sane time sane place

2006-11-28T05:48:00.000-08:00

Recently ex-PM Netanyahu was interviewed on CNN by Glen Beck. It was a nauseating display of neo-con ignorance on Beck's part, and unabashed chutzpah from Netanyahu. The two agreed that the biggest threat in the middle east is Iran. Beck asserted that "talking" with Iran and Syria is simply a stupid idea. If I decipher their logic correctly, the point is that if you have diplomatic relations with an evil regime, it gives that regime an appearance of legitimacy. Legitimate or not, the evil regimes control their respective nations and their militaries. Consider a simple analogy: as we enter the holiday season, shoplifting will increase. Do security experts recommend ignoring potential thiefs?...No the experts advise engaging the would-be looters.

The part of the interview that nearly made me ill was Netanyahu's insistance that the US do something about the growing nuclear threat posed by Iran. Israel has some of the best military hardware in the world- we provided it. They possess one of the most professional military forces in the world. Netanyahu said that an Iranian nuke would not threaten the US, but could wipe out Israel. His suggested solution- US military action against Iran. Horseshit Benjamin- if you feel threatened by Iran, attack them yourself. Israel should stop whining and take control of their own destiny. The US should stop doing the heavy lifting for Israel.

2006-11-17T06:54:00.000-08:00

When will common sense return to Americans? After watching the devastating effects of group think for over 6 years, the pundits criticize the Democrats for disagreeing with one another. The intra-party differences that have been displayed by the Democrats should be perceived as a welcome change, not seen as evidence of a lack of unified vision.

There are two quotes that should be remembered. Will Rogers said that he did not belong to an organized political party, that he was a Democrat. The second is that the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats will at least entertain the notion that they may be wrong.

Watch for the change in major threat. The war on terrorism, once it emerges into its post Iraq phase, will not be a cash cow for the defense industry. China will be re-spun from an economic ally in the global economy, (never mind that they are still Communist, oppressive, and totalitarian), to a dangerous military threat. Protecting America from a militarily robust Communist nation will necessitate major defense spending. Arms race The Sequel coming soon to TV screens nationwide.

2006-11-09T05:01:00.000-08:00

Curious George strikes again. It appears that when the president praises an individual for outstanding service (heckuva job Brownie!!) it is a signal that the individual will be sacked. With Rummy the president really blew it. Apparently no one told Bush that a November surprise is most effective when revealed before the election. There were close contests that might have gone to the GOP had Bush asked for Rumsfeld's resignation prior to Tuesday's thumping. One can assume that Cheney objected to the resignation, but where was the boy genius Rove?

2006-11-08T09:07:00.000-08:00

It never felt so good to be so wrong. My predictions were off by a country mile. I'm not convinced that there was no electronic tom-foolery, it just wasn't done in a manner which could overcome the changes in the last few months.

There is much work to be done. The middle class is in need. Corporations have to be reigned in, and their political power diminished. And there still is a mess in Iraq. I want the new government to address the problems, but they also must investigate the dung heap of misdeeds carried out by the Bush administration. The legal and constitutional sins committed by the neo-cons cannot be swept under the carpet. There are too many neo-cons who deserve to be simply-con's (as in convicts).

2006-11-07T08:38:00.000-08:00

The games have begun. It did not take long for voting glitches to start rearing their annoying heads. This will be an interesting adventure in the saga that is the corruption of the US system of elective government. Although the polling data would suggest that the GOP will loose control of the House, I predict that it will not happen. There are people (to include Dick Cheney) who have struggled for 30 years to amass the unfettered executive power that exists at the present. This power will not be relinquished easily. If the GOP lose control, there is the spectre of investigations and legal problems stemming from the corruption that permeates the Bush administration. I am sticking to my personal predictions- the Democrats will be allowed to pick up a net gain of 8 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate. Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia will go to the GOP, and Maryland is a distinct possibility. Happy democracy everyone!!!!

2006-11-02T01:24:00.000-08:00

Tit for tat. It seems that the two presidential candidates from the 2004 election are trying to torpedo their respective parties in the week preceeding the mid-term elections. Monday it was John Kerry who was removing his wingtips from his mouth. Wednesday president Bush dropped a stink bomb on the republican candidates. They do not want people thinking about Iraq. They want to talk about tax cuts, gay marriage, and Nancy Pelosi. So why then would the decider in chief declare his intention to keep Cheney and Rumsfeld in their current positions?

Stating that Rumsfeld will stay on because he has been doing a fantastic job is an example of horrible timing. It didn't need to be communicated before the election. The president should have waited until after the polls closed. Rumsfeld is intimately tied to the mess in Iraq, and has very poor approval ratings. There have been a number of republican candidates who have expressed their disapproval with the Secretary of Defense.

Stating that Cheney will remain in his position, is bizarre. Presidential candidates choose their running mates before a presidential election. After being elected, the president cannot fire the vice president. The vice president can resign (Agnew). The president could ask for the vice president's resignation. It shows that Bush does not understand, or chooses to ignore the tenets of our form of government. They have been a CEO or corporate administration, and as such view the other two branches of government as being below the executive on the chain of command.

The media were asleep at the wheel about Bush's endorsement. They should have immediately questioned why a president would say that the vice president would not be leaving his post after two years of a four year term.

Bush has been running around the country stumping for republican candidates. Maybe he has forgotten that even though he is campaigning, he is not running for election himself.

2006-10-31T16:54:00.000-08:00

John Kerry should be banished from the Democratic Party. In 2004 the GOP did an effective job of whipping up dislike for the Senator from Massachusetts. He became a mobilizing force for the opposition. It doesn't matter that he probably won the election, he demonstrated that when he conceded without challenging the irregularities in Ohio and other places. I think that he even disappointed his running mate.

Considering the above facts, the Senator from Massachusetts should have pledged to stay out of the public eye until after the election a week from today. He should have understood that fact more than anyone else. Instead, he makes a public appearance and makes a complete ass of himself. It is difficult to believe that a wealthy veteran would make a comment which could only be construed as meaning that only the undereducated serve in today's military. Kerry has said that he botched a joke aimed at the Bush administration. Perhaps he meant that if you didn't study hard, and become as educated as possible on a subject (Iraq) you could wind up stuck in a situation which seems pretty hopeless. The poke at Bush being that he didn't study the situation enough to realize what the post invasion realities would be. Now Bush is stuck in a situation which alienates him from mainstreet America at an increasing rate. The anology is too complex to be delivered clearly and succinctly.

I;m not irate about the Kerry situation based on how it might affect the election. I firmly believe that the results of the election are in the hands of people other than the electorate. My personal prediction is that the Democrats will be allowed to capture 8 seats in the House, and three in the Senate. The GOP will win the three close contests in Missouri, Tennessee, and Maryland. I'm furious because Kerry has given the "puppetmasters" a convenient reason for victory come November 8th. When the American people are slack-jawed that the GOP miraculously pulled off victory, they will be told that everyone can just thank Kerry.

2006-10-30T16:07:00.000-08:00

Arrogance abounds in and around the Bush administration. The latest example featured the wife of our charismatic Vice President. Since her contentious interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, her husband has publically referred to her performance as a slap down. I watched the entire interview and I did not witness a slap down. Wolf kept his composure and tried to make his case, though Lynne Cheney gave him little opportunity. The fact that CNN had been airing a series titled "Broken Government" apparently bothered Mrs. Cheney very much. She intimated that CNN was basically working for the Democratic Party, and broadcasting their talking points. The Democratic Party does not know how to manipulate language and utilize talking points. If they were able to do so, they wouldn't be in the minority.

It is sad that Mrs. Cheney doesn't understand that our government is fatally flawed. Actually "Broken Government" is an understatement. Our system of government as created by the Founding Fathers bears no resemblance to what we have now. If the founders ever used the term "unitary" as regards the executive branch of our government, they would have used it literally- that the Chief Executive had to be an individual and not a panel or cabal or any other group. The Bush administration's use of the term is designed to make the executive supremely powerful at the expense of the other two branches of our government.

Instead of gloating vicariously through her husband, Lynne Cheney should apologize to Wolf Blitzer and CNN for her indefensible behaviour.

2006-10-27T10:50:00.000-07:00

After three years and hundreds of thousands of deaths and dismemberment we are told that "stay the course" didn't really mean stay the course. Perhaps the most pertinent question is why we thought that it did mean- stay the course. Compassionate did not mean compassionate, conservative did not mean conservative. Uniter (as opposed to divider) did not mean uniter. No nation building did not mean no nation building. The global war on terrorism did not mean a global war on terrorism. The death tax is not a tax on death. Re-deployment does not mean cut and run. The biggest myth of all is that we are living in a "post-9/11 world". Yes today is post 09/11/01, that is simple chronology. But the fact remains that as long as there have existed terrorists, aircraft, and skyscrapers, there has been the potential for a 9/11 scenario. In the early 90s at the Malaysian terrorist expo there was discussion of using fuel-laden airliners as missiles. The twin towers were even suggested as a target. Unfortunately Condi "we never would have imagined aircraft used as missiles" Rice didn't read the memo. We have been living in a world in which a 9/11 type attack has been a possibility for decades. It is more accurate to state that we are living in a post 11/00 world. Had Bush/Cheney not stolen the 2000 election, 9/11 would not have happened, and there would still be a middle class in the United States of America.

2006-10-21T07:58:00.000-07:00

No rational person would ever dispute the fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil Stalinesque tyrant. He was much like Stalin in that he mistrusted anyone he perceived as a threat to his power. What most Americans neglect to consider is what life was like in Iraq for its citizens who did not run afoul of the government. Iraq was a secular, albeit Muslim, nation which was as "western" and modern as any Middle Eastern nation. Perhaps there was never enough footage of pre-war Baghdad shown in America. The scenes from that capitol now are shocking. It will not matter what form the new Iraq will take. The reversal of secularism is guaranteed. The Bush administration boasts of the improvements. Women can vote. They cannot drive to the polling places, and they had better be wearing proper Muslim garb when in public. I have thought that the nation would be best served if it could coalesce a "national" government whose responsibilities would be limited to providing an army, and to oversee the equitable sharing of the oil revenues. The country should divide into autonomous regions. This could reduce the level of sectarian violence, but has its own dangers. The Kurds would likely want to annex sections of Turkey in forming their autonomous zone, thus creating a tense and possibly violent situation. The Kurds would also fight to control Kirkuk, and the Sunnis would oppose that. However the situation in Iraq plays out, it will never be a "little America" with representative democracy and personal freedom. Come to think of it, we don't have those things here in the United States anymore.

2006-10-19T11:53:00.000-07:00

Condi Rice has thrown down the gauntlet. She stated that ALL options are on the table when it comes to dealing with North Korea. She then underscored the word ALL. Perhaps the predicted October surprise will be a nuclear attack on North Korea. That would create a crisis with Communist China, and might be reason to postpone or cancel the November elections. And if one listens to Cheney, Bush and Rove-they are not worried about losing control of either the House or Senate this election. Of course their unwarranted confidence could be related to the spread of the paperless voting machines manufactured by partisan corporations with proprietary software.

2006-10-17T10:12:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post recently published an article that stated that president Bush and Karl Rove are not worried that their party will lose control of either the House or the Senate in the November elections. It is speculated that this is denial. Hogwash.
Think back to the election of 2004. Conservatives were predicting that Kerry would win by a comfortable margin. There were rumors that president Bush was briefed on the fact that he might lose. It didn't happen.
All one needs to do to understand the cool confidence of Rove and Bush is to watch the video produced by Princeton University. It shows a mock election between George Washington and Benedict Arnold. A disembodied hand votes 4 times for Washington and once for Arnold. When the vote totals are printed by the machine, Arnold beat Washington 3-2. The no paper trail electronic voting machines are produced by corporations with strongly partisan CEOs. The software for these machines is proprietary. The act of fixing the machines to produce desired results is ludicrously simple and nearly impossible to detect. The machines that have wireless capabilities are even easier to fix. They can be fixed from a remote location. The hacker doesn't need to physically access the machines.
I too am confident that the GOP will maintain control of both houses after the November elections. There are members of this administration that have worked diligently for almost 30 years to secure the unfettered power that the Executive Branch now wields. They are not going to relinquish that power easily. Considering that Democratic control of the Legislature would result in impeachment proceedings, and many indictments, just raises the stakes.
The only variable in this November's election is what Rove will choose as the reason that the Democrats were again defeated.

2006-10-12T08:14:00.000-07:00

The cat is out of the bag. The GOP have been using the religious right to win elections and have only repaid them with lip service, and privately ridicule the very people they are using. There's no surprise here. The core group of neocon fascists have been "using" individuals and groups for decades in their pursuit of the quasi-total power that they now possess. Reagan was used. Newt Gingrich was used. It is no wonder that the neocon base was so rabidly anti-Clinton. His two term presidency put the master plan of the power mongers on hold for eight years. Centrist Republicans have been used. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, David Addington, and Donald Rumsfeld have demonstrated no reluctance to seduce groups into thinking that the power grabbers will help them after elections are over. I believe that even Karl Rove has been used, though he has reaped his own personal benefits. I don't perceive Rove as being driven by the quest for a supreme executive branch-the Constitution be damned. I think that politics to Karl Rove is a personal challenge. Unfortunately he has no scruples as to how to achieve his goals. The elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004 were rigged. It might be more accurate to describe 2000 as being hijacked. It was apparent that the efforts to fix that election failed. The mistakes of 2000 were not to be repeated in 2002 or 2004.

Consider the election of 2004. The president's approval ratings were dismal. The popular take on the economy was dismal. Bush was whacked in the series of presidential debates. Conservative pundits predicted a Bush loss. And yet the neocon core never spoke of or demonstrated any hint of apprehension as to the outcome of the election. The elections this November will be fixed also. I am curious as to what excuse will be proffered when the GOP maintain control of both the House and the Senate. After the Foley debacle it can't be moral values. Even Billy-Bob Republicans are figuring out that the war in Iraq is not the same as the global war on terrorism. WWII veterans are seething at the ridiculous comparisons of the current situation to the pre-WWII scenario. Perhaps the promised "October surprise" will shed some light onto the planning for the post-election explaining.

2006-10-07T11:39:00.000-07:00

Poor Tony Snow. He whines that the president wants to speak about serious issues, but the press is focused on a pedophile gay Republican who was sheltered by the leadership of the Republican controlled House. The short term memory span of the GOP is alarming. How can they not remember that for 8 years we were forced to listen to accusations, and investigations about Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. Apparently issues were not so important back then.

I am awaiting the release of George Tenet's book. It will be interesting to see if the ex-CIA chief has balls. His "slam dunk" comment has been taken completely out of context and he is the only person who might set the record straight. The talking point is that when asked about the CIA's intelligence case that Iraq had WMDs, Tenet replied it was a slam dunk, is false. The phrase was uttered in a meeting that focused on deciding what rationale to use to convince the American people that invading Iraq was necessary. The options that were floated were the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein, ties to al Qaeda, or the risk that an Iraq with WMDs might transfer them to terrorist organizations which could use them against the USA. Tenet believed that it was a slam dunk to sell the WMD threat to the American people.

It will be curious to see how the GOP justify their holding power in both Houses after the 2006 elections. The cabal that is truly in control is not going to surrender power easily. There is a definite risk that if the Legislative power shifts, there could be serious investigations which would lead to the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, and possibly prison time for members of this administration.

Karl Rove blundered in 2004 and was able to get away with it. At 8pm election night, conservative Tucker Carlson was on CNN saying that Kerry would win easily. Over night this changed. I thought that the GOP would cite the timely release of the bin Laden tape as the reason Bush was able to be reelected in spite of all the political indicators which made that seem unlikely. By citing the mobilization of the religious right and the moral values voters, Rove erred. If that was the tipping point in the election it would have been evident in the early returns. The religious right would typically tend to be early voters. They would not likely to risk arriving late and not being able to cast their vote. The religious voters also live in states in the heart of the country, whose polls close much earlier than in California. The point being that based on the Rove theory, at 8pm Bush should have had a huge lead which would have been reduced by the left coast votes which would have been reported later.

2006-09-07T04:45:00.000-07:00

President Bush has again demonstrated this administration's uncanny ability to deceive without actually lying. We have been told that we have transported terror suspects to CIA "black sites" at locations around the world. The president reassured Americans that "America doesn't torture", and that he has not, and will not, authorize torture. That sounds great. Does the assertion mean that the terror suspects held at the black sites were not tortured- no. The president did not say that foreign nationals did not engage in torture. If foreign interrogators were used at the black sites, they would not require "authorization" from the POTUS. It should be noted that the president also did not state that Americans did not torture. He said specifically that America doesn't torture. He admitted that tough interogation methods were used at the CIA sites. All experts on interrogation agree that these tough interrogation methods are nonproductive at best, and counterproductive at worst. The president said that a number of terror plots were stopped as a result of information gained from the held suspects. The American people have no way of knowing if that in fact is true.

The Bush administration has done a superb job of high-jacking language. Early in his first term president Bush sat in the Rose Garden and promised that he would sign a bill renewing the ban on assault weapons. This certainly was seen as good news by Americans in favor of gun control. The president did not say that he would insist that the legislation reach his desk. He did not even say that he would push for the legislation. At the time that he uttered his promise, he knew that the legislation would never reach his desk. The ban on assault weapons was allowed to expire. The president made a promise that he knew he would not have to keep. In the bargain the president benefitted politically from the act of making the hollow promise.

The estate tax which affects very few American households was re-named the death tax- and death affects everyone. Legislators in favor of moving our troops to Kuwait are accused of wanting to cut and run. The most effective use of deceptive language was demonstrated in the ramp-up to the war in Iraq. The administration never claimed that Iraq participated in or abetted the attacks of 9/11/01. By consistently using the terms "Iraq" and "9/11" in the same sentences, the administration was able to convince over 40% of Americans that Iraq was involved.

Although the Bush administration have used deceptive language masterfully, they have been guilty of outright dishonesty. The slate of accusations prepared for Colin Powell to present to the UN was rife with dishonest statements. The Bush administration's entire case for going to war against Iraq was based on flimsy intelligence that was communicated as hard cold fact. It was never conveyed that the US believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was communicated that they knew that Iraq possessed these weapons. Doubt and uncertainty never were included in the equation. This fact is chilling because all intelligence is graded according to credibility. Some of the intelligence that was made public prior to the invasion of Iraq did include caveats that referenced the dubious reliability of some of the sources. These caveats were redacted by the Bush administration when they used them to bolster their case for war.

The Bush team might not be liars, but they are masters of decptive use of language.

2006-09-06T06:25:00.000-07:00

Mr. Snow, the shiny new Press Secretary, did a pathetic job of defending Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Secretary Snow cited the "catastrophic success" of the invasion as the cause of the post-invasion problems. According to Mr. Snow, the Secretary of Defense could not be faulted with the problems that surfaced after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, ie. Abu Ghraib, 2600 Americans deaths etc. Secretary Snow also credited Rumsfeld with attempting to remake the military to better suit the post-Cold War requirements. It is true that we need a different military dynamic to address the current challenges. It is also true that there will be strong opposition to said changes. The military that is needed today does not require the level of spending on high-priced military toys that had been the norm during the Cold War. Using aircraft carriers and atomic submarines is not a cost efficient means of combating global terrorism. That was one of the downsides to the Afghanistan conflict. It wasn't expensive enough. Iraq was a much more attractive conflict because it would create the need for more defense spending- not only to conduct the war, but to also replace the equipment destroyed and weaponry used. To use Rumsfeld's own words, in Iraq there existed "real targets" as opposed to the mud huts that comprised the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
There is no credible defense for the actions and statements of Secretary Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld's critics need only replay the infamous press conference during which he was asked by a soldier why they had to rummage through dumps in order to find metal to use as armor for their ill-equipped Hummers. Rumsfeld's answer of "going to war with the army you have" quote should have been blasted out of the water the day it was uttered. There have been a lot of WWII analogies being misused lately. As concerns Rumsfeld there is an apt WWII analogy. When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor we were thrust into WWII with the army we had. We were not thrust into the Iraq war. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the USA. We had the luxury of choosing when we would invade. The US had enough latitude to decide the date of the invasion based on weather. No professional military would ever enter a conflict prepared for a best-case scenario (as we did in Iraq). Our military is considered the best in the world. As such, the military leaders should have insisted that we not invade until we were prepared for the worst-case scenario. Had this been done, the lives of every soldier killed in a lightly armored Hummer could have been saved. We did not invade Iraq prepared for the worst. We did not schedule the invasion based on preparedness. The timetable was set by non-military members of the Bush administration. The invasion of Iraq mirrors the posture of the Bush administration-arrogant and ill-informed.

2006-09-04T08:26:00.000-07:00

Labor Day- The holiday should be suspended during the Bush administration's tenure in Washington. The individuals and entities that have benefited from the current leadership are far removed from any labor. We are in an economic condition in which organized labor is needed as much as it was during the early decades of the Industrial Revolution. No, children are not working 14 hours/day in factories, but husbands and wives are holding down two or more jobs and working well over 40 hours a week, and are barely getting by. In most cases they do not have health benefits. And yet our Secretary of Labor was on NBC this weekend praising the ways the Bush administration has furthered the workers' cause. It seems that with one exception, everything is just fine as far as the "worker's" situation. The one problem is that so many American blue-collar workers need education and retraining. There is no explanation as to what "knowledge-based" employment opportunities await the newly retrained workers. Thus the American worker needs to seek education and aquisition of skills for positions that are ethereal for lack of a better word.
Organized labor conveniently shot itself in the feet during the 20th century. The exploitationpower and ties to organized crime sullied organized labor. This sordid reputation has made the rebirth of workers' groups slow. The fact that Wal-Mart can be unionized in Communist China but not in America is a telling. fact.
It would be nice to think that the people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, and those standing at the base of the ladder awaiting their chance to climb, could have some glimmer of hope for the near future. But the fact remains that an incredibly small percentage of this nation has amassed an enormous portion of the wealth pie.

2006-09-01T08:10:00.000-07:00

Fascism:
A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary).

Hmmmm-does this definition better describe the Islamic terrorists, or the Bush administration?

2006-08-29T08:42:00.000-07:00

The final paragraph of the Aug 23rd post was a tongue-in-cheek stab at the media. The main point of the post was that the media were putting serious issues on the back burner in order to provide non-stop coverage of the Jon Benet Ramsey mess. The media had been reporting that terrorists were trying to eradicate the American way of life, and that the President of Iran wanted Israel removed from the map. The final paragraph did not reflect the beliefs of Billing Anders.

Terrorists, Islamic or not, are not bent on the destruction of the USA. They are not attempting to take freedoms away from Americans. This is not a "misery loves company" situation. Most terrorists come from nations wherein they do not control their destinies. Many of the states have totalitarian regimes supported by the USA (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt to a slightly lesser degree, etc.). In my lifetime most terrorist attacks were designed to call attention to the plight of a particular group. There have been occasions when the attack went too far and was counterproductive to the terrorists' goals. The events of Munich in 1972 are such an example.

Americans should remember that in the 1770s the colonists who opposed British rule in America were essentially terrorists. The colonists' tactics in the Revolutionary War were considered to be terrorist in nature. Wars were not fought from behind trees and rocks. Armies marched onto the field of battle in an orderly fashion and followed rules. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.

As long as America continues to support regimes that stifle the opportunities for large segments of their populations, we will be reviled as an enabler. If America truly fought for global self-determination and democracy, it would be a different situation. The Bush administration is full of bluff and bluster about spreading freedom and democracy. This changes when the democratic process provides results that the Bush administration do not like-Hamas in Palestine, the presidential election in Iran, the defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut.

2006-08-23T09:55:00.000-07:00

The world is a mess. Israel is fighting Hezbollah and Hamas. The US is bogged down in Iraq. Iraqis' life span is less than it was under Saddam Hussein. China is still a Communist, totalitarian state. N. Korea may actually prove that they possess a nuclear weapon. There is the spectre of catastrophe due to rapid climate change. India and Pakistan are still enemies and both do possess nuclear weapons. There is still the chance of a global flu pandemic. Oil prices are still high enough to negatively impact middle and lower class Americans. Osama bin Laden is still alive. The Taliban are experiencing resurgence.

Sooooo, what is the number one news story? Jon Benet Ramsey. This is sick on so many levels. There is no reason for anyone outside of the Boulder, Colorado area to even know who Ramsey was. If we are going to make the murder of a child national news, then why not make the murder of EVERY child national news. And if Mr. Karr is seeking his Warholian 15 minutes of fame, why give him days and potentially weeks of fame?

To recap: Islamic terrorists are trying to destroy the USA. Iran wants Israel wiped off the map. But the real kicker is that a sexual predator ate prawn and drank champaign on a flight to the USA from Thailand.

2006-08-18T05:45:00.000-07:00

In the wake of 9/11 all Americans became accustomed to hearing the date- 9/11 and the country-Iraq used in the same sentences. The September terrorist attacks were virtually never mentioned without the addition of the fact that Iraq constituted a threat. This low-brow form of brainwashing was very effective. An embarrassing number of Americans actually believed that Iraq was somehow involved in the events of 9/11. Sadly, the only connection was that the events of 9/11 created an environment which allowed the Bush administration to do what it wanted in Iraq. The same low-brow tactics are being employed again. During the monthlong conflict in Lebanon, the reportage was laced with mention of Iran and Syria. In 2001 America was attacked by al Qaeda resulting in the invasion of Iraq. In 2006 Israel was attacked by Hezbollah. The question remains- will the response ultimately be directed at Iran and Syria?

2006-08-15T08:30:00.000-07:00

Wolf Blitzer is an idiot. There was a time when he would ask relatively tough questions and actually would try to get his interviewees to respond. Those days are long gone. Wolf will ask a pointed question which will be completely sidestepped, and Wolf will calmly move onto the next question. He doesn't even appear to listen to the answers. By any standards, Wolf is not a tough journalist. Last night he gave an embarrassing performance in which he actually tried (desperately) to create news. A reporter in northern Israel mentioned that 10 Katyusha rockets had landed in southern Lebanon. The IDF weren't particularly alarmed, and the rockets were not landing in Israel, and it wasn't certain that the rockets were fired by Hezbollah. In less than 5 minutes Wolf declared that the rockets were fired by Hezbollah, and that surely this would be the end of the fragile cease fire. Wolf tried for 15 minutes to make a major news story out of an event that didn't seem to bother anyone else very much.

2006-08-14T06:15:00.000-07:00

What a surprising turn of events- the GOP are getting worried about November, and terrorism conveniently rears its ugly head again. It reminds me of the timely appearance of bin Laden shortly before the 2004 election. As November gets closer, we can expect the terrorist chatter to increase in volume. The fly in the ointment for the GOP this election is that the ostriches are pulling their heads out of the sand. Billy Bob Republicans are realizing that the misadventure in Iraq has made the threat of terrorism worse, and that the Bush administration has done little to actually make Americans safer. Hopefully these same Billy Bobs will start to wake up to the fact that the only tangible accomplishments of this administration have been to make the wealthy ultra-wealthy, and the ultra-wealthy- obscenely wealthy. Corporations have been coddled and now pay the lowest percentage of taxes in history.

I wonder if I am the only person confused by the fact that I now have to watch paid advertising for Boeing, McDonald-Douglass, etc. How many American TV viewers are in the market for an airliner- or a bomber for that matter.

2006-08-11T05:50:00.000-07:00

Silly silly boys. The same morons who have been boasting that they have decimated the structure of al Qaeda are now claiming that the London plot has all the markings of an al Qaeda attack. Meanwhile, terrorism experts are explaining that al Qaeda has become more of a movement than an organization. The GOP will use terrorism as their rallying cry for the November elections. Polls show that the majority of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to terrorism, and has strengthened the terrorist groups. Hence, the war in Iraq has hurt our efforts in the war on terrorism. If the GOP is going to hold on to the House and the Senate they will have to resort to the tactics employed in 2000, 2002 and 2004- they'll have to cheat. They'll use an enhanced version of the Diebold strategy.

2006-08-10T06:49:00.000-07:00

It's not easy being sane and rational in the traditionally red state of Indiana. There are still a large number of Bush supporters who refuse to face the facts as regards the current administration. Here in the Midwest there are people who actually believe that the estate tax is a "death tax" that applies to everyone. There are people who believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Indiana is also the state that has seen the complete eradication of representative democracy. Our ex-Bushie governor has pushed through legislation that the majority of Hoosiers (natives of Indiana) opposed. There are Hoosiers who believe that our elected representatives are not supposed to serve their constituencies, but to do what they consider best for the voters. Daylight Savings Time was passed because a Republican state representative thought the governor would be embarrassed if the measure was voted down. It did not matter that Rep. Woodruff's entire constituency opposed DST, he cast the vote which put the bill over the top. 75% of Indiana's voters were opposed to the governor's "Major Moves" initiative and yet it too was enacted by the legislature. One of the first things that our wonderful governor Daniels did was to eliminate the Department of Commerce and replace it with an economic development corporation. He also revamped the Bureau of Motor Vehicles by filling all the top positions with ex-executives from a sporting goods chain. The BMV has now become so inept that the State Police can't use the state's records or data base when trying to run license plate numbers. Indiana is a microcosm of the demise of the entire nation.

2006-08-10T04:54:00.000-07:00

Pat Robertson is Uncle Buddy from "Skinny Legs and All". Pat Robertson is in Jerusalem waiting for the return of Christ. He spoke glowingly on CNN about his love and respect for the Jewish people and referred to them as God's chosen people. He didn't bother to mention that when Christ returns these same Jewish people will be forced to choose between conversion to Christianity or eternal damnation. It is unclear at this time whether Pat is part of a plot to blow up the Dome on the Rock.

2006-08-09T10:44:00.000-07:00

Israel has repeatedly bemoaned the loss of innocent lives as a result of their current military conflict with Hezbollah. They have justified their actions by stating that the Hezbollah militants set up in civilian areas to fire their rockets at Israel. Israel correctly claims that the Lebanese civilians are being used as human shields. There are some problems with this explanation. Israel admits that the Hezbollah militants immediately relocate after firing their salvos of Katyusha rockets. If that is the case, then what is the rationale for bombing the civilians in the areas where the rockets were fired? The Hezbollah fighters would have already left the area. Considering that more children have been killed than combatants, perhaps the Israelis should reconsider their tactics.

2006-08-09T09:26:00.000-07:00

Senator Lieberman has again demonstrated that his personal agenda is more important than his party affiliation. In 2000 he hurt the Democratic Party by running both for VP and Senator. In the week leading up to yesterday's primary, Lieberman gained ground in the polls by asserting his "Democrat-ness", and trying to distance himself from President Bush. Having lost the primary, he now plans to run in November as an Independent. He insists that his allegiance to the state of Connecticut trumps his allegiance to the Democratic Party. If he truly cared about his state he would abandon politics and make an obviously needed career change.