This is pretty much your standard Web log. I write about politics, life, interests, and thoughts. Be forewarned: the lizard at the Greens was left unattended.

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Can Kerry Carry in '04 ?

Kerry will lose in November because people are stupid. It is roughly three months before the presidential election and yet Bush is sure to win in November, while Kerry's numbers slip from an infinitesimal majority. It is unfortunate that it's come to this point because Bush is just so wrong on so many issues. It's also unfortunate that the American people, while believing that this is a very important election, allow themselves to be swayed by half-truths, naked assertions, and outright lies. All a Republican has to do is call someone a 'serial flip-flopper out of the mainstream Liberal', with no facts to back his claims and people are somehow coaxed into believing it. If it's on teevee, it must be true. You have to ask yourself where, exactly, have people been. Are they blind, or is some kind of unconscious doublethink taking hold of them. Put another way did Kerry even have a chance. With over eighty-million dollars thrown at defining Kerry as equivocal, coupled with the gullibility of Americans, has it been any wonder at all that he's behind in the polls. In fact, it's been a miracle that he's been even with Bush. I mean what's more American that a God-fearing 'war-president', and what could they dislike more than a 'Northeastern Liberal flip-flopper'. Sadly, though, even if Wes Clarke had been the democratic nominee, he would somehow have been labeled a Northeaster flip-flopper.
Prove me wrong John Kerry, prove me wrong.

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

More on Democracy

The tools of our own destruction are built into the system. This must be changed if we are to continue as a true democracy, and not just be the latest 1.5 party state to come about. this must change but how?

Monday, March 08, 2004

NY Post Orin Tries Kerry Take-Down

New York, MARCH 8 -- Deborah Orin, the Post’s Washington DC Bureau Chief, tried to make Democratic Nominee-in-waiting John Kerry seem as if he praised Yasser Arafat.
In the Post’s story, "Kerry's Yasser Woe"—which they label "exclusive"-- Ms. Orin uses words from Kerry’s 1997 book, "The New War", writing "Democratic presidential nominee-to-be John Kerry called Yasser Arafat a 'statesman' and a 'role model' in a 1997 book that Kerry cites as proof of his own foresight about foreign policy." Called for comment Ms. Orin said, "a statesman is a statesman."
Following is John Kerry’s full paragraph from his book:
"Only eleven years have passed since [Paul Johnson] appeared in print. If nothing else, this indicates the velocity of change in the late twentieth century. Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman, while those whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models.' In fact, what most encourages and emboldens terrorists now are the unprecedented opportunities inherent in the new world of porous borders, instant communications, and access to weapons of mass destruction. Like everything else, global terrorism is mutating at a very rapid rate. Failure to prepare for the new strains verges on the suicidal …"

Sunday, November 23, 2003

It is clear now: there were no WMD in Iraq.

I will now wirte what's here

first write about what i have been doing lately
what i bought, forgot username etc.

I was thinking about the article where I beleive it was thielman, wh said
that one possibility for all the unaccounted WMD in Iraq was simly that
saddam used more than he said he did during the iran-iraq war.

I will move on to the neo con world view and the stovpipe article by hirsch,
then then tnr article about cheney. then i will write about the lates repub ad
running in iowa and nh

Thursday, July 31, 2003

I got a temp job

I got a temp job on Monday. The work involves setting up interviews
with potential candidates and managers that want ot intevriew them.
The candidates are for IT positions to be filled a t a large Investment Bank.
Since it is a temp job it's only going to last about two weeks.

Tuesday, July 15, 2003

What did the president know and when did he know it?

It seems that the Bush Administration can't agree on what lie they told.
On the one hand they say that their information about Iraq seeking
yellowcake from Niger was accurate, but it should not have been included
in the sate of the union address. In a sense their first claim is true.
If Condoleezza Rice says that by accurate, she means that it's true that
the British said they learned about the Iraq-Niger connection, then I
guess you can say that's accurate. Accurate, anyhow, in the same way
that it would be accurate to state that if Bill Gates walked into a bar,
the average net worth of the people in the bar would be a billion
dollars. It is not accurate, however, to state that there in fact is
verifiable evidence that Iraq actually tried to acquire uranium from

Here is what the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee had to say,
in the report entitled: The Decision to go to War in Iraq [PDF]:

"Uranium and Niger [pp 69]

"The September Dossier reported that there was 'intelligence that Iraq
has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa'.
This claim was repeated by President Bush in his State of the Union
address in January 2003: 'The British government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'

"The documents relating to the alleged agreement for the sale of uranium
between 1999 and 2001 were passed to the IAEA for investigation. The
Agency concluded rapidly that the documents were in fact not authentic
and that these specific allegations were unfounded. Subsequent reports
suggested that the documents had been crude forgeries, one bearing the
name of a Niger Minister who had been out of office for some years.

"Norman Dombey, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Sussex University,
argued in September 2002 that the prominence given the uranium story was

" Without enrichment facilities this material is useless for
nuclear weapons, although it could conceivably be used in conventional
weapons in the same way that depleted uranium is used by the UK and US.
It is also very possible that this African story is an intelligence

"Similarly, in early June the Sunday Times claimed the documents had
been forged by British Intelligence in an attempt to discredit Iraq.

"The CIA reportedly indicated doubts about the accuracy of the documents
in February 2003, although these were not apparently communicated to the
White House or to the British Government. The issue has been taken up by
Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman in a letter to President Bush of 2
June 2003.

"When asked on 4 June by Mr. Cook whether he would be willing to correct
the record and acknowledge he had misled the House on this issue, Mr.
Blair declined, saying:

" There was intelligence to that effect. I shall not go into the
details of the particular intelligence, but at the time it was judged by
the Joint Intelligence Committee to be correct. Until we investigate
properly, we are simply not in a position to say whether that is so.

How has the Bush administration defended their claims: "White House
officials released new information to buttress Mr. Bush's claim,
attacked the credibility of his Democratic critics and accused the news
media of a 'feeding frenzy.'" Wow, that's a novel approach. Then again
it's worked so well in the past, that it might just work this time.
Let's face it, when the Democrats' preferred way of confronting the Bush
administration is to agree (just not as strongly), or to meet in
private-maybe-it will be a miracle if they don't kowtow to him this time
around. The same thing goes for the press. They have bent-over backwards
to the Bush Administration, and there's no reason to believe that they
won't this time. Imagine, if asking Our Dear Leader Mr. Bush a few
questions about the content of words that came out of his mouth is being
called a "feeding frenzy," then how do they even begin to take a really
serious adversarial position to the White House. If the press can't call
Bush on his lies on simple things like economic, or environmental
policy, then how will they tackle a potential crisis like misleading a
nation into war at the expense of national security? How will the media
even begin deconstructing the fallacies and half-truths that this
administration has been propagating for so long? I can tell you that the
press won't ever, in any way refer to this president as a "Great

In a way, in fact, the press is underreporting this story. To even
allege that the president of a supposedly democratic country, even
misled, or told a half-truth to jump-start a war that people in his
administration had been pinning at for 12 years would be the most
serious and ground-shifting story that could come out of Washington
since Watergate. But that's not likely to happen with a press corps
that's played dead for two years.

Sunday, July 13, 2003

The "Liberal" Media.

Today's Washington press corps has completely lost any shred of
credibility that they had. It's like Jon Stewart said, they sat this one
out. More than that they will do anything to bend over backwards to
prove that they're not the "liberal" media. This includes going to the
extent of appeasing Republicans, and putting Democrats through what's
tantamount to an inquisition. They will ask Republicans, especially ones
close to the administration, or Congressional Republicans, softball
questions, while with Democrats it's "Exactly how many people are in the
military." "On the 19th of April you said that the Earth is 23,000 miles
in diameter, when in fact it's 24,900.3." "As commander-in-chief that's
something you should know." And they then paint the Democrat as an
exaggerator for not answering instantaneously with the exact answer. I
mean I don't remember candidate Bush answering any questions posed to
him by the press correctly, and yet no one asks him any pointed
questions. Only now is the press even starting to become even slightly
skeptical about the Iraq WMD issues, and then only hesitantly.

Jon Stewart's Comments from his Interview on NOW

This is an excerpt of his interview with Bill Moyers. This excerpt
mainly concerns Stewart's comments on the state of the media.
Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show is known for his "fake news" show as he calls it.

Bill Moyers: Which have been the best years for you? The Clinton years
or the Bush years?

Jon Stewart: Both were vexing but in somewhat different ways. I feel
like the Clinton years were--and by the way, when you say great years, I
feel awful about that because it does-

Bill Moyers: Best years. The funniest years.

Jon Stewart: Funniest years is different. Because you do feel a little
bit like, I don't know if you--if you play Craps. Have you ever been to
Vegas with William Bennett. But if you roll Craps there's--you can bet
with the line or against the line. If you bet with the line you're sort
of betting with the table for everybody to do well. Or you can bet
against the line. If a guy craps out, then you do well.

That's what it's like to be a comedian. You basically stand and stare at
the world and hope it craps out cause that's a good year for you. So
that--that's not a pleasant feeling. But the Clinton years were vexing
in this idea that, here's someone who stands for--values and interests
that I think that I would hold dear. And yet, throws it all away on
appetites he can't control. And that's upsetting.

These years are upsetting because I feel like we're being gas lit as a
country in that what we see going on is just being described as the
opposite but relentlessly by-- you know the administration. So it's a
different-- it's a different problem.

Bill Moyers: I do not know whether you are practicing a old form of
parody and satire-.

Jon Stewart: Uh-huh (affirm).

Bill Moyers: -Or a new form of journalism. (Laughter)

Jon Stewart: Well then that either speaks to the sad state of comedy or
the sad state of news. I can't figure out which one. I think, honestly,
we're practicing a new form of desperation. (Laughter) Where we just are
so inundated with mixed messages from the media and from politicians
that we're just trying to sort it out for ourselves. The show's a
selfish pursuit.

Bill Moyers: What do you see that we journalists don't see?

Jon Stewart: I think we see exactly what you do see. But for some reason
don't analyze it in that manner or put it on the air in that manner. I
can't tell you how many times we'll run into a journalist and he'll go,
"boy that's--I wish we could be saying that. That's exactly the way we
see it and that's exactly the way we'd like to be saying that." And I
always think, well, why don't you?


Bill Moyers: And what is the media doing to help us sort it out?

Jon Stewart: Oh, they're not. Yeah, no. That's--yeah, they've sat this
one out. Yeah, they're not--they're not getting involved. It's very
tiring. And they have weather reports to give. Nah, the media is not
interested in-[serness?]. The media is--look politicians have figured
out the media. Let's face facts. When television first appeared it
proved itself to be a vital insight into the process. Nixon--you
mentioned the Nixon Kennedy debates. It was--at that point; politicians
didn't know how to handle the media. So Nixon could say, "I look fine. I
don't need make-up. These lights won't make me sweat. I'm sure I'll come
off as calm and collected and eloquent." And then, as he was sweating
and looked you know maniacal, he ended up losing. Well, at this
point--so at that point television was ahead of the game--politicians
have caught up. They understand that 24-hour news networks don't have
time for journalism. They only have time for reporting. They only have
time to be handed things and go, "this is what I've just been handed by
the administration." And they read it. So now that the administration
knows that, and they're very disciplined, they can manipulate what goes
on the air and what sets the agenda. And that's what they do.


Bill Moyers: The war is over.

Jon Stewart: It's over baby. We're back to the business of scandal

Bill Moyers: The Washington Post says that since the first of the year-

Jon Stewart: Uh-huh (affirm).

Bill Moyers: -the Laci Petersen case has been featured 79 times.

Jon Stewart: Uh-huh (affirm).

Bill Moyers: On Greta van Susteren's evening program on Fox News. 40
times on MSNBC's, "The Abram's Report" 34 times on CNN's Larry King
Live. And 20 times on Hardball.

Jon Stewart: And I hope they get to the bottom of it. I hope they find

Bill Moyers: Is this why you're able to say, without any challenge that
we're being gas lighted? That we keep hearing one thing while something
else is being done?

Jon Stewart: No, there's no question. There is in your mind. Look, you
know they always talk about the news wants to be objective. Leaving Fox
News out of it because that's--that's sort of a different animal. And,
by the way, a very entertaining animal. I enjoy watching Fox News and I
think every country should have their own Al-Jazeera.

Bill Moyers: They soon will.

Jon Stewart: They soon will. But the other news networks--you know they
have this idea that they're being objective. But news has never been
objective. It's always--what does every newscast start with? Our top
stories tonight. That's a list. That's an object--that's a
subjective--some editor made a decision; here's our top stories. #1.
There's a fire in the Bronx. #2. They arrested Martha Stewart.
Whatever--however you place those stories, is a subjective ranking as
much as AFI's 100 best films in the world is. So why not take advantage
of that and actually analyze what you do think is important and make
that--I will guarantee you, in the newsrooms across the country, they
don't believe the Laci Petersen story is the most important story that
they have to deal with. I guarantee it!

Bill Moyers: Why is it that president bush has to go to south Africa to
be asked a critical question about nuclear weapons of mass destruction?

Jon Stewart: Because in the United States he doesn't see anybody in the
press. He's in a small room, with a treadmill, that he runs on. And a
little brush to clear diorama. He is not exposed in any way. You know
what's great? Watch a Bush press conference, and then turn on Tony Blair
and Parliament. Where he literally has to sit in front of his most
vociferous critic. And that critic will say, "Sir, on the 13th, the
dossier of the French, would not the nuclear. You were hiding things.
How do you answer, sir?" "The distinguished gentleman is wrong. I can
prove it in this way."

Contrast that with the press conference that Bush had on the eve of war.
"Uh, okay, the next question is--Jim. Is there a Jim here? Yeah. You got
the next one." "That is not the agreed upon question. We're gonna move
on. Ralph, you got something?" it's an incredibly, managed, theatrical
farce. And it's incredible to be that people are playing along with it.
And they say that they're playing along with it because they're afraid
of losing access. You don't have any access! There's nothing to lose!

Bill Moyers: People say, "Jon Stewart speaks for the middle man. He
speaks for guys between the left and the right." and yet, I sometimes
think you're letting the American people off too easily. They watch all
of this cable stuff.

Jon Stewart: No. But this is-

Bill Moyers: And they vote for these politicians.

Jon Stewart: No. They vote less than 50 percent of the country. The
country is, look, the general dialogue is being swayed by--the people
who are ideologically driven. The five percent on each side that are so
ideological driven that they--will dictate the terms of the discussion.
The other 90 percent of the country have lawns to mow, and kids to pick
up from schools, and money to make, and--things to do. Their lives are,
they have entrusted--we live in a representative democracy. And so, we
elect representatives to go do our bidding, so that we can--get the
leaves out of the gutter, and----do the things around the house
that--need to be done. What the representatives have done over 200 years
is set up a periphery, I think they call it the beltway--that is
a--obtuse enough that we can't penetrate it anymore, unless we spend all
of our time. This is the way that it's been set up purposefully by both
sides. And--the financial industry, as well. They don't want average
people to easily penetrate the workings. Because then we call them on

The Devil and the Middle East.

The problem with the Middle East has been a dependence on petroleum
combined with a lack of true democracy. When you have governments that
are doubly unaccountable, first because they're not elected, and second
because no one pays taxes, then you have a system that is thoroughly
corrupted and has to make deals with extremists in order to legitimize
their governance. In fact a lack of capitalism has made the Middle East
worse off for its people, and less capitalism isn't the answer. Oil
dependency is an evil and insidious business for both parties. We are
the world's largest consumer of petroleum, we're in fact petroleum
junkies, and because we're junkies we've had to make deals with some
pretty nasty people in order to get our fix. That's one of the reasons
for 9/11. It's also evil because the region of the world selling us the
most petroleum has been left behind the rest of the world. They are some
of the most backward parts of the world, especially when it comes to
education--their bodies might not be starving, but their minds are.
Africa is the poorest continent in the world, yet I've never heard of an
African suicide bomber. Obviously there's a lot of killing going on in
Africa, but none of it is directed at Westerners.

The Middle East has made a deal with the Devil because of petroleum.
They're dependent on it for their economy. This has led to
underinvestment in another parts of their economy, such as technology,
manufacturing, etc. The Middle East has never gone through an industrial
revolution, and yet they are worse of for it. Saudi Arabian sheiks can
by the most expensive cars, yet they can't manufacture them in their
home countries. This is why you have an entire generation of Middle
Easterners who are dissatisfied with their own countries and blame it on
us. Their governments relied on petroleum as a panacea and it's made
them fall behind the rest of the world instead. On top of this Middle
Eastern governments have had to make deals with the most extremist parts
of their religion. In order to legitimize their rule, they've had to,
instead of contributing to modernize their education systems, they've
had to contribute to the most backwards and ignorant parts of their
religion. In order for Imams to bless their rule, theses sheiks have had
to spread their intolerance and ignorance around the world, with all
that dirty oil-money that we've provided them. The whole damn system is
corrupt and less capitalism will make it even more corrupt, and
eventually more dangerous for the rest of the world.