesting emails from some folks so I am going to put one up each day. My mind and heart are just not in writing a full length commentary this week. Rest assured, however, there is going to be a non political rager, coming soon, about how some of my friends are lazy, overly self-involved pathetic douche bag leeches who can't be bothered with the "burden" of helping me out when I need it.

(Whew. I feel better already)

Anyhoo, if you can, check this out tomorrow.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:00 PM
Room 125 Nolte Center for Continuing Education Minneapolis Campus

Eyewitness Iran

Journalist Reese Erlich will discuss his new book, The Iran Agenda: The Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis (October, 2007), which offers an alternative view of Iran and U.S. policy toward Iran. Reese Erlich reports regularly for National Public Radio, Marketplace Radio, Latino USA, Radio Deutche Welle, Australian Broadcasting Corp. Radio, and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Radio, and writes for the San Francisco Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Christian Science Monitor. He has won numerous journalism awards, including the 1996 Chicago International Film Festival's Silver Hugo for investigative reporting. In June 2005, he traveled to Iran with Norman Solomon and Sean Penn. Erlich's photos accompanied Penn's five-part series about the trip that appeared in the SF Chronicle and in an A&E documentary of Penn. He made another trip to Iran last year. He will be showing photos and sharing his observations from both trips.

I wish I could go but I have school and kid duty. If anyone does go, jot down some notes and I will put them up on the blog. We have about 300-400 regular readers now and I think some of them, especially those out of towners, might want to hear how the talk went.

I am certain, as well, that over the next few months we will be talking more about Iran.

A Welcome E-Mail

This week, I thought I would turn over the reigns to someone who actually served in Iraq. We talk an awful lot about Iraq on this blog so it is only fitting that someone who served there be giving the gavel.

Sgt. John Smith (not his real name) served in Iraq from 2003 to 2004 as communications specialist. Last Friday he sent me the following email, which he has graciously permitted me to post.

You are the only one I can vent too... ...because I'm so embarrassed about who I voted for last general election!

[moment of silence for Lt Michael Murphy]...

I've been watching the ceremonies pertaining to the the Medal of Honor to Michael Murphy. I am humbled by his sacrifice, and I am proud to have served in the same country's military as he did. (God speed his soul to paradise). Have you watched the ceremony where George presents Michael's Mom and Dad with the medal awarded to their son for his (not to mention their) ultimate sacrifice? (The video for this ceremony is below this post)

During his 3.5 min speech he trips over 5 letter words! In my opinion, it looks as if he didn't read the speech at all before giving it! What a slap in the face of the family to have been given such a poorly prepared ceremony. The guy who reads the citation even screws up twice.Why is George such a moron? Such a dunce? His oratory ability is slightly above that of a blind deaf mute with Palsy, and I for one cannot stand his dumb-ass appearance when speaking publicly . Is he drunk, high, or just that stupid!?

IN CONTRAST, look at Laura Bush's Speech she gave yesterday to the service men and women in Kuwait. I know we often talk about how George never talks when Dick Cheney's drinking water, but have you heard Laura speak? She sounds ten times more articulate than her husband. Are we certain that we're not in another era of Eleanor (Roosevelt) like government? I know you don't like talking about George as much as you like talking about replacing George...but I just can't get over how little research I did before voting for him (yeah, twice!) and I need someone to tell me it's going to be OK! thoughts? comments?

John

Medal of Honor Awards Presentation for Michael Murphy

Barack Obama on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno

This is a great interview with Senator Obama from last week on the Tonight Show. The bit about his wife and Bill Clinton is hysterical!

The Agony of Torture

So, here's my problem. What if it comes down to Hillary vs. Rudy? I am so fucked if it does. I think Rudy is the better candidate yet I know that Hillary might actually do some of the things I would like to see done....albeit in an evil way.

I have already told myself that if Hillary wins and picks Obama for her VP (something that would give the Democrats the White House for the next 16 years), I will vote for Hillary. And if Rudy picks a redneck for a running mate, I might be pushed towards Hillary.

I don't know. I can see myself excusing one letter grade level in a Romney (C) and Hillary (D) match up but three letter grades? As it stands right now, Hillary was some work to do to get my vote....otherwise, I will be voting for Rudy.

Election 2008 Update

This week, I thought we should take a look at the 2008 Presidential race and see where everyone stands. Some candidates have dropped out and others have jumped in. There have been several debates, sharp words exchanged, and all of the usual insanity associated with the 21st century United States political scene. Today, I will put up an up to date summary of each candidate. Throughout the rest of the week, I will post videos and various musings on how the race is shaping up.

In addition, I think a re-grading is in order. These last few months of the campaign have caused me to reflect on my initial marks for each candidate and concluded that adjustments are in order. Let's start with the Republicans, from worst to best.

1. Alan Keyes. Uh, did anyone besides political geeks like me know that he was trying to run? If you look at his web site, you can see his essay on the "gay agenda" and it's "assault" on the institution of marriage. This view, along with many of his others, represents an agenda of intolerance and bigotry. Oh, and did I mention that he is psychotic? Grade: F

2. Fred Thompson. At a recent campaign stop in Iowa, Thompson concluded his speech and there was silence. "How about a round of applause?," he asked, and then people politely clapped. This pretty much sums up his campaign. In addition to being terribly subdued and sickly looking, the former Senator from Tennessee epitomizes all of the worst qualities of the Republican party. He has a narrow minded, one dimensional view of the world that nauseates me. He basically shares Bush's view of the world with little more stubbornness thrown in. Great....

Of course, it is this "vision" that was supposed to catch fire amongst the base and be the hope of several conservatives, unhappy with the other Republican candidates, that they would have a "real" conservative. This has not happened and he still trails Giulaini and Romney. Bottom line: this man is a giant leap backwards from what we have (which I didn't think was possible) and a terrific bore. Grade: F.

3. Tom Tancredo. The only interesting thing I could find out about Tom Tancredo is that he is a member of the "paleoconservative" movement. This section of the Republican party is anti-communist and anti authoritarian. Not bad, eh? He is rabidly anti-immigration (his centerpiece issue) and has a cool video of himself shooting a gun on his web site. His stance on Iraq sort of breaks with the party line as he would like to see the Iraqis and other countries in the region sort things out themselves. The fact that I saw the word "disengagement" means that, while I disagree with him on pretty much everything, he seems to want to avoid foreign entanglements. It is for that reason he gets a Grade: D.

4. Duncan Hunter. He's made some very interesting comments lately. He favors engagement with Iran to further peace in the Middle East. He and I also share a common vision for Israel. Sadly, however, in looking at his issues page, all I see is the usual intolerance and bigotry in the areas of civil rights, health care, and education. Grade: D

5. Mitt Romney. I gave Romney a B last time for his exceptional health care plan that he implemented in Massachusetts. Since he has been on the campaign trail, however, his mouth runneth over into the "fear/shit your pants" rhetoric that has become a cornerstone of the Republican Party in the last ten years or so. He seems very desperate in trying to convince the "base" that he is a real conservative. Saying things like "I will double Guantanamo" hasn't seemed to help him. He is sinking everything he has into Iowa and New Hampshire. Can he do it? I don't know. But I still like some of the things he says and he is at least a little more moderate than 1-4 on this list. Grade: C

6. Mike Huckabee. I still really like this guy. I don't know why. He wears his faith on this sleeve, is anti-gay marriage, and doesn't believe in evolution. In looking at this issues page, on the surface, it doesn't seem all that different than Tancredo's or Hunter's. I guess the reason why I like him more than the others is that at least he's nice about it. He is firm in his beliefs but doesn't want to force them on people. In addition, he's honest about health care and education, two big issues for me, and offers a different perspective that I think needs to be given more weight. I am still keeping him at Grade C, though, because his views on Iraq are nothing new.

7. John McCain. By far the biggest upgrade in the lot. I was mad at McCain when I did my last grading but he really is a straight shooter and you have to give him props for that. His recent statements on torture, government corruption, and diplomacy have made me realize that I was giving him a fair shake. Although I think his Iraq policy is flawed, John McCain is a decent man who would be an OK president. Grade: B

8. Ron Paul. I feel terrible about making fun of Ron Paul the last time around. His debate performances have been awesome (a word that I reserve for special occasions only as I feel it is waaaay overused). This guy has guts. He is the only Republican candidate that is against the Iraq War. He has a clear view of the shit our country has been into over the years and offers a pragmatic vision for international relations. He is a true conservative in the sense that his views on government's role in our lives should be kept to a minimum. Basically, he is a libertarian. Grade B.

9. Rudy Giuliani. Our Mayor is still the best bet the Republicans have got. And I still adore him. Yes, we differ on Iraq and health care. But I maintain that if he is elected, we are going to see improvements in these areas simply because of the fact that he is highly intelligent and fiercely competent, two things that have been missing from the presidency since 2000. In the end, I trust him implicitly to protect our country and make it a better place. Grade A

The Democrats.

1. Hillary Clinton. Sadly, still at the bottom. I haven't heard much from her to change my mind, although I do like the idea of Bill being the "ambassador at large." Her supporters irritate me much in the same way Green Bay Packer fans irritate me....my dislike for the fans spills over into dislike for the team, or in this case the person.

Hillary supporters know that she is not the best candidate. They want her because she is the most powerful and thus, they can force their agenda on people. It's an agenda that I agree with, for the most part, but I just don't like being told what to do-whether it's a Clinton or a Bush. Simply put, I don't trust her. Have I been co-opted by right wing pundits? I suppose it's possible but folks, c'mon...20 years+ of the same two families ruling our country? What are we....a monarchy now? Grade: D

2. Chris Dodd. A career politician, Dodd brings a wealth of experience to the table. His issues page has very detailed action items on each of the challenges we face today. I think Senator Dodd is a good man but lacks the charisma needed to be a strong candidate. Grade: C

3. Mike Gravel. This guy is a hoot. He's sort of like the grandfather version of Dennis Kucinich. Check out his stand on the issues. He's probably a little long in the tooth for president, though. (77 years old this May!) My favorite Gravel quote? "Since the Second World War, various political leaders have fostered fear in the American people - fear of communism, fear of terrorism, fear of immigrants, fear of people based on race and religion, fears of gays and lesbians in love who just want to get married. Fear of people who are just different. It is fear that allows our political leaders to manipulate us all and to distort our national priorities." Yep. Grade C.

4. Joe Biden. I think Joe Biden needs to get comfortable with the idea of being a cabinet member. While he brings experience and knowledge to the table, in a more pragmatic way than some of the others, he lacks the tact needed to be a great leader. I could actually see him making several gaffes similar to the ones made by our current president. There is a lot of good he could do for our country, though. How about National Security Advisor? Or Sec Def? Grade C.

5. Dennis Kucinich. Dudes, have seen how hot his wife is? Wow.... Not much has changed on my view, though, of DK. I think we need to hear his voice and give it some weight but ultimately, I fear that he is too naive in his views on terrorism. Grade B.

6. John Edwards. I have flipped Edwards and Richardson, not because of anything Edwards has done necessarily but because Richardson has really been impressive. Edwards is the go to candidate for the "white" Democrats who really want a down home boy to win the nomination. Many liberals are just not comfortable with the idea of a black man or a woman being president. I am related to several of them. Edwards would be a great president, no doubt, and he really seems to be comfortable on the campaign trail. He does actually care about "the little guy" and all the "he used to be a trial lawyer so he just loves money" talk is simply more crap from the bullshit brigade. His wife has also been a tremendous asset. Her comments are quite blunt and refreshing. Grade B.

7. Bill Richardson. This guy would be a spectacular president. His foreign policy experience, his no nonsense economic policy, and his general empathy for people make him aces in my mind. He also has some appeal to the right being a strong gun rights advocate and a preacher of more fiscal responsibility. He just hasn't seemed to have caught on like the Big Three have in the Democratic Party. I know he doesn't like to hear this but he would be a great VP or Secretary of State. Grade B.

8. Barack Obama. The Man Who Could Change The World. He is still, far and away, the best choice for president. There is no doubt in my mind that he, more than any other candidate, would unite this country in a way that we haven't seen for decades. His policies would firmly plant America as a force of good and reclaim our benevolence in the world. He has stated that his main goal is to open up the government of the United States and make it for the people again. Let's help him do it. Grade A.

How about all of you? How do you rate the candidates? Leave your answers in comments.

Luke, I Am Your Father....

In what has to be the most depressing news I have heard in a long time, presidential hopeful Barack Obama is related to Dick Cheney. Apparently, way back in the days of yore, a distant relative of Obama's married a relative of Cheney's and as the generations begat through time, it turns out the Dick Vader is the eighth cousin, once removed, of The Man who would change the world.

Not since I saw Empire for the first time have I been so profoundly shocked. I don't think there is any chance for our Vader to turn back to the good side, though. Oh, and Obama's reaction?

"Every family has a black sheep."

Buying The War

Ah, the liberal media...you gotta love 'em. This is an excerpt from a Bill Moyers journal episode called "Buying the War" which details how complicit the mainstream media was in selling the Iraq War. Check it out on PBS if you get a chance.

Ah, The Liberal Media

Since the comments section of the Sanchez post has been threading the way of the "liberal" media, I thought I would share this picture with all of you taken last October of 2006. Here we see President Bush meeting his "troops" or more specifically: Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, and Neil Boortz.

Now I tried to find a photo of Bill Clinton talking with his "troops," which is every single person in mainstream media if you believe conservatives, but I couldn't find one. I offer this photo, as well as the highly popular broadcasts of each one of these individuals, as evidence that the media is, in fact, not liberal. Talk to anyone who lives in a rural area in our country and they only hear right wing talk show hosts. The 3-5 conglomerates that own these stations will not put on any liberal hosts. How's that for fair and balanced?

So when General Sanchez says things like the press is "unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled" he would be 100 percent correct!

OmygodIcan'tbelieveit! (Part Deux)

Warning: The following contains substantiated rumour, inuendo, gossip, and no substanative facts whatsoever (aka trying not to cause the ineveitable conservative tapping into their inner rage, flying off the handle at yours truly, and accusing me of being a communist)

But........

An avid reader of Notes From the Front just sent me this email (the names have been changed to protect the innocent...)

Jill (my wife) says that it is a widespread rumor that Michelle Bachmann is having an affair with someone in Washington, apparently another congressman. One of Jill's acquaintances observed Bachmann playing footsie with some guy in a meeting, and upon further discussion with those in the know learned that it's common knowledge she is having an affair.

I guess when Bush rejected her advances she went on to fry other fish.

And apparently her husband likes to watch, since she would never do anything without him telling her to do it.

Could it be true? Well, I know this is tabloid stuff but this is the closest I will EVER get to going Paris Hilton on all y'all's asses. I have scanned the Internet and found nothing. Perhaps Notes From The Front will be the first to break this story!!!

Well Well Well

Looks like ol'Markdelphia is right again. And all it took was a little time...

The Ex-CEO of Qwest, Joseph P. Nacchio (left), has alleged that the United States Government, specifically the NSA (National Security Agency), withdrew a 200 million dollar contract because Qwest refused to participate in a surveillance program. Now I know you must all be thinking that yours truly is caught in a time loop. Didn't we already have long and hard debates about this many moons ago? Wasn't Qwest the only company out of all the tele-communications companies to say NO to the NSA back when they wanted to listen to our conversations? Didn't Dave and Crabmaster Scratch argue vociferously that, because of the 9-11 attacks, these programs were needed?

And wasn't I told I was being "paranoid" and "libelous" by insinuating that our government wanted to use the NSA program for things other than protecting our nation from terrorism?

Well, the answers to all these questions is YES, of course but the current allegation by Mr. Nacchio is not being made in regards to surveillance programs since 9-11.

No, sir.

Then CEO Nacchio was approached by the NSA on February 27, 2001, A FULL SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE 9-11 ATTACKS!!!

That's right, folks. It comes as no surprise to me, but possibly to others who read and post here, that Herr Cheney wants to be up all of our collective asses with tweezers-you know, to make sure that we are all good little followers of the state. I'm sure that our beloved Fuhrer also wants to keep an eye (or ear in this case) on any dissenters and political enemies that might be plotting against him. And if anyone gets too powerful....or steps out line......

Ah, less government....you gotta love it.

Could any of this be true? As this story comes out, neocon pundits will point to the fact that Joe Nacchio has been found guilty of insider trading and will say anything to beat the rap. But a recent article in the Star and Tribune describes Nacchio as vainly attempting to tell the court that his sale of stock couldn't have been improper due to the fact the NSA cancelled the contract. Of course, this is proving difficult because all references to the NSA program have been redacted from court papers for "security concerns."

So that's what the kids are calling breaking constitutional law these days. Cool!

My questions are these: why did the Bush administration, who has stated repeatedly that the NSA program is necessary because of 9-11, want to bypass the courts and warrants back in February of 2001, well before the attacks? Have other companies complied? If so, why didn't this "necessary" surveillance prevent 9-11?

And why exactly did they want American's phone records again?

A Nightmare

The commander of coalition forces in Iraq from 2004-2006, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, is speaking out.

In a recent interview, Sanchez, the top military man in Iraq during that time period, called the Bush Administration's handling of the war "incompetent" and a "nightmare with no end in sight." He went on to say that the Bush administration's plan is "catastrophically flawed and unrealistically optimistic." And how does he feel about the surge?

"A desperate move that would not achieve long term stability."

You may recall that Gen. Sanchez was forced into retirement because of the Abu Ghraib scandal. So is it sour grapes? Or is he covering his ass for the history books?

Could he be right?

We have a Winner

Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize. And I, for one, am very happy. Regardless of what you might think about climate change, there is no doubt that there hasn't been anyone who has raised awareness more on the issue than our former VP.

Along with Gore, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was given the award "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Even our current president has been talking more of the need to help combat climate change. I think we are headed down a good path, here, folks and kudos to the big Al for leading the way.

My Point About Conservatives Completely and Utterly Proven

Today's column by Katherine Kersten illustrates my contention from earlier in the week that conservative pundits are losing their minds. Vietnam and Iraq are two completely different countries and to make the assertion that Iraq would fall into chaos if we left, just as Vietnam did, is fucking moronic. Do these conservative pundits just make up a bunch of shit, ignore basic facts, and then print it as truth?

A 5th grader will tell you that Iraq and Vietnam are about as different as night and day. Not to mention the fact that it was our fault that the violence escalated regionally in Vietnam because we stayed to long, not because we left too soon. And aren't we doing quite a bit of trade with Vietnam now? Isn't the country more or less stable because we left?

You know, it's a nice pleasant fantasy when I am told to just ignore folks like Katherine Kersten and maybe they'll go away but people read what she is saying and think it's true.

And they can't see that they are being lied to by what is, without a doubt, the greatest propaganda machine in the history of the world.

Is It True?

A reader sent me this yesterday and I thought I would throw it out to all of you and see what you think. It was written earlier this year but I still think it is appropriate.

A Psychiatrist's Analysis of George W. Bush

George Bush's "irrational"consideration of a "surge" in the wake of the Iraq Study Group report -- which apparently defies all credible counsel -- has begun to generate speculation regarding his sanity. References to Bush's delusions" have appeared in the mainstream media and throughout the blogosphere. As a psychiatrist, I understandably get concerned when I see clinical terminology bandied about in political discourse, and thought it might be of interest to share a professional perspective on this question. I have a distinct clinical impression that I think explains much of Mr. Bush's visible pathology.

First and foremost, George W. Bush has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. What this means, is that he has rather desperate insecurities about himself and compensates by constructing a grandiose self-image. Most of his relationships are either mirroring relationships -- people who flatter him and reinforce his grandiosity -- or idealized self-objects -- people that he himself thinks a lot of, and hence feels flattered by his association with them. Some likely perform both functions. Hence his weakness for sycophants like Harriet Miers, and powerful personalities like Dick Cheney.

Even as a narcissist, Bush knows he isn't a great intellect, and compensates by dismissing the value of intellect altogether. Hence his disses of Gore's bookishness, and any other intellectual who isn't flattering him. Bush knows that his greatest personal strength is projecting personal affability, and tries to utilize it even in the most inappropriate settings. That's why he gives impromptu back rubs to the German Chancellor in a diplomatic meeting -- he's insecure intellectually, and tries to make everyone into a "buddy" so he can feel more secure. The most disturbing aspect about narcissists, however, is their pathological inability to empathize with others, with the exception of those who either mirror them, or whom they idealize. Hence Bush's horrifying insensitivity to the Katrina victims, his callous jokes when visiting grievously injured soldiers, and numerous other instances. He simply has no capacity to feel for others in that way.

When LBJ was losing Vietnam, he developed a haunted expression that anybody could recognize as indicative of underlying anguish. For all his faults, you just knew he was losing sleep over it. By the same token, we know just as well that Bush isn't losing any sleep over dead American soldiers, to say nothing of dead Iraqis. He didn't exhibit any sign of significant concern until his own political popularity was sliding -- because THAT'S something he CAN feel. Which brings us to his recent "delusion." To be blunt, I don't see any indication that Bush has any sort of psychotic disorder whatsoever. The lapses in reality-testing that he exhibits are the sort that can be readily explained by his characterological insensitivity to the feelings and perceptions of others, due to his persistently self-centered frame of reference.

Mr. Bush knows that things aren't going his way in Iraq, and he knows that this is damaging him politically. He also sees that it is likely to get worse no matter what he does, and in fact it may be a lost cause. However, he recognizes that if he follows the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, Iraq will almost certainly evolve into a puppet state of Iran, and given his treatment of Iran he will completely lose control of the situation -- and he will be politically discredited for this outcome. The ONLY chance that he has to avoid this political disaster, and save his political skin, is to hope against hope for "victory" in Iraq. Advancing the "surge" idea offers Bush two political advantages over following the ISG recommendations. One is that if it is implemented, maybe, just maybe, he can pull out some sort of nominal "victory" out of the situation. The chances are exceedingly slim, granted, but slim is better to him than the alternative -- none. Alternately, if the "surge" is politically rejected, he gains some political cover, so when things inevitably go bad, he can say "I told you so" and blame the "surrender monkeys" for the outcome. Most people probably won't buy it, but some (his core base) will. Now, I know what many of you are thinking -- is George Bush willing to risk the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands more American soldiers, on an outside chance to save his political skin, in a half-baked plan that even he knows probably won't work at all? Yes, he is. Because George Bush is that narcissistic, that desperate, and yes, that sociopathic as well.

Especially interesting about Mr. Bush, but quite common, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is frequently associated with alcoholism. The insufferable "holier than thou" attitude associated with "Dry Drunk" Syndrome" is indicative of underlying narcissism. Also, the way that Bush embraces Christianity is characteristically narcissistic. Rather than incorporating the lessons of humility and empathy modeled by Jesus, Bush uses his Christian faith to reinforce his grandiosity. Jesus is his powerful ally, his idealized "buddy" who gives a rubber stamp to anything he thinks . Finally -- and this will sound VERY familiar to many readers -- those persons with NPD are notoriously unable to say they're sorry. Admitting error is fundamentally incompatible with their precarious efforts to maintain their sense of order. Anyone having this particular character flaw almost certainly has NPD.

(Dr. Paul Minot, psychiatrist, Waterville, Maine)

I think that this analysis could easily extended to cover several conservatives I know as well.

Rush Limbaugh Phony Soldiers Comment

I figured since we are debating this in comments I would put this out front on the blog and let everyone judge for themselves.

Please! For the love of Mike....STOP THE INSANTIY!!!

Over the course of the last few years, y'all have heard me dish on a variety of things that irritate me about folks on the right side of the aisle. To be fair, the left side of the aisle irritates me as well, especially lately. Someone needs to let the Democratic Party know that every time Harry Reid speaks, rather than projecting strength, millions of Americans get the sudden urge to discuss the fine art of quilting and drink warm milk.

Lately, however, right minded folk seem to be losing their minds. I mean this quite literally and it's getting worse everyday. I'm sure that many folks who post here of the conservative ilk will tell you that liberals are just as bad but it's simply not true. Liberals have a plethora of other faults, to be sure, but they aren't anywhere close to what the conservatives are going through at present. They aren't even in the same ballpark. While it's true that everyone is capable of psychosis, in the last few weeks, conservative pundits have collectively demonstrated new depth to the word "loony."

Rush Limbaugh, on his daily radio show last week, called Iraq and Afghan troops that have criticized the war, "phony troops." Leaping to his defense, fellow radio host Melanie Morgan said, on Fox News, that soldiers like VoteVets.org Chairman Jon Soltz are part of the “soldiers who are fake, or who are embellishers, or who are posers.” Morgan then claimed that Soltz, who served honorably in both Kosovo and Iraq, has a “far left, anti-America agenda” and that he “undermine[s] the real mission of our troops, our heroes who are out there”



I have two words for you Melanie: FUCK and YOU.

The day you get shot at, truck bombed, or have shrapnel removed from your head is the day you can speak with any kind of authority of what constitutes a loyal solider. The same could be said to Rush, who the last time I checked, received a deferment in Vietnam because he had an anal cyst. And people think that these two individuals are accurate judges of what is patriotic and what is not? What a joke....

I challenge anyone here to find a liberal, as well known as Limbaugh and Morgan, who has called combat troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan "phony" or "Anti-American." Where do Bushies come up with this shit? Oh yes, that's right....THEIR INSANELY WARPED MINDS!

Another shining example of this is Michele Malkin who, when commenting on Sally Field's statement at the Emmys that if "women ran things there would be no war," declared that Ms. Field is, obviously, the "type of mom who buys her kids liquor, condoms, and a hotel room on prom night rather than suiting up and doing battle."

Uh.....what?

Maybe it's the fact that they can see their support slipping away like granules of sand through their fingers. Or maybe they just can't get out of that "tap into my inner, delusional rage..make something up...and right it down as fact" loop of insanity. Clearly, these people aren't thinking rationally. But how did they get here? Where did they insanity begin?

I say it began with OJ.

Laugh all you want but I think that when OJ Simpson was found innocent of a crime he clearly committed, I believe that certain powerful folks, of the conservative persuasion, saw a golden opportunity. I speculate they realized that they could make up whatever they wanted, throw in some jingoistic lingo, tap into American paranoia and ignorance, and voila! Instant Mandate!

They sure have accomplished a lot, haven't they? They have lowered the level of civility in this country to the point of where we are now: calling US soldiers, who risk their lives for us everyday, "phonies" simply because they don't agree with their bizarre vision of patriotism. They have also given rise to groups like Moveon.org. The beef over the General Patreus ad made me laugh so hard I almost threw up. You see, this what you get, Bushies et al, when you lower the political discourse in this country to the mental and emotional level of a thirteen year old girl. You get liberal groups who say dumb ass shit that makes no sense. For every yin, there must be a yang...

So, I have to say that I quite literally can't take this anymore. Listening to any conservative pundit today on just about any topic is like listening a robot slowing breaking down...muttering unintelligible drivel. I've tried to listen...tried to be fair...but I just can't do it anymore. Would someone (or several someones) please slap these people in the face? You know, like in the 1940s when a woman would get too emotional and a man would have to bust them across the chops?

Maybe, just maybe, it will snap them out of their continually spiralling descent into delusion and cease to waste our time.

Torture Is For Pussys

Just ask these guys. Great article today in the Washington Post which details how real men (i.e. men who don't have dick size envy) can extract information from an enemy. Torture, to put it simply, does not work. Just out of curiosity, have US interrogators tried to maybe...oh...I don't know....use a softer approach like getting some Islamists drunk, showing them some porn, and seeing what they might give up.

I know that when I've had a few cocktails and have worked a little tail I am a little more conducive to dishing out secrets :)

This is what happens...

....when you privatize health care. Read this article from today's New York Times.

And people are worried about the government taking over health care? It sounds to me like the government just caught a bunch of thieving scumbags playing "pinch the penny so I can keep my vacation home" with people's lives.

The Regan Mantle

Sounds frightening, doesn't it? One of my readers sent me this column from Nancy Scola. Click here to read.

I have gone back and forth on my feelings for President Reagan. I didn't like him when he was in office. I appreciated him a little more later on in life. Now....I don't know...maybe his D looks so much better than President Bush's F right now.

I think perhaps my grandfather, at 91 years young, put it best. Bear in mind, he did vote for Reagan twice.

"What do I think of President Reagan?" Poppo asked in response to my question regarding our 40th president.

"Well, he was a good actor."

Amen, Pop, amen

So True

This one is hilarious. It really puts "terror" into perspective.

Fresh Celery

Ah, fall.....that crispness in the air....the leaves about to turn....there really is no other season like it. It happens to be my favorite. Baseball playoffs, football season, and a strong sense of a new beginning.

Perhaps this feeling of a new start has to do with the fact that this is the time of year when school is back in session. Minnesotans greeted the 2007-2008 school year with a full page spread in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune detailing how a full third of our schools are in jeopardy. That's right, folks. We here in the great North Woods are is deep trouble. No Child Left Behind trouble.

For those of you who don't know, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is the education program of our current president, George Bush, which he signed into law shortly after he took office in 2001. Before I give my own take on it, however, I feel that we really need to understand what No Child means and how it works. Since I don't want to bore you with a lot of "edu-speak," I thought that a sports analogy would facilitate a deeper understanding of what is expected of our students under the NCLB laws.

Imagine that American students are on football team......(cue blurry, dreamy lap dissolve and "doodle oodle oo" music)

1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all must win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable. If after two years they have not won the championship, their footballs and equipment will be taken away until they do win the championship.

2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents. All kids will play football at a proficient level!

3. Talented players will be asked to work out on their own, without instruction. This is necessary because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in football, have limited athletic abilities, or whose parents don't like football.

4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept on the 4th, 8th, and 11th games.It will create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimum goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child gets left behind. If parents do not like this new law, they are encouraged to vote for vouchers and support private schools that can screen out the non-athletes and prevent their children from having to go to school with bad football players.

No Child Left Behind is quite possibly the worst piece of legislation in the history of this country. It is ignorant, racist, and gives a big "Fuck You!" to people that are poor-something that has been quite common in the last six years.

It is ignorant because it assumes that the only way to measure assessment is to test children. Apparently people like President Bush and Margaret Spellings (our Secretary Of Education) have not picked up a book on learning styles in...oh, I don't know....25 years!

Everyone learns differently. Some learn in a more tactile way. Others learn in groups. Some learn by writing or research. Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard University, identified, in 1983, eight multiple intelligences or ways people learn. They are: Linguistic intelligence, Logical-mathematical intelligence, Musical intelligence, Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, Spatial intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence, and Intrapersonal intelligence. Testing would fall under the "Logical-mathematical intelligence" umbrella. As we can see, NCLB ignores the other seven ways people learn and thus is an extremly ignorant way to gauge learning.

It is racist because it does not take into account recent research that suggests that different cultures learn differently. The work of Gardner can be applied here as well. Some people are inherently bad test takers because it is simply not a part of their cultural environment. Or they can't speak English, the only way the test is available incidentally. In the last ten years, we have undergone a massive influx of immigrants from all over the world and they are immediately expected to conform to standardized testing. What if the only way they have been tested in the past is oral exams?

It says "Fuck You" to poor people because of how the questions on the test are worded. It assumes knowledge and understanding where there might not be either . One question on the test included the words "fresh celery." Well, nearly everyone from poorer families and/or from a non white group got that question wrong because they had no idea what fresh celery was. They had never seen it before in their lives! Did people at the Department of Education actually THINK when they drew up these tests? Or did they just do their usual Bushie bullshit and try to ram a square peg into a round hole? LEARN, DAMMIT, THE WAY NORMAL PEOPLE DO!!!!

Actually, I suppose it's prudent to mention that the one good thing that has come out of NCLB is the aggregate data that proves that people learn differently especially if they are from another culture. Ironically, NCLB invalidates itself by illustrating that a large segment of our student population doesn't do well on standardized tests.

As a result of poor test scores, they are punished by the slow removal of Title I money, which is basically what is happening with nearly a third of our schools in Minnesota. My children's school, replete with cultural diversity, is now on "warning" as they have failed to achieve NCLB standards in the 2006-07 school year. Students that failed to achieve the minimum requirements? ESL (English as a Second Language) and learning disabled kids...the ones who don't acquire intelligence through the "Logical-mathematical" arena.

If we really want our children to achieve basic knowledge sets, we need to start applying Gardner's theories on a national level. Everyone should be taught in a way that is most suitable to their comfort of learning. Grading should be based on a balance of testing, group work, hands on learning, classroom participation and oral exams. To simply focus on testing is so narrow minded and downright silly that we are really doing our children a great disservice

Because once the Title I money is taken away, schools usually get reconstituted, meaning class size increases in other schools in the district. This exacerbates the problem further and learning is even more diminished. Of all of the policies of President Bush, this one really is the worst, hands down. Y'know, people always ask me, when I go off about how incompetent Bush is, to give them a specific example of how Bush is destroying the future.

I always start with this one.

Chris Rock about the War on Terror

Joanne Tucker sent me this hilarious video of Chris Rock. Finally, all is explained!

Mr. Ahmadinejad Goes To New York

As I write these words, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is about to speak at Columbia University in New York. The introduction that is being given before he goes on, by Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University...well...to say that it is not very welcoming would be the understatement of the year. It makes me wonder why the right is as bunged up as it is over this visit because basically President A just got bitch slapped all over the mother!

The reaction to this whole visit has been hilarious, in sad and pathetic way. I could write a long essay about the substance of President Ahmadinejad's speech, being delivered as I am composing the remainder of this post, but what's the point? We already know what he is going to say. At this point I am more interested in illustrating how little we understand Iran fully exposed by the silly reaction of conservatives in this country.

President Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. The leader of Iran is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader. The president of Iran has the power he has because he is granted it by the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah grants him his power as long as he goes out, spews his bile of lies AND gets a reaction from the West. President A currently holds a whopping 20 percent approval rating in his country and is generally loathed by most citizens, largely due to the fact that the economy is in the tank.

By reacting to him the way the conservative fake outrage machine has in the past few days, they have GIVEN, not taken away, power from him. They have demonized him to biblical (pun fully intended) proportions, comparing him to Adolph Hitler (as if!) and launching him onto the world stage and limelight....a stage he is all too willing to occupy for lengthy periods of time. Even more farcical is that fact that it has been President Bush's own policies in Iraq that have led to the hard line factions of Iran further cementing their power in the region, thus making Iran the larger enemy today than it was six years ago when reform seemed to be on the horizon.

Oddly, the outrage has been directed at President A's visit to Columbia but not to his speeches earlier in the day at the National Press Club or the Council on Foreign Relations. I wonder why this is so? (I know the answer...just want to see if y'all do :))

Anyhoo, it has been a truly remarkable day for myself as well as other people in this country that know a thing or two about Iran, to see an already semi-scary guy fully "made" into the enemy that conservatives want him...or actually NEED him to be. Ah, well, just another example of what Army Sargent Ben Busch called a "childish understanding of the region."

America is Not Fighting WWIV

Steve Chapman, columnist in the Chicago Tribune, had a great column in the Sept 16the Edition. Click here if you'd like to read it.

Some quotes with which I agree completely:

"to equate our current challenges with the Nazis and Soviets is to grossly misunderstand our enemies."

"Osama bin Laden must rejoice to be depicted as endangering our entire culture and way of life."

"The vision of a monolithic Islamic movement hostile to everything we value is equally warped. We usually associate the religion with Arab militants, but the world's biggest Muslim populations are in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and Nigeria, not the Middle East. Some Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Indonesia and Senegal, are free and democratic. The others vary greatly in political openness and personal liberty -- sort of like non-Muslim countries."

"Radical Islamic elements pose a danger to our security that will demand vigilance, resources, and in some instances, military action. But let's not make it more than it is."

Yes, let's not make it more than it is because to do so would be costly mistake that will, in fact, make things worse.

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.