Claim the Fame, Pass the Blame

President Harry Truman is famous for the motto on his desk that said

"The Buck Stops Here."

Compare him to politicians today who seem to prefer the motto,


"Claim the Fame, Pass the Blame."

Chertoff! Call Boehner, Immediately!

Someone needs to set up a conference call between Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and Representative John Boehner immediately. Secretary Chertoff said yesterday that the country faces a heightened chance of a terrorist attack this summer.

Representative John Boehner has been telling us for several years that we are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them here. How can we be threatened here if we are keeping al-Qaida busy fighting us in Iraq?


I'd feel better if someone would get these two together and straighten this out

Ode For Population Control

Global Resource Bubble

Everyone has heard of an economic bubble. One of the causes, as described in Wikipedia is,

The cause of bubbles is often disputed although some experts believe that the cause of bubbles can be explained by the "greater fool's theory." The greater fool's theory explains the behavior of a perennially optimistic market participant (the fool) who buys an overvalued asset in anticipation of selling it to another rapacious speculator (the greater fool) at a much higher price. The bubbles continue as long as the fool can find another (greater) fool to pay up for the overvalued asset. The bubbles will end only when the greater fool becomes the greatest fool who pays the top price for the overvalued asset and can no longer find another buyer to pay for it at a higher price.


There is another kind of bubble, a "psychological bubble" or "reality bubble" where people isolate themselves from other people or situations that they do not want to deal with. This is not a neurosis. We all do it. We construct our own reality that explains who we are, why we are here and our position in the world around us. It is a method of coping.

Sometimes the reality bubbles are physical, such as countries. Sometimes they are emotional, like religion. Reality bubbles can be burst, just like economic bubbles, but this is rare because it is human nature to bend reality to fit our preconceptions.

These two bubbles, the economic and the reality bubbles are at the heart of another bubble, the global resource bubble. We humans like the way the world is developing and we don't want it to stop. The fact that the kind of growth we have experienced up to this point is not sustainable is not a reality we can face or accept. That is why so many people for so long have denied that we are running out of oil or global warming is a reality. That is why people fail to see that the world is already over-populated. If we are satisfied with our standard of living, we want to maintain it. If we are not satisfied, we want to raise it. In both cases, that means ever increasing economic growth, ever increasing population and ever increasing destruction of the environment.

Unfortunately, just like the Dot.COM bubble or the housing bubble, the global resource bubble will eventually burst. Theoretically the human race could manage the situation and evolve our economies to provide an acceptable standard of living for everyone using resources in a sustainable manner, but that is not going to happen.

We are guilty of the "greater fools theory" on a global scale. In this case it is not an overvalued asset we are buying, but an undervalued asset, the very world we live in, and the fools are people not yet born.

Paris 23, Scooter 0

OK, I didn't get it quite right
(Paris 45, Scooter 0).

Paris got out of jail early when her sentence was cut by 22 days for good behavior and on July 2, Scooter got his cut by two and a half years for keeping his mouth shut.

And if he just keeps it shut for another year and a half, he'll have his full pardon. When that happens, does he get his $250,000 fine back?

Libbyrated!

If you can't do the time,

don't do the crime.

Unless you've got friends in the White House.

Or should I say co-conspirators in the White House?

Immigration Compromise

We are told that immigration reform is dead for this term. I'm not sure it had a chance. In the current environment a compromise bill means both sides get an equal number of provisions they like. Often they are provisions that one side loves and the other side detests. Politicians vote for the bill if their joy outweighs their disgust.

A path to citizenship, amnesty, was just too big an obstacle to overcome. For many people, the offsetting compromise, a promise to strengthen the borders and enforcement, was not enough to mitigate the disgust of seeing law breakers profit from their misdeeds.

Maybe we can make progress if we don't try to create a bill that tries to do everything at once. Pull out pieces that move us forward and a majority of legislators can agree on. A compromise means people on both sides can accept it.

We have millions of people in the U.S. who realistically cannot be sent back to their home countries and do need some sort of legal status. What if we give those who qualify legal status (permanent resident status?), but do not promise them a path to citizenship? They can stay here as long as they don't break any laws.

Along with this we pass a law that makes it a felony to be in this country illegally. Anyone convicted would be biometrically identified, deported and would lose future rights to enter the country legally. Further convictions would bring ever longer jail time, then deportation.

This would give the 12-20 million undocumented people in this country a way to legally remain in the U.S. with some strong penalties. Without citizenship it would be harder to bring relatives to this country. These people can't vote. Other penalties could be imposed, if required, like a fine or a requirement to learn English.

It would also remove some of the incentive to cross the border illegally because if you are caught, you have no hope of ever becoming a legal resident of the United States and face possible incarceration. And it will be harder to find a job because the workers who qualified for legal status will have a green card to show employers.

If this compromise is still too much like amnesty, give them a six year temporary status (the number of years would be chosen to try to keep the issue out of a presidential race). In six years Congress would have to decide what to do next. Maybe the solution will be clearer or at least less emotional at that point. If not, Congress can do what it is best at and kick the can down the road again.

I'm sure people who know more about immigration can devise even better compromises, but for an issue that has caused so much political turmoil there is no need to give up. This compromise failed, but that doesn't mean we can't create a better one.

Would God Be Your Vice-President?

All the presidential candidates seem happy to talk about their religion and faith. While I think such matters are personal and private, they feel it is politically advantageous to make their religious beliefs public.

If a candidate's life and actions are as dependant on their religious beliefs as most profess and many seem happy (and some eager) to tell us about, shouldn't we be asking them tough questions? If a candidate's daily life and decisions are guided and affected by their religious beliefs, aren't these principles and beliefs just as important as their stands on health care or Iraq? If a candidate, for example, says they don't believe in evolution, we need to find out why. If their belief is based on religion, what other strange beliefs might they have? Do they believe in the Rapture?

Personally, I would rather have a president who deep down believes "God helps those who help themselves." more than they believe in the power of prayer. I want a president who believes the fate of the country is in our hands and not a god whose actions are often beyond our understanding.

I would have no problem with a candidate who says something like - "I have strong religious beliefs that have helped shape who I am. Those beliefs can be seen in the decisions I've made and the actions I've taken in my life. My religion and faith continue to be a source of comfort and strength in my daily life, but they are personal and not open to public discussion. While I will always be a person of faith, as president of a secular country I will make presidential decisions based on reason, logic and the interests of all the citizens of the United States."

For those candidates not willing to make such a statement, I have a few questions.

How much would your faith and religious beliefs influence your decisions as President?

As President, which would be more the more important guide when making decisions, the Bible or the Constitution?

Do you believe that non-Christians are as moral as Christians?

Is your God the only true God?

Does your God treat non-believers the same as believers?

Would you treat non-believers the same as believers?

Is your God active in the world? That is, does your God, on a daily or regular basis, change the course of events?

Does your God change the world in response to prayer?

If so, does your God change the world in positive response to prayers from people of other faiths or religions?

How often do you pray?

What do you pray for?

Have you ever asked God for guidance with a problem?

When confronted with a large problem, have you ever "turned it over to" God?

Has God ever given you guidance?

Have your prayers ever been answered?

Has God ever spoken to you directly?

If so, how do you know it was God that spoke?

Have you ever prayed for God to change or influence events?

What is a miracle?

Can you describe a recent miracle you believe God made happen?

This list may sound like a lot of gotcha questions, but so many candidates are treating religion like just another focus group issue. If they really believe religion is another tool to attract voters, then we need the details.

Are We Addicted To Cheap Labor?

The President thinks we are addicted to cheap oil. Does anyone think we are addicted to cheap labor?

I keep hearing that we need lots of cheap labor to keep our economy growing. There are two proposals. Bring in short term guest workers - labor mercenaries - psuedo-slaves. They do work that no one living in the U.S. will do for wages that only the truly desperate will accept.

Or we can bring in people and families who will the supply cheap labor with the hope of a future in the U.S. They will eventually become citizens and presumably move up the economic pyramid. Unfortunately the current economic pyramid grows from the bottom down leaving a need for more and more cheap labor at the bottom.

Will our economy always require new people to work for wages below the poverty level to sustain a higher standard of living for the rest of us?

Where does this end?

Paris 45, Scooter 0

Paris Hilton will spend more time in jail than Scooter Libby.

Libby lied to protect the Vice-President, now the Vice-President and President feel honor bound to make sure he doesn't go to jail.

There is one question I haven't heard asked or answered. Conservatives are almost in tears over the fate of Libby. They at least act appalled that Libby might go to jail when the real law breaker was Richard Armitage, which of course isn't true. The other people were consciously trying to out Valerie Plame Wilson while Armitage innocently revealed the fact.

But here is my question, while Libby was purposefully leaking Valerie Wilson as a CIA operative, did he know that Armitage had already unintentionally revealed that information? If not, then Libby would have thought that he was committing an illegal act and committed the act anyway. He is no choir boy.

Libby should go to jail for the crimes he committed, perjury and obstruction of justice. It's a shame that he and others who risked lives and the national defense for political revenge aren't going to jail for those crimes.

Wrestling in Iraq

I saw former Senator Bob Kerrey on TV the other night. He believes neither the Democrats or the Republicans have it right on Iraq when, in general, Republicans believe in the status quo and Democrats want to pull all the troops ASAP or ASARP.

He suggested that we should immediately pull the troops from Baghdad, get out of the middle of a civil war and move the troops to the borders to stop outsiders from entering the country. We should then ask the Iraqis what we can do to help them. We would then do what we reasonably could to honor their requests, but the guiding principle would be to do what is in our best interests. And one of our primary interests is to stay in the region and get al Qaeda.

This is not a particularly new idea. I can't understand why there isn't wider support.

When we leave Baghdad, there may be a blood bath, but the sad truth is either the factions must be separated (the Biden plan), they must compromise and share power, or one side has to be beaten into submission. We can't tell them how to solve their problems, only they can do that.

I think many people, including many Iraqis, see our role as like a referee in a boxing match. While the fighters are trying to beat each other to a pulp, we stay neutral and make sure no one gets hurt too badly. But this is not a boxing match. There are no rules and there is no bell after the 10th round to stop the fight. As long as we are there, in the middle of the ring, with all our resources and power, the best political strategy for them is to use us as a shield or a target.

But this isn't a boxing match. It is closer to professional wrestling and there is no referee and no rules. There are many wrestlers who come and go and join the fight when it fits their needs. And yes, al Qaeda is in the ring also, taking shots at everyone. Their goal is to make sure there is no winner. While all we really want to do is fight al Qaeda, we are just another fighter in the middle of a melee.

We need to get out of the center of the ring, let everyone else fight on if they want and then whack al Qaeda every chance we get.

Go Joe!

I've been watching the presidential candidates as they position themselves to win the nomination. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both are strong candidates. I was impressed by Bill Richardson early on, but lately I've been a little disappointed. While I would have never thought of Chris Dodd as presidential material, he has shown himself to be a strong candidate with well stated positions.

At this early stage of the campaign, any one of these people would make a good candidate.

At this point, I don't believe John Edwards has what it takes. I'm not sure what is missing, but I don't see him as a winner against a Republican candidate.

My favorite candidate is Joe Biden. I've watched him on the news shows many times and I'm always impressed. He's a passionate man who doesn't seem to be afraid to say what he thinks. Occasionally that gets him into trouble, but I would rather have a candidate who takes a position and vigorously defends it than a candidate who chooses words carefully so as not to offend any group. You are never sure what they really believe.

It is still very early, but if you haven't been watching Joe Biden, start. This guy is definitely presidential material.

Is Immigration Anti-Capitalism?

Why is it that our capitalist country believes so strongly in free markets until the product is cheap labor? If the need for more corn to produce ethanol drives the price of milk up, we expect that more farmers will plant corn as a response and prices will drop. But when the problem is a shortage of labor, the response is to bring in cheap, foreign labor. Why don't we let market pressures solve the problem?

I heard a California farmer complain that he couldn't find farm labors willing to harvest his crops. He said he didn't think he could find people willing to do the back breaking work at even $20 an hour. So what's the answer? He wants foreign laborers to come in and do the work (and I bet they'll be paid a LOT less than $20 an hour).

Why isn't the answer "Let the markets work it out"? It seems to me that there are people who will do that hard work if they are compensated well enough. $30 and hour? $40 an hour? Benefits? You can get workers if you pay enough. Of course, the higher labor costs may mean that the produce will be so expensive that consumers will not buy it, but then the farmer has another choice. Grow something that is not so labor intensive. Or go into some other business.

We don't have a problem with people with valuable skills being paid high salaries, so why should we penalize people without specialized education or unique talents from being paid whatever the market requires? I person who has the ability and motivation to do hard work that others won't do should be paid appropriately. We sympathize with the professional athlete who demands a high salary partly because their professional careers are short and subject to an abrupt end if they are injured. How is that any different from anyone who does hard physical labor?

When I was young, a neighbor had a small roofing business. I occasionally did odd jobs for him during the summer and I know the roofers who worked for him were happy to have a good paying job. Now we hear that only cheap foreign labor will do these jobs and many other construction jobs. Baloney! Give a person good pay and benefits and people will be lining up for the jobs.

Our problem is that we want prosperity and low prices and don't mind getting these on the backs of low paid workers.

Robert Reich, who for several years during the Clinton administration was Secretary of Labor, was on NPR this morning. I usually find him to have reasoned and well stated opinions. This morning he took issue with at least part of the proposed immigration bill. He did not like the idea of letting more educated immigrants into the country. If I remember correctly, he had two main arguments. As an example, he pointed out that the salaries of U.S. information technology works have been stagnant the past few years (partly due to globalization), so bringing in skilled people from overseas will just suppress wages even more. He then tackled the complaint that even today there aren't enough information technology workers in the U.S. to fill the jobs that are available. His argument, if we bring in new workers from overseas, that will remove the incentive for U.S. companies to recruit and train new U.S. workers. I'm not going to defend or attack his position, but don't these same basic arguments support the case that we shouldn't bring in low cost foreign labor to undercut low skill U.S. workers?

What really puzzled me about Reich's comments is that I believe he is in favor of bringing in low cost foreign labor.

I still believe that if we are going to bring in foreign labor, employers should be forced to pay them more than what they would pay a U.S. citizen. Twenty-five percent sounds good. If you have a job that pays minimum wage to a U.S. worker, a non-citizen would be paid minimum wage plus 25%. If you are hiring an information worker, you can pay a U.S. citizen $100,000 or a foreign worker $125,000. Market pressure would reward U.S. workers and help insure that there are truly no U.S. workers who are qualified and willing to do the work.

Which Lives Are Sacred?

During the GOP debate the other night, Governor Huckabee, Senator Brownback and Governor Romney were fighting hard to prove they deserved the pro-life vote.

While Governor Romney says "a civilized society has to respect the sanctity of human life", it does seem to me that the candidates make distinctions about which lives are truly sacred.

While some candidates get apoplectic insisting that destroying a cluster of cells in a petri dish is murder, no one seems to be as equally outraged over the atrocities in Darfur. None of them seemed concerned that in Afghanistan, a country under our protection, the infant mortality rate is 165 per 1000 births, one of the highest in the world.

In a 2003 paper from the World Health Organization it was noted that over 10 million children under the age of 5 die each year. Most lived within the worlds 42 lowest income countries. According to this paper, "Malnutrition is associated with 54% of all child deaths." and "Two-thirds of child deaths could be prevented by interventions which are not only already available but which are also feasible to implement in low-income countries."

Where is the moral outrage from the GOP candidates? These staggering numbers do not even include the millions of children under the age of five who are "stunted" due to malnutrition (about 180 million in 2005 according to another study). I still believe too many "pro-life" people are really only "pro-birth".

One of the phrases we often hear from Republicans when defending Bush's war in Iraq is something like, "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Since devastation and loss of innocent life are by-products of any war, aren't they basically saying we we would rather lose Iraqi innocent lives rather than American innocent lives? We are rightfully distraught over losing 100 U.S. soldiers and marines a month in Iraq and Afghanistan defending our interests, but we seem to be much less concerned that too often Iraq loses that many innocent civilians in a day. If we are really fighting terrorists in Iraq who want to destroy us, wouldn't it be more moral to fight them over here? Why should innocent Iraqi's die fighting our war rather than us?

The brutal truth is that not all human life is precious and our actions show that none of us believe that all human life is precious. The lives of the people we love are precious to us, but there is a sliding scale for the rest of humanity. Even at that, not all life we might consider precious is worth living. Many of us have been in situations where death is not the worst alternative.

As a civilization we need to become more concerned about the quality of each person's life and not just about whether a person is alive.

Pro-Life Synthetic Rage

I don't believe it is helpful to question other people's beliefs or motives, but after watching both Republican debates, I have to wonder if some of the pro-life stances are not just synthetic rage.

I think it is reasonable to question a candidate's reasoning and judgement. For example, any candidate who doesn't believe in evolution doesn't have the scientific background, judgement or common sense to be president.

Do the candidates who so intensely state life begins at conception really believe that? They must believe that conception occurs with the union of sperm and ovum and not with implantation otherwise they wouldn't consider cells in a petri dish to be a human "child" (now there is a way to ratchet up the the rhetoric).

With a definition that life begins with the union of sperm and ovum, aren't many treatments for infertility, which routinely create embryos that are later discarded, forms of murder?

Aren't many forms of female contraception, which prevent implantation in the uterus of a fertilized egg, also murder?

None of the Republican candidates turned their synthetic rage toward couples using in vitro fertilisation or toward women on the pill. I guess political moral outrage has its limits.

Rabid pro-life positions fire up many in the Republican base, but I would expect a serious candidate for the presidency to have a better understanding of this difficult issue. Give Rudy Giuliani credit. He has had to face the issue with logic and reason instead of hyperbole. Maybe he can articulate a position that will add substance to the debate rather than just fire.

Main Stream Media vs Fox

This morning I watched Meet the Press on MSNBC, This Week on ABC and Fox News Sunday. All three had segments on Imus.

I offer these segments as examples of why the "main stream media" is main stream and Fox is a pretender.

Meet the Press and This Week had discussions with differences of opinion that added insight and thought into the debate that is much larger than the comment by Don Imus. Chis Wallace on Fox tried to play "gotcha" journalism with Reverend Al Sharpton and then Bill Kristol gushed over how the incident skewered liberals.

I'm afraid that Don Imus and Fox prove if you pander to people's prejudices you'll always have an audience.

Needed: Middle East Strategic Plan

Retired General Anthony Zinni was on Meet the Press this morning. He said something that while not new, made me think about the future of the Iraq War.

He disagreed with the current approach and he also disagreed with proposals by the Democrats for time tables for withdrawal. What he pointed out was that neither incorporated a strategic plan for the Middle East. The way he presented this made a lot of sense.

I think his idea is close to the call for a Regional Security Summit, but not just as some part of a withdrawal. He is suggesting that we look beyond how we extricate ourselves from Iraq to what is our plan for the Middle East?

One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was that a democratic Iraq would awaken a desire for democracy in the region. While rather simplistic and naive, it was at least the start of a strategy. What is our strategy now?

No matter what they call it, Republicans cling to the "stay the course" policy. Democrats, in response to public pressure and the stupendous incompetency and lack of planning by the administration, have adopted an equally short sighted approach, withdraw. Neither talks a lot about what happens next. How does your plan for Iraq fit into the larger goal to stabilize the Middle East and counter terrorism?

This is a complicated problem and we need better answers from both parties.

Six Years and Out

Retired General Anthony Zinni was one of Tim Russert's guests on Meet the Press this morning. He said several interesting things.

He suggested that U.S. Presidents should be limited to one six year term. Once elected they should become "elder statesman". I think the idea is, they would remove themselves from partisan political debates. General Zinni was dismayed that more people knew the name of the White House Political officer (Karl Rove) than knew the name of the National Security Advisor (Stephen Hadley).

This was a theme echoed by Torie Clarke on This Week on ABC which generated a small discussion about the amount of partisan politics being pursued inside the White House.

The President lives in a world of politics so a political advisor will aways be needed to help garner political support for the President's policies, but is having a PARTISAN political advisor intimately involved in every decision in the best interests of the entire country? Why should the number one partisan political advisor have an office in the White House? And this certainly applies whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat.

One of the reasons this came up was the missing emails that might document Karl Rove's involvement in the recent firing of several U.S. Prosecutors. From this investigation we found out that at least some White House officials were given email accounts on the Republican National Committee's email server. The idea was that the government should not be paying for partisan communications. Of course, it also allowed this communication, where one end was in the White House, from being subject to retention and disclosure laws that apply to White House emails. I'm with Torie Clarke (if I correctly understood her position), if you work in the White House, any communications that take place there fall under the rules of the White House.

A President is elected and then spends 8 years trying to get re-elected. When he (or maybe someday, she) isn't working on their own re-election they are trying to elect or re-elect members of their party. I don't see how that can be good for the country.

I don't know how a President decides when to pursue policies that are best for the country and when to pursue policies that are best for his political party, but it has to make his decision making process more difficult. I think that would make an interesting question for our Presidential candidates. I doubt you would get an honest answer out of any of them, so the best answer will be the one with the least BS.

Six years seems like a long time for a single term, but people tend to re-elect a President. Six years doesn't sound too bad when you realize that Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, as bad as they were and are, were reelected.

How about a six year term with a referendum at the three year mark? There would be no opponent, just a vote as to whether the President will get three more years or would face a full election the during the fourth year.

Thompson For President

This past week Fred Thompson, the former Republican U.S. Senator from Tennessee, has been testing the political waters for a run for the Presidency. Fred Thompson is also an accomplished film and TV actor who currently plays prosecutor Arthur Branch on TV's Law & Order.

Several commentators believe he would be a serious contender if he chooses to run.

Makes sense to me. Republicans like leaders who can make fiction sound like the truth.

U.S. Dept Of Agriculture - WTHWYT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has just lost a court case where it was trying to make the food supply LESS safe.

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wanted to test all the beef it processes for mad cow disease. Mad cow disease is incurable. If you've donated blood through the Red Cross in the past few years you know that they ask several questions about how much time you've spent in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has had a serious problem with mad cow disease which can take as long as 20 to 30 years to appear and then destroys your brain. The Red Cross is very concerned about accepting blood from people who might have the disease and not know it.

Creekstone Farms wants to test all its beef. I'm sure they would use this in their marketing to distinguish themselves from competitors. The Agricultural Department currently tests only about 1 percent of all beef slaughtered. Other meat packers were afraid that if Creekstone Farms were allowed to test all its beef, market demands might force them to test all of theirs. An expensive procedure. So the Agriculture Department threatened to take Creekstone Farms to court if they insisted on testing all the beef they processed. A court recently ruled that the Department of Agriculture could not prevent Creekstone Farms from the additional testing.

So I would like to ask the U.S. Department Of Agriculture, who threatened a business with prosecution because the business wanted to make the food supply safer,

What The Hell Were You Thinking?

Support The Troops. Don't Hide Behind Them.

Several soldiers currently in Iraq were interviewed on television the other day. They were asked what they thought about the war debate back in the US and was it hurting their morale. One soldier said yes it hurt morale. He said something like "How can people say they support the troops and not support their mission?"

I have a great deal of respect for the men and women fighting in Iraq and Aghanistan, but it is unfair to put them on television and ask them questions like that. These are well trained and disciplined soldiers and Marines. Some of the best people who have ever worn the uniform. They are trained to take on a mission and complete it. To ask them in the middle of the mission if it is the correct mission is not fair. For them to question their mission in the middle of a war zone would be to admit defeat. I imagine it would be like deserting their fellow soldiers and they are not going to do it. Anyone who would claim that we should continue this war because the soldiers believe in their mission is a scoundrel.

The civilian leadership (and voters) got us into this war and it is up to the civilian leadership (and voters) to get us out. It is completely unfair to expect the military to decide when to quit a war that will not have a clean ending. One soldier said something like it was OK if the people back home didn't believe in their mission, they would fight on. Lives of men like that should not be wasted so politicians can maintain their electability.

The Forever Stamp Hoax

The Post Office has recently announced that they are considering a new first class stamp with no value on the face. No matter when you buy it or what you pay for it, it can always be used in the future to mail a first class letter. They claim this forever stamp will save money. Not only does the Post Office not have to print new stamps when there is a rate increase, the one cent stamps that people must buy to use up the first class stamps with the old rate cost more to produce than their face value. A one cent stamp costs more than one cent to produce and distribute which means the Post Office loses money every time it raises the price of a first class stamp.

I'm not sure the forever stamp is a good idea, even though there are some countries who have been using it for years. The Post Office says it will be good for consumers, but I'm not so sure.

The Post Office says that this will save people money, but this new policy may actually cost some consumers even more money to mail their letters. When the Post Office announces a rate increase, some people will stock up on the forever stamp. Some people will buy a six month or one year supply of stamps. This means that the extra income that would currently be generated starting the day the new rate goes into affect will now be delayed by months as the forever stamps purchased at the old rate are used up. The Post Office will have to plan and implement rate increases much earlier than they are really needed so that most of the stamps purchased under the old rate will have been used up by the time the Post Office really needs the extra revenue. That means people who don't stock up on stamps before the rate increase will be paying for a more expensive stamp before current postal policies would have required.

There is an even simpler solution to this problem than the forever stamp. Allow first class stamps to used for some period of time after the new rate goes into affect. For example, let's say the price of a first class stamp is being changed from 37 cents to 39 cents on January 1. The Post Office could allow the 37 or 39 cent stamp to be used on first class envelopes until the end of February. This would allow people to use up the old stamps without the inconvenience or expense of one or two cent stamps and the Post Office would know that their revenue increase would be in full affect in only two months.

Sounds too simple, doesn't it? That is because you are not being told the true reason for the forever stamp. With the forever stamp the Post Office doesn't have to create, print and distribute new stamps for each rate increase. A process that takes time. With the forever stamp the Post Office can announce a rate increase a couple of days before it is to take effect.

This will also make it easier to have fractional cent stamps, 45.5 cents for example. A book of 10 would cost $4.55, two stamps would cost 91 cents and a single stamp would cost 46 cents.

It will also make it easier to adopt periodic rate increases (for example, a first class stamp whose price goes up one cent every 3 months for the next two years) or for rate increases every year based on the rate of inflation. These kind of increases will not get the same kind of news coverage so rate increases will become a non-issue.

Maybe we should talk about this forever stamp a little more before it is implemented.

Pardon The Fall Guy?

Many conservatives are crying for an immediate pardon for Lewis Libby. Some have been spinning and twisting so creatively to prove that this case is a travesty of justice they should be given auditions with Cirque du Soleil.

Here are some arguments for a pardon.

How can you punish a man when no crime was committed? Prosecutor Fitzgerald was given the task to determine if a law had been broken and he determined that it had not. Nothing wrong with that. Prosecutors are not expected to return an indictment in every case they investigate. If they were, what kind of justice would that be?

In the process of the investigation Mr. Libby broke the law by lying under oath. Should Prosecutor Fitzgerald have ignored that because no one was indicted for the original crime being investigated?

I'm standing on the street and see a man break the window of a jewelry store, run in, grab a watch and run out. As he runs by I trip him. While he is down I take the watch from him and leave. The original crook gets away and is never caught. I later pawn the watch. Have I committed any crime? If I were caught, could I claim innocence of any crime since it would be unjust to punish me for stealing a watch that was already stolen? Could I claim that just because the first crook was never convicted, I shouldn't be convicted?

If convicted, do I deserve a pardon?

Two of the jurors in the Libby trial said they would be happy to see Mr. Libby pardoned. Conservatives have jumped on this as proof that the conviction was unjust and a pardon is appropriate. What?????? These are the jurors who convicted Mr. Libby. They found that he committed a crime. They have sympathy for him and wouldn't mind a pardon because they think he is a fall guy. Conservatives........wake up..........the jurors think Mr. Libby is guilty and they think others were also guilty of crimes. You are agreeing with jurors who think there was a band of crooks, possibly including the Vice President. They are sorry only one person was convicted. A pardon based on this line of reasoning is an admission that Mr. Libby and other people were guilty of crimes.

The injustice in this case is that there was a secret attempt to discredit a political opponent that originated in and was directed from the Office of the Vice President. The administration didn't stand up in the press room and say Ambassador Wilson is wrong and here are the facts as we see them. They didn't publicly confront Ambassador Wilson and say that they believed he was pursuing his own political agenda. They secretly used the power of the government to discredit the man and his wife. A wife that didn't just work at Wal-Mart. She worked at the CIA! They didn't stand at the podium and say Ambassador Wilson wasn't sent by the Vice President, he was sent by his wife who works at the CIA. They didn't say this publicly. The weasels leaked their story to the press and then denied they were the source. Why didn't they just stand up and say these things? Because it was easier to allow other people to hide their lies than to publicly face the facts. Is this administration in a war with terrorists or their political opponents?

Is the air in Washington DC so polluted that people who work there lose their judgement and common sense?

By the way, I predict that if Mr. Libby's conviction stands, President Bush will give him a pardon. I just hope he doesn't also give him the Medal of Freedom.

Repeal The Second Amendment

The recent ruling that Washington DC restrictions on handgun ownership are unconstitutional was interesting. It clearly shows that the term "strict constructionist activist judge" is not an oxymoron.

While the United States Constitution is a superb document, it was not without its flaws. This interpretation clearly shows it is time to repeal the Second Amendment. Most the of ruling revolves around historical interpretations that no longer have much meaning.

Much of the majorities argument centered on whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual right. They conclude it is an individual right and offer as one proof Robertson vs Baldwin which includes the much quoted phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;." The majority ignores their own admission that it is legal to restrict gun ownership by insisting that a person has a constitutional right to keep arms in their homes for self protection and as preparation for service in a militia (an arcane and unclear entity).

Citing legal precedence, they do agree that there are legal restrictions as to what kinds of weapons a person can own. A sawed off shotgun can be legislated as illegal, because the term "arms" refers "only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals;" (Miller).

Although not stated, the clear interpretation is that any weapon that is commonly used by the military or for public defense is legal in a home. That may have made sense when most soldiers carried muskets. The judges have basically said it is legal for people to have in their homes fully automatic assault rifles, machine guns, rocket propelled grenade launchers, etc. in case they are called upon to join a militia. The case before them did not require them to decide whether or not restrictions on these weapons outside the home would be legal.

The language of the Second Amendment is unclear and out of date. It needs to be repealed.

Read the courts ruling here.

Boehner, You Are An Idiot!

John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, was on the news again tonight and he hasn't gotten any smarter than the last time I wrote about him.

While commenting about the Democratic plan to get troops out of Iraq, he said something like "if we leave Iraq you can bet the terrorists will follow us home."

John, did you ever ask yourself if it was all that easy for the terrorists to come over here when the troops leave Iraq, why don't they do it now before the troops leave? If you were a terrorist why would you fight the US military in Iraq with all their guns, tanks, helicopters, etc. when you could just come to the USA now and kill helpless civilians? Hmmm, maybe the NRA has been arming Republicans and I just haven't heard about it. Or maybe the terrorists are smarter than you are, John.

Or John, did it ever occur to you that if you are correct, why don't we just move all our troops to Afghanistan? The terrorists would follow us there and we would only have to fight one war.

I guess you don't have to be smart to get elected to Congress. You just have to be smarter than a majority of voters in your district.


Technorati Tags: Boehner Iraq Terrorists Political

Bill Divorces Hillary

I recently heard a report that Republicans are going to hold all their dirt on Hillary and Bill Clinton until after Senator Clinton has the Democratic nomination won. Then they bring it all out and create such scandals that Mrs. Clinton can't win.

Republicans had better rethink that position. If Republicans start making Bill Clinton the focus of the campaign, Hillary will support Bill and then at just the right moment, Bill will go on national TV, apologize for his indiscretion's and admit that his failures shouldn't doom Hillary's chances. His embarrassments shouldn't cause the country to lose a great president. He will then state he plans to divorce Hillary and remove himself as a distraction. Hillary will emotionally object, but Bill will keep insisting and Hillary will gain a huge sympathy vote. Republicans will look very anti-family and Hillary will skate to the win.

Republicans beware.


Technorati Tags: Clinton President Divorce

A Simple Question For The Vice President

In my previous post I complained that the Vice President was trying to confuse people by equating the war in Iraq with the war on terror and al Qaeda. I also said that this confusion made the war on terror more complicated. I should have added that even worse, his repeated connection of Iraq and al Qaeda trivializes the war on terror by implying that it will be won or lost depending on the outcome of the war in Iraq. With that in mind, I'd like to ask the Vice President another question.

If every member of al Qaeda now in Iraq were killed tomorrow, would we be able to declare victory in Iraq and start bringing home all the troops the next day?


Technorati Tags: Political Iraq Cheney al Qaeda War On Terror

Accept Your Responsibility

Vice President Cheney in a recent interview said, "I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al Qaeda strategy." He then added, "The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

I have a few questions I'd like to ask the Vice President. I'd like to ask the Vice President if he realizes that Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are reflecting the current opinion of a majority of American voters? I'd also like to know if he ever considered that it is the failed policies of the Bush administration that have led the American people to question the value of surging additional troops to Iraq? Finally, I'd like to know if realizes that his lying to the American people has contributed to the public's disillusionment with the war in Iraq? For example, he continues to confuse the war in Iraq with al Qaeda. The war on terror is complicated and he makes it even more complicated by not being honest!

If the war in Iraq ends as a failure rather than a success, it will be the direct result of the failures by the current administration. If the war in Iraq had already been successfully concluded, they would have claimed responsibility for the success. As it is, this administration alone must accept responsibilities for the failures, including waning support in the US. If the administration could give us a clear definition of victory and a clear plan that had a chance of success, the American people would support them.



Technorati Tags: Political Iraq Cheney Pelosi Murtha

DoughNut Dollar

The US Mint is once again trying to get the American people to accept a dollar coin. They plan to release a series of coins bearing the images of US Presidents starting with George Washington. The Mint may make a mint on the coins people collect and take out of circulation, but this will not convince the public to use these coins.

The first attempt at a new dollar coin was the Susan B. Anthony coin which was too similar in size and color to a Quarter. People rejected this coin for everyday use. The next attempt was the Sacajawea gold coin. This too was rejected. I think it is the same size and weight as the Susan B. Anthony, but it has a gold colored finish. I haven't seen the new President dollars, but unless they are radically different than the previous two attempts to make dollar coins, people won't use them for everyday commerce either.

I believe the problem has to do with size and identification, the reasons that the Susan B. Anthony coins were rejected. As a person who likes the idea of dollar coins and who tries to use them, I think I understand the problem. Put 10 one dollar bills in you pocket and you would never know they are there. Put 10 one dollar coins in you pocket and they start to get heavy and the coins are still too hard to distinguish from a Quarter. A worn Sacajawea coin looks gold colored only in the right light.

I suggest they create dollar coins with holes in the middle. I should note that the Mint considered this and rejected the idea. I can't remember why. Maybe it was because it is hard to put an image on a coin when the center is missing. Even if you kept the diameter of the dollar coin the same, with a hole in the middle it would be easy to recognize and lighter. You can't make the coin too light (for example, aluminum coins feel like play money), but you can make a pocket full less noticeable.

The President dollar coin program is supposed to last about 10 years (four new coins a year), so it will probably be about 15 years before the next new dollar coin attempt. Maybe by then the Mint will have some people who can think outside the box and inside the hole.

Technorati Tags: Dollar Coin

Universal Post Secondary Education

It is time to start talking about how to make post secondary education as available and expected as a high school education for US adults. We live in a world where our manufacturing labor costs cannot compete with the developing countries without drastically lowering our standard of living. Unless we get immigration under control, we will have more unskilled workers than we can use. Our future lies in remaining a country that can produce workers with skills that are as good as or better than other countries. New technologies and new uses for current technologies are being generated at an ever increasing pace. The US must remain the world's technological leader, but to do so it will have to take active steps to increase the number of skilled workers at all levels.

I don't know how we do this, but I'm sure we have people who can come up with many good solutions we can debate. We don't need to do this overnight, but we should start soon with a goal to make a post secondary higher education, continuing education and vocational education available in an affordable and practical way to every citizen within 10 years. I included continuing and vocational education because we know that the labor market will change drastically over the years of a person's life time. Encouraging people to enhance or gain new skills and knowledge will help people in an ever changing labor market.

In addition, as people live longer and our population ages we will probably see the age at which a person can retire increase. Helping people prepare for jobs that match their life conditions and job market opportunities so they can be productive longer and meet their financial goals will benefit everyone.

Technorati Tags: Political

SURGE means Sacrifice

I guess for the troops and their families SURGE now means

Sacrifice Until Radical Groups Eliminated

or

Sacrifice Until Real Government Exists

Either way they bear the brunt of this "new" policy. I hope for everyone's sake it works, but I don't have much hope.

Technorati Tags: Political Iraq SURGE

How do you spell "Stay the Course"?

It sounds to me like Stay the Course is now spelled S, U, R, G, E.

EverybodyHasOne has learned from a White House source that SURGE stands for

Stay Until Radical Groups Eliminated

or

Stay Until Real Government Exists

(the use is context dependant, depending on which one the administration thinks gives the longest time frame).


I suspect that SURGE will join the military terms FUBAR and SNAFU...

Screwed Up a Really Good Effort

As used in a sentence, "Bush really SURGEd us!"

Technorati Tags: Political Stay the course Iraq SURGE

News Or Opinion?

On the January 4 Scarborough Country show on NBC, Joe did a segment on Bill O'Reilly's ranting about bias at NBC. Bill claimed everybody at NBC hates President Bush. I don't think that's fair and balanced. I wonder what Bill would say about a claim that everybody at Fox loves President Bush.

Joe Scarborough had a guest, author Bob Kohn. Mr. Kohn claimed as proof of NBC's bias a statement by NBC's respected, veteran journalist and on-air reporter Richard Engel that Saddam Hussein's execution was a "PR disaster". Mr. Kohn asserted that this was clearly biased reporting.

According to Mr. Kohn, Richard Engel could have removed the bias by adding a phrase like "some people said the execution was a" in front of "PR disaster".

Now that would have really convinced me I was listening to objective reporting. Mr. Kohn clearly didn't convince me I should buy his book.

He inadvertently gave a better example of bias when he made the case that Saddam Hussein was a very bad person and history will remember how many people he killed, not how he died. Kohn's point was that the important story was the execution of a terrible dictator who killed many people. That statement clearly shows how Mr. Kohn would have added his bias to the story. I think news reports over many years have established that Saddam Hussein was a very bad person who killed many people and who deserved to die. That is no longer news. His execution and reactions to it was news.

Bias is always present in reporting. It is sometimes overt, but more often it is subtle. Which stories get covered? What angle and aspects of a story are covered? When you show a picture of a person, do you show one that is flattering or one that makes the person look malevolent? As an example, note which pictures of Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi are shown. Ask yourself if that picture might show a bias.

True news organizations and journalists work very hard to report accurately and objectively.

A respectable news paper clearly differentiates news from opinion. There is an opinion section and there are news sections. The cable news shows mix news and opinion into a witches brew that only the dedicated viewer can separate. I suggest that all media find ways to clearly identify which segments are news and should be held to high standards of objectivity and which are opinion.

It is current practice to clutter the edges of the screen with all kinds of "information". How about the word "Opinion" in big letters on the screen?

Today on Fox there was a segment where a guest commentator lambasted Nancy Pelosi for hypocrisy. She objected to Nancy Pelosi surrounding herself with children at the swearing in ceremony last week. How could Nancy Pelosi, a strong proponent of abortion rights, dare to act like she really cared about children? Obviously, people who support a woman's right to choose must hate all children. Only Fox would give such a lunatic air time.

As bad as that was, just prior to the segment was a full screen shot of the word "NEWS". You can only laugh when anyone at Fox complains about news media bias. I suggest that Fox indicate an objective news segment by replacing that annoying, rotating FOX News icon on the lower left of the screen with a yellow non-rotating icon that indicates that this segment is objective news.

Never mind. Now that I think about it I realize they've already done that. You've seen that yellow box haven't you?

Technorati Tags: Media Bias NBC Fox Bill O'Reilly Joe Scarborough Bob Kohn Richard Engel

John Boehner - Shut UP

John Boehner, Republican from Ohio and House Majority Leader, was on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday. He stated that al-Qaeda is wreaking havoc in Iraq. He repeated the line often used by Republicans that we have to defeat the terrorists in Iraq or "we'll be fighting them on every street in America."

What would you do if you were a leader of this country and believed that a military loss in Iraq meant we would be fighting terrorists on EVERY street in America? Well, in World War II, when that might have been a possibilty, we geared up a massive response. Every fiber of the country was committed to making sure the enemy never got that close.

If I thought a loss in Iraq meant fighting terrorists on my street, I would reinstate the draft. I would gladly go. I'm 50+, but I can shoot a rifle, or drive a truck or cook and deliver meals. I would expect Homeland Security to be organizing local self-defense units. I would expect my taxes to go up to help pay for whatever resources are needed. I would send an Army of 500,000 to Iraq. Seal the borders and then scour the country.

What kind of sacrifices has John Boehner, the President, the Vice-President and most Republicans asked of the American people? Reinstate the draft? No. Raise taxes? No. Significantly enlarge the armed forces? No. Send more troops to Iraq? Not really. The only sacrifices Republicans have asked from Americans to help win the war in Iraq is to live in a state of fear and give Republicans more power. The main thing they want from you is your vote.

John Boehner's actions do not show that he is really worried about fighting terrorists on every street. He is just trying to scare you into voting for Republicans. To my fellow citizens in Ohio, please vote the jackass out of office!

I've heard many times that Democrats think Repbulicans are stupid. I don't think all Republicans are stupid. But I saw Richard Nixon elected twice. When he was elected the second time it was clear that he was a very bad President to anyone who was paying attention to the news. I saw George W. Bush elected twice. Similarly, it was obvious by 2004, that George Bush was not up to the job of President of the United States. If voters do not throw Republicans out of office in droves next week, I and many Democrats, will once again have reason to wonder what kind of logic Republicans use when they enter the voting booth.

Are you really willing to retain politicians who support an ill conceived and an utterly failed policy in Iraq for a promise of a ban on gay marriage?

Technorati Tags: Political John Boehner Iraq War on Terror

Stay The Course? Sorry, My Bad!

According to President Bush, when he said "Stay the course", he didn't really mean "Stay the course". At least not the way we all understood it.

Since we just don't understand that the war on terror requires new thinking, we really can't appreciate the subtleties behind the phrase "Stay the course". So as not to confuse our simple minds further he is not going to use the phrase any more. Maybe Karl can come up with something less complex.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Stay the course Iraq Political Cartoon

Used with permission.

It Takes A Rack To Keep You Safe

Click on cartoon to enlarge.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Habeas Corpus Political Cartoon

Used with permission.

Send The Bill To My Kids

The President today said something along the lines that you can count on Republicans to keep your taxes low.

Are you really motivated to vote for Republicans because they promise low taxes? Even when you realize the country is running record deficits each year and that your children and grandchildren will be paying the bill for your low taxes?

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Republicans Taxes

This Is A Sad Day

An American citizen is declared a terrorist by a government, grabbed by the police, spirited off, tortured and never told what he is accused of or given legal assistance to defend himself.

Guess which country this could happen in...

The United States - after the Congress passed and the President signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 today.


Wake up people. This President and the Republicans pose a greater threat to the long term security of this country than do terrorists.

VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Republicans Habeas Corpus

Happy Birthday! You Owe $28,500.

Happy Birthday to the 300,000,000th U.S. citizen born today.

Your share of the national debt is about $28,500 and growing every day.

Grow up fast. Get a good education and a good job. We need your taxes.

Technorati Tags: Political National Debt

The President Can't Lose in November

News reports have President Bush and Karl Rove very upbeat about the coming election even though polls show Republicans in trouble.

This make sense. President Bush is very concerned about his place in history. If Republicans lose either the House or Senate or both, President Bush will spend the rest of his term blaming Democrats for his inability to do what is necessary to solve problems. It has to have been very frustrating to have Republican control of the Presidency, House, Senate and Courts and have such a terrible record to show after six years.

President Bush might even be relieved if Democrats won one of the legislative branches. He could dump all of the problems he has created on the Democrats and probably start sleeping a little better at night.

Karl Rove would love a Democratic win. He would have two years to prove Democrats are just as incompetent as Republicans when they can't solve all the problems Bush created in six years. Two years to spin six years of failures and orchestrate a Republican Presidential win in 2008.

So, of course, President Bush and Karl Rove are upbeat about the mid-term elections. No matter who wins, they can't lose.

Unless the Democrats win big, then get their act together and show how a party in power can truly lead.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

Hey, Republicans, Listen Up

I know this is a waste of time, but I do believe that when presented with the facts in a straight forward, non-confrontational manner, people can understand truth from obfuscation. I believe Republicans are good people who want the best for this country, but sometimes they are not skeptical enough of what the authority figures in their party tell them. So Republicans, listen up.

Be skeptical any time a politician includes the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism in the same sentence. The 9/11 Commission and the President (among many others) have made it clear that there was no connection between Iraq (and Saddam Hussein) and Al Quida. Yes, since we went into Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein there are now Al Quida terrorists in Iraq, but if we killed all of them tomorrow we still couldn't bring our troops home. We would still be in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. And if we killed all the Al Quida terrorists in Iraq tomorrow we would not have decreased the threat of attacks inside the US AT ALL. I have not read of any connection between the Madrid and London bombings and members of Al Quida in Iraq. Iraq is not the central planning location for terrorist attacks and threats around the world.

The war on terror and the war in Iraq are slightly related because we opened the door for terrorists to cause trouble there, but there is only a tenuous connection between Iraq and the war on terror. Whenever someone equates the war on terror and the war in Iraq, start listening very carefully because they are trying to confuse you.

Another way Republican politicians try to confuse the situation is their claim that Democrats do not understand that this is a war. Democrats are accused of wanting to go after the terrorists as if this were a police issue and not a war. Well, let's look at the situation. You can call the fighting in Afghanistan a war. We are fighting pitched battles with heavy weapons. We were correct to go into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban. We weren't completely successful, so now NATO has agreed to take over the fight.

We are in a war in Iraq, but most of the fighting does not involve terrorists. We are in the middle of a war that revolves around internal Iraqi factions and issues.

So where in the world are we fighting a war with terrorists? Where are we fighting battles with mortars, machine guns, tanks, helicopters, etc.? There are terrorists in Spain. Are we fighting a war there? There are terrorists in Great Britain. Are we fighting a war there? Most of the war on terror is being fought by collecting intelligence, disrupting operations, stopping the flow of money and arresting people. We fight the war on terror with tighter security at air ports and sea ports. Most of the war on terror is not being fought with troops. We have certainly needed our armed forces in the war on terror and may need them again, but military action will not win the war on terror by itself. It is not even the major component.

So when Republican politicians tell you that Democrats don't understand how to fight the war on terror, ask them how they think it should be fought. When they start talking about Iraq, ask them how the war in Iraq and the war on terror are related. Then ask them if we won the war in Iraq tomorrow, would the threat from terrorism go away. Listen to the answer carefully because at this point they will be trying to confuse you because they don't have good answers.

Technorati Tags: Political Iraq Republicans

Show Your Patriotism

It is clear that many people believe that the welfare of the country and the welfare of President Bush and the Republican Party are one and the same. If you attack the President, you are attacking the country. If you don't support the Republicans, you are unpatriotic. If you disagree with the President's handling of the war on terror, you either don't understand the situation, you would rather harm the country than admit the President is right or you support terrorists (by Republican definitions all these people are Democrats).

There is one sure way to show them you are as patriotic as they are ..........

VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Republicans

Let Them Vote!

A recent poll taken in Iraq suggests that the majority of Iraqis would, at the very least, like the United States to leave, soon. While this poll received some attention, it may not reflect the will of the Iraqi people.

We properly applaud Iraqis for risking personal danger and voting in two national elections. We respected their right to elect their own government. Maybe we should suggest that they schedule a nation wide referendum to let us know their true feelings. Voters would be able to choose from the following options.

• The U.S. should stay until the violence stops and basic utilities are restored.


• The U.S. should stay until asked to leave by the elected government.


• The U.S. should stay for no longer than one more year.


• The U.S. should leave within six months.


• The U.S. should leave immediately.

This would obviously be a non-binding resolution since the Bush administration would refuse to believe any result that didn't match their need at the time.

Technorati Tags: Political Iraq

Good Idea, Newt

I wrote a few days ago that Newt Gingrich suggested that Bill Clinton come up with a few ideas for catching bin Laden. Newt, the sharp witted politician he is, had the start of a good suggestion.

I suggest that Bill Clinton invite the leadership of the Democratic Party and all Democratic 2008 Presidential hopefuls to a secluded location. Probably no more than 30 to 35 people (that was not a joke about how many hopefuls there may be). They would agree that they would stay together until they could work out a detailed plan for an exit strategy from Iraq. Since you could never get that many Democrats to all agree on anything, they should shoot for an agreement that two thirds of the group can support. I good plan with lots of support could turn the tide for the Democrats and the country.

I know I'm dreaming, but what the heck.

Technorati Tags: Political Democrats

Ready, Fire, Aim

Click on cartoon to enlarge.


Technorati Tags: Political Republicans Political Cartoon

Used with permission.

Home For The Politically Arrogant

Click cartoon to enlarge.


Technorati Tags: Political Cartoon Political Republicans

Used with permission.

Just Be Glad You Can't Smell The Stench

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans Political Cartoon

The Clean Up Crew

The Democrats should call themselves the "Clean Up Crew" because after the mess President Bush and the Republicans have made, what the country needs now is a clean up crew. And the way things have been going the past couple of weeks, the clean up crew is going to need a lot of disinfectant just to kill the stench.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

Gingrich ASSumptions

Picking up on my previous post about the Chris Wallace interview with Newt Gingrich on Fox News Sunday this morning. At one point Gingrich said,

We are in a very hard war against people who hate us and want to destroy us. The fact is neither administration has gotten bin Laden. And instead of pointing fingers at each other, it would be nice for President Clinton to give us six or eight solutions. It would be nice for President Bush to admit this is going to be much harder than anybody ever dreamed. Winning this campaign is going to be a long, bitter, difficult problem.

I would like to challenge the statements "this is going to be harder than anybody ever dreamed" and "Winning this campaign is going to be a long, bitter, difficult problem."

There are a number of assumptions in those statements. First, though, are you talking about the war on terror or the war in Iraq? You confuse people when you don't make that clear. Certainly some people warned about the dangers of Islamic terrorism and the danger in post-war Iraq. Is it going to be harder than anybody ever dreamed? You bet, because no one would have dreamed that President Bush would screwed up the war on terror as badly as he has. Or would have dreamed President Bush would mislead us into a war in Iraq. Or would have dreamed that he would have failed so miserably in rebuilding post-war Iraq. I think you are implying that President Bush is making the best of a bad situation and I think the reality is the President turned a winnable war on terrorism that should be largely over after five years into "a long, bitter, difficult problem."

If we face a long difficult war on terror, place the blame where it belongs, on George W. Bush. If we had a competent President, the war on terror would, for the most part, be over.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

Be Careful What You Wish For

Chris Wallace interviewed Newt Gingrich on Fox News Sunday this morning. At one point Gringrich said,

We are in a very hard war against people who hate us and want to destroy us. The fact is neither administration has gotten bin Laden. And instead of pointing fingers at each other, it would be nice for President Clinton to give us six or eight solutions. It would be nice for President Bush to admit this is going to be much harder than anybody ever dreamed. Winning this campaign is going to be a long, bitter, difficult problem.

Be careful what you wish for, Speaker Gingrich. Everytime Bill Clinton speaks he shows by comparison how poor a President George Bush really is.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

It's The Pinocchio Effect

Click on cartoon to enlarge.


Technorati Tags: Political Cartoon Republicans

Used with permission.

Help, I've Fallen And Can't Get Up

Click on cartoon to enlarge.

Technorati Tags: Political Cartoon Republicans George Allen

Used with permission.

Allen Swift Booted

Senator George Allen has been Swift Boated and is about to be Swift Booted.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans George Allen
Swift Booted

Caught In Their Own Web Of Lies

Republicans have lost touch with reality. They realize all their assertions and policies are based on fraud. They scream that the Democrats have no plans because the Republicans now realize they have been living and preaching a pack of lies. Bob Woodward's new book reveals even more administration lies.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican from Tennessee, was just on Hardball with Chris Matthews to refute Bob Woodward's new book. She was unprepared to defend administration behavior. When Chris pressed her on issues for which Republicans have no answers, she fell back to repeating party lines as fast as she could, whether or not they were appropriate to the question. She repeatedly claimed that since Democrats have no plans, they attack personalities --- then in the same breath she starts attacking Nancy Pelosi. These people are so panicked they don't even listen to what they are saying.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans Lies

Call Me An Idealist

I've heard arguments that our country's future lies in maintaining a military that is massively superior to any other country. We will only be safe if we are so strong no one dares challenge us. I doubt that is even possible. We must maintain a military strong enough to counter threats, but I'm an idealist. Wouldn't it be better to set a goal to be the dominant country when it comes to freedom, education, tolerance, health care, civil rights and other qualities and traits that make us the great country we are? If we are generous in sharing our blessings with the rest of the world, maybe we won't have as many threats to counter.


Technorati Tags: Political

ES, The New Political BS

The misinformation coming from Republicans is getting worse. I suggest we rename BS to ES, elephant shit.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

Show Us Progress Or The Door

The options in Iraq are not just "Cut and Run" or "Stay and Pay" (or was that "Stay and Pray"). We need to get out of Iraq as soon as we can consistent with our responsibility to provide Iraq with the tools to build a functioning democracy and civil society.

The Bush Administration seemed to have had success with a technique I thought would not work. I was wrong. Unfortunately, they have forgotten their own successes. That tool was deadlines. We set deadlines for all sorts of tasks: provisional governments, elections, a constitution and to the credit of the Iraqis, they met those deadlines. Sometimes it took a little longer than planned, but they got there.

Why did we stop setting deadlines? Both for the Iraqis and ourselves. These deadlines should be large political goals, like, amend the constitution as promised and create a document that all Iraqis will want to support. Or decreasing sectarian violence as measured by number of murders. They could be more modest goals: Increase the availability of electricity, clean water and sewers by some metric.

It is clear that we have done about as much as we can to give the Iraqis the tools they need to make a country of their choosing. This administration can't give us a clear definition of "winning", so how about some goals and metrics that we expect the Iraqis to meet? If they can't make progress on basic issues they must confront to succeed, we leave.


Technorati Tags: Political Iraq