Heightened UnAlert Volume 1

After careful consideration, I have come to the unmistakable conclusion that most conservatives are afraid of the wrong things. So this week, I am starting a new series, to be continued from time to time similar to Grab Bag and Profiles in Courage, that highlight this silliness.

Strike up a conversation with a conservative friend and you will find him or her principally worried about terrorism, immigration, and poor people thieving from their wallets. Notice that the subtext here is "the other" or the strange, different person from the far away land of....wherever...taking something from them or invading their space.

Liberals, however, seemed concerned mostly about health care, education, and the environment...all things that will help people live better lives and ultimately improve our country.

Even within each category that conservatives value as being top concerns they are way off base. Poor people thieving from your wallet? This is actually known as belief perseverance or confirmation bias. The same could be said for their views on immigration, which are so unrealistic and child-like that it's hard for me to listen to them seriously. Nothing, however, is more silly than a conservative's view on terrorism and national security.

At this point, I think it's obvious to most people that Iraq was never really a serious threat and that we probably should have kept our focus on Afghanistan. I admit that, back in the fall of 2001, we really looked we were going to head in the right direction, policy wise. Then Tora Bora happened, the administration turned almost immediately to Iraq, and I realized, to my horror, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney honestly do not give a rat's ass about the people that attacked us on 9-11. If they did, we would not have the situation we currently have in Pakistan.

To put it bluntly, Pakistan is a powder keg with a quarter of a centimeter long fuse. Large portions of the country have been taken over by radicals. President Musharaf, leader of Pakistan, has more or less suspended democracy in favor of a dictatorship. According to all of the latest National Intelligence Assessments, Al Qaeda has reconstituted itself in the various tribal areas of Pakistan and is at pre-9/11 strength.

Oh, and Pakistan has somewhere in the neighborhood of three dozen nuclear warheads.

Great.

And people in this country are worried about Iraq falling into the wrong hands?

Folks, Pakistan IS in the wrong hands and it's getting worse everyday. Don't believe me? Check out the Oct 29, 2007 edition of Newsweek. Here is the money quote:

Today no other country on earth is arguably more dangerous than Pakistan. It has everything Osama bin Laden could ask for: political instability, a trusted network of radical Islamists, an abundance of angry young anti-Western recruits, secluded training areas, access to state-of-the-art electronic technology, regular air service to the West and security services that don't always do what they're supposed to do. Then there's the country's large and growing nuclear program. "If you were to look around the world for where Al Qaeda is going to find its bomb, it's right in their backyard," says Bruce Riedel, the former senior director for South Asia on the National Security Council.

The whole article is stunning and yet another shining example of how sub moronic the Bush Administration's policy on terrorism is devoid of priorities. One would think that the man who once said, "bin Laden, Dead or Alive" would actually live up to his word and do something about Pakistan, other than what he is currently doing which is offering a bunch of lip service to the media and sending low level diplomats to talk to Musharaf.

Mention Pakistan to a conservative (please do sometime...it's really a hoot) and you will get a surprisingly laissez faire response. Here are some that I have heard recently.

"Bomb Pakistan? Aren't they are allies. To do so would be colossally stupid."

"Musharaf is doing the best he can. Those folks over there can't handle democracy. They need to be ruled with an iron hand."

"Things are just fine over there. We need to stay focused on Iraq, building democracy there so it will spread to Pakistan and other countries in the region at a later date."

Huh?

Talk about hypocrisy. So....what....they are the only ones allowed to be tough and if anyone else, like say...Barack Obama talks about military action in Pakistan then it's time to stomp their feet and throw an eight year old temper tantrum, yelling, "No! No! You can't do that! No!"

Or they will revert to the old "It's all Bill Clinton's fault" mantra. Perhaps they haven't read this article, recently sent to me be a loyal reader, which details how it was Musharraf, after seizing power in 1999, who refused to complete a joint US-Pakistani operation (started with ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif) that would've possibly taken out bin Laden. It was President Clinton and his staff that had been working on this operation since the failed 1998 bombing.

We need to get serious about Pakistan now. I would suggest an operation in Pakistan that cleans out the tribal regions once and for all. Right now, the Bush Administration, in a shit eatingly stupid maneuver, is sending around 15o million dollars to the region to "win hearts and minds."

I'll give all of you one guess as to where that money is really going.

Weekend Fun

I just found this while surfing. My stomach still hurts.

Alright, I Need Help

I hate to say this but I am panicked. The Writer's Guild Strike is making me nervous. In another two weeks or so, no new shows. I don't watch all that much TV but I do enjoy a few and the prospect of digging into my old Star Treks isn't all that appealing.

Am I that shallow that I can't just watch a movie or read a book?

Perhaps I am.

Who Me? Responsible?

Well, that evil liberal Nick Coleman is at it again. His recent column about the 35W Bridge collapse has firmly cemented him as a degenerate, political crier who refuses to see the great things that government can accomplish when it is gutted.

What an asshole. How dare he question the commitment and individual responsibility of our state Republican leadership? Doesn't he know that you aren't allowed to do that? Because when you question whether or not conservatives actually can be personally responsible, an angel dies.

This is so typical of the times and, as usual, liberals have got it all wrong. They let conservatives dictate the playing field when they should just go make their own. They whine, piss, moan, and run like frightened mice when a conservative accuses them of being "mean" or "playing politics." I would suggest that they go after the issue of responsibility. Most conservatives talk a good game about responsibility but shirk it on every issue. The party that constantly touts taking responsibility strangely has been taking none of it, never so true as we have seen with the 35W bridge collapse.

How about some illuminating examples?

Health Care? Fuck you, get you hands out of my wallet. I don't give a shit about you. Just work hard and you'll be rewarded by the free market.

Environment? Any problems are not my fault.

Education? Also not my problem.

National Security? Everyone who has attacked us is completely at fault and we are not because we are all about freedom.

Disaster Preparedness? Not my problem. Also not the governments. Fuck you, you're on your own. At the end of the day, you will be better for it. This is pretty much the attitude of Carol Molnau, Tim Pawlenty, and the other laughably irresponsible members of the Minnesota State Republican party. As Coleman says, it's almost as if the bridge never fell.

Because the government can't possibly be held responsible for bridges. That's up to us and the free market. We just need to put our faith in private industry because they have proven to be so much more competent and trustworthy than the government, right? Competition breeds better service, unlike the government, correct?

A Matter of Ideology

In the post below this one, the comments section produced this gem from John Waxy

What a crock of shit...the free market, run by people who by definition want and need to make a profit will solve the societal needs of this country. We have done this already people, it was called the Middle Ages and our figurative ancestors came here to get away from it because it no longer worked!

Well played, sir. Well played. But I think it goes deeper than that. I read this a while back, during Katrina, and it really sums up why things are so fucked up in this country.

While condemnation of the government response to Katrina has centered on specific failures...., significant criticism has also identified political conservatism as the overriding cause of problems in the way the disaster was handled. These critics argue that the alleged unreadiness of the United States National Guard, negligence of federal authorities, and haplessness of officials such as Michael Brown did not represent inherent incompetence on the part of the federal authorities.

Instead, these failures are seen as natural and deliberate consequences of the conservative ruling philosophy embraced by the George W. Bush administration, especially conservative policies to force reductions in government expenditure, privatize key government responsibilities such as disaster preparedness, and prioritize military spending over spending at home.

These critics also target what is perceived as the failed reconstruction effort in New Orleans, claiming that it represents another political success for "sink or swim" ideology: a "government-subsidized gentrification plan" intended to eliminate what the neoconservative news magazine The Weekly Standard has called "the community that appalled the rest of America when wall-to-wall television coverage of Katrina showed us just what it looked like: poor, black, with astonishingly high unemployment and welfare dependency rates.

Arguments targeting the role of conservatism in these aspects of the Katrina response cite examples such as the systematic dismantling of FEMA by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the more than US$150 million Homeland Security awarded in contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater USA for services in the disaster, and statements such as those by U.S. Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson that “only the best residents should return" to the reconstructed city of New Orleans.

Welcome to the United Corporations of America in 2007. Remember, you have free will so all is well!!

Point of Origin

I hope that everyone realizes that I was being sarcastic in the post yesterday. Some didn't and I got some shocked emails and worried phone calls that I slipped off the deep end. The truth is that I really wanted a summation, from the conservative side, of why we have problems in this country. At one time or another, this is what I have been told by the right and when you look at the list, don't you just start laughing? I do....

What is very bizarre about the whole situation is that these very conservatives have been running the show for the last seven years. So can someone explain to me how it's the liberals' fault when they don't have the power to do anything and haven't since Bill Clinton was president? And don't give me the "They have Congress now" bullcrap because clearly that hasn't worked out. If they want to bitch, they should start by looking in the mirror.

Every problem has a point of origin. If we have these problems now and the conservatives are driving these policies that cause the problems, then they are the point of origin and, thus, bear the responsibility. What is going on right now reminds of when I hear a crash in my house and run into the room where the noise occurred. I get the louder of my two children pointing at the other saying, "He did it!!!"

Actually, the picture above pretty much sums it up.

Pass The Dutchie To The Left Hand Side

As we draw closer to the election year, I thought it would be prudent to take an honest look at the irrevocable harm that liberals have done to this country. I feel that it's important to take stock, as it were, and closely examine who is responsible for the downturn our country has taken and who is not.

Of late, I have been reminded of what exactly is at stake by several friends of mine on the right side of the aisle. Everything from small drips of polite words, here and there, to torrential, raging downpours of fervent ideology have been directed my way in the past few weeks, pointing the finger of blame directly at the left of this country. So, how about all of us here at Notes From The Front tally up the liberals' record thus far? We really need to get a sense of where of our current status. And we really need an honest one.

Bear in mind, I used only the facts, as they are known to conservatives, to produce this assessment so there is no wavering from these points. They are rock solid truth.

In chronological order:

1. September 11th Attacks. Could have been prevented if not for President Clinton's dismantling of the military in the 90s and having his hand on the chicken switch, not taking out bin Laden soon enough. 8 years of soft, liberal rule gave Al Qaeda the opportunity it needed.

2. Anthrax Attacks. The fault of the liberal media. They brought it on themselves for spreading lies. Probably the work of a foreigner, whose multi-culti lies liberals believe on a daily basis.

3. Tora Bora. bin Laden et al slipped away due to the liberals not supporting the war effort enough, forcing Bush into sending in a proxy force.

4. Iraq. The blame for all problems in Iraq going as badly as it has can be spread out over several groups:
a. Liberal Democrats playing politics with our brave soldiers lives.
b. The liberal media who never gives Bush a chance and over reports all the bad news all the time and never any good news ever.
c. The Hollywood elite, whose anti American hit pieces aid and abet our enemy everyday, costing thousands of lives of our brave soldiers.
d. The people of this country who voted for Al Gore and John Kerry (two traitors who would've sat back and done nothing when were attacked on 9-11) or should I say SHEEPLE of this country who are too blinded by partisanship to see that the real problems here are a, b, and c.

5. War on Terror. Liberals will not do what is necessary to win our struggle. This includes wiretapping to protect our great nation, torture to prevent further attacks, exposing traitors like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, and preventing brown people from entering our country. Because of this, we are doomed.

6. Hurricane Katrina. The response to this horrible tragedy was poor because of Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin. They are the complete bearers of blame and fault. If they had done a better job, they wouldn't have so much blood on their hands.

7. Climate Change is a lie made up by liberals who want to profit from zealotry. By playing into people's fears, a great disservice is done to the backbone of America: our corporations, who exist only to help us and give us comfortable lives. This "threat" is a figment of Al Gore's imagination, a classic re-direct to keep our eyes off the real enemy, who are China, Russia, France, England, Germany, Canada, Mexico, Venezuella, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Indonesia, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Vietnam, North Korea, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Spain, Libya, and the Republic of Lesotho.

8. Health Care is in the crapper because the Democrats over regulate the free market, which, if left alone, would sort everything out just fine.

9. The Economy is in dire straits because of the massive amount of spending that the Democratic controlled Congress is pushing for in the new budget. It will destroy our country.

10. Education. Our schools our liberal indoctrination centers whose main purpose is to churn out America haters. Thankfully, No Child Left Behind will fix all of this.

11. Values are gone in this country because of people like Sally Field, buying their kids liquor, condoms, and hotel rooms on prom night rather than gearing up for battle. Liberals are also responsible for the spread of homosexuality, a behavior problem that can be cured.

Take a look at this list and tell me honestly: can you vote for a liberal now? They have spent the last seven years plotting to destroy this country and have almost been successful. If it weren't for the dutiful, watching eyes of George W. Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney, all would be lost.

I am certain there are more than just these ten items. How about helping me out? This is an organic process, after all, and we really need to get it right.

You know, for the history books.

Cheese Land

Now I'm at the usual point that every Vikings fan has each year: I begin to have hope. And every year, my hopes are dashed, usually by mind numbingly bad coaching.

This weekend, though, I am going to try to remain upbeat. The Vikings have the best running back the game has seen in a long time. Adrian Peterson is in a different stratosphere and a total blast to watch. This simple fact could be the tide turner.

If the Vikings can bring that same pass defense that they brought against San Diego, Favre is going to throw some interceptions. We know Green Bay is not going to run the ball so it's going to be a pass festival.

In addition, we have to keep pounding the ball with the run so we can make them come up in the box to play defense. Then we can start hitting them with passes, assuming of course we have Bollinger start who I think is our best shot at beating the Cheesers.

So, the question becomes...can they execute? Will Childress get to far up his own ass and fuck things up? And will All Day rush for 300?

I'm looking forward to it....

February 2009: United States and Iran Summit

Day One: President Obama welcomed President Ahmadinejad in the first ever meeting between leaders of the United States and Iran. The meeting took place on US soil.

The United States spent the day formally apologizing for all wrongs done to Iran, focusing specifically on 1953 coup, by the CIA, of the Democratically elected leader Dr Mohammed Mossadegh. All troops are removed from around Iran and re-deployed to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The day concluded with a pledge to cease meddling in Iranian affairs and to support its nuclear energy program.

Day Two: Iran was scheduled to apologize for the wrongs they have done to the United States. President Ahmadinejad was strangely silent.

Day Three: Goodwill tours are taken around the capital, including a visit by both presidents to the Gay Pride Institute. President Ahmadinejad appeared confused and slightly uncomfortable.

Day Four: The United States repeated its apologies at a general session at the UN. A cacophony of applause was heard and howls of "America, Fuck Yeah" are heard from the assembly. Iran did not apologize, instead criticizing the United States, calling it "the devil."

Day Five: As President Ahmadinejad flew back to Tehran, his military told him that the United States had begun operations, along with Pakistani forces, inside of Pakistan to capture or eliminate the remnants of Al Qaeda. A communique was issued directly from President Obama. It was short and simple:

Pay attention to what we are doing today. Step out of line and you're next.

What In.....#$#%#$% Tarnation?

I was watching the news today and saw, with what can only be described as shock and awe, that Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president.

Would someone please tell me if I have entered a parallel universe?

I am completely at a loss for words and this news, monumentally stunning as it is, has caused me to not put up the post regarding my plan for Iran.

At this point, I don't know if I like Rudy less or Pat more...it's all so confusing...someone please help!!!

VOTE

I know it's an off year but get out and VOTE. There are plenty of school board and council seats up for elections which could affect your local area.

And it is your civic duty.

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.