What happened to the great blue collar bulldog?

I’m a little late on this piece. I wanted to write it yesterday, but I am battling a head cold and therefore my entire brain is clogged. Not to mention, I spend the whole day fighting off the toxic effects of the Nyquil that I took to sleep the night before. That stuff is evil. It wrangles your brain much like a cowboy hog-tying a calf.

I have been thinking a lot over the last week about the future of organized labor. As many of you know, the AFL-CIO has been holding their national convention in Chicago this week. It was to be a grand celebration of their 50th anniversary of the reunification of the old American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The grand union, which until days ago had 13 million members, dubbed the event a celebration “Building New Strength & Good Jobs for Working Families”.

I think it is fair to say that the event hit a few snags. I splinter group calling itself the Change to Win Coalition has decided to split off from the umbrella organization. This coalition includes the Teamsters, the SEIU, the UFCW, the Laborers, UNITE HERE, the Carpenters, and the UFW. I case you have not noticed yet, labor organizers love alphabet soup. The Teamsters and SEIU are two of the AFL-CIO larger unions. All combined they hold 35% of the total membership so this is a fairly major shockwave that has hit organized labor.

Some say there is political infighting and the splinter group has split because they failed to remove John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO from power. I am not a labor insider so I will not speculate on internal power struggles. What they are saying is that they are splitting over a difference in ideology and focus. These differences include how the organization should focus its resources. The AFL-CIO wants to use dues to increase political advocacy efforts. This includes lobbying efforts and campaign contributions.

The Change to Win Coalition would prefer to focus on union development. They are strongly advocating going out and recruiting new membership. Union membership has consistently dropped over the last thirty years. In 1973, 24% of all workers were members of a labor union. In 2004 that number had fallen to to 12.5% (according to a Trinity University study, 2005). The Coalition seeks to reverse that trend.

This is obviously not the time, nor the place to solve the problems of protecting American workers (or workers everywhere for that matter). I am, quite simply, not qualified for the job. The point I hope to get across is that many labor unions have lost focus on their rather clear mission. Adam Smith, in his famous treatise, The Wealth of Nations succinctly posited why labor organizations are inevitably. He stated:

“We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate…

“[When workers combine,] masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.”

In essense, the role of the labor union is to unite workers the way Chambers of Commerce, like many other organizations, unite business leaders. I live in Hawaii. Calling Hawaii a pro-labor state is an gigantic understatement. I do not have a problem with that per say, but I do have a problem with union leaders on the cover of Hawaii business magazines in suits looking rather, well, corporate, for lack of a better word. I do not doubt that these organization do sincerely want to help workers, but they need to take a step back a consider if this approach is an effective long-term strategy. I am not a union member, but if I was, I would look at these leaders in suits try to appease and pacify business critics and wonder; “what do these suits know of my concerns”.

Why should labor want to appease or make themselves more pallatable to business? In my opinion, labor should be the rock, the counter-weight to big business. They should be the great blue collar force that is in businesses face making it clear that mistreating employees will hurt the bottom line.

I believe the Change to Win Coalition has it absolutely right. They want more members. I think labor morale is at an all time low when the environment for workers is at its worst point in the post-World War II era. This is a recipe for disaster. There are so many challenges that are being faced. Rising health care costs, globalization and cheap foreign labor (particularly in China and India), increased technology and worker efficiency translating to fewer jobs, and many others are direct challenges that labor needs to focus on.

These challenges require a new paradigm of thinking, but unions are stuck in a plantation philosophy (to borrow a term from Hawaii). This notion will be greatly offensive to many labor advocates and decendents of plantation workers, as if I am belittling the challenges faced by migrant workers in Hawaii and California and many other states. I intend only to point out that the challenges are new and very, very different. They require new thinking. Unions have not yet adapted. They need to move to make changes or risk total and utter irrelevancy.

Perhaps there are lessons to be derived from how unions in other countries address challenges. In France, for instance, when fishermen are unhappy they dump several tuns of fish on the streets of Paris (aided by unionized truckers), blocking intersections. This in turn snarls Parisian traffic, bringing to city to a stand still. If this happened in the United States sympathy for the fishermen would evaporate. But in France, they have not forgotten the ideals of the French Revolution, “liberte, egalite, and fraternite”. It is fraternite that unites the French people behind the strikers.

That solidarity does not exist in the United States. It is something that we need to resurrect (did it ever exist here?) or the gap between the owners and the workers will continue to widen until we will have a hostile environment and angry workers seeking what Mao called “permanent revolution”. I would rather not live in a communist nation, I believe a true capitalist society with corporate social responsibility is preferable, but that is up to labor and business. I am just an innocent bystander, observing the wheels in motion.

Public Confidentiality? Oxymoron or just plain morons?

Confidentiality has its intrinsic worth in many areas of the government’s business, but there are limits to this right and they grow thin when the business involves considering monumental national policies decisions such as the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. These decisions have implications that affect us all. I believe that the privilege of confidentiality should be reserved only to those cases where a national security threat can be shown. Even then, that threshold should be crossed to the satisfaction of a federal judge, not the executive branch’s legal advisors. Of course, these advisors will want to keep such information confidential. Someday it may be them in the hot seat, and they will want to keep some of what they wrote confidential so they cannot be judged on the merits of this writing.

I am, of course, talking about the announcement by the White House this evening that they no intention of turning over records regarding or authored by John Roberts from the time he served as Solicitor General. Judge Roberts is the President’s choice for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. One would think that if the Senate is to take the serious step of considering him, the administration would want to make a good faith effort to make sure that they have all the information they need to accomplish this in a competent and thorough manner.

This administration, however, doesn’t ever use that sort of harsh tone on the record (unless their hand is forced). No, the public front of the Bush administration, Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated in his briefing today that the White House wants “to work with the members of the Senate to make sure that they have the appropriate information so that they can do their job…" but off the record, administration sources are saying that they have no intention of turning over records from when Judge Roberts served as deputy Solicitor General (from 1989-1993).

Briefly, for those of you that don’t know, the Solicitor General is a position at the Justice Department that is tasked with arguing on behalf of the United States government before, you guessed it, the Supreme Court. Having held this position makes Judge Roberts, in my opinion, a very qualified candidate for a justice on the high court. He certainly knows the inner workings, the procedure and traditions of the court. It also means that he has probably used that position to forward at least some positions that he holds or he would not have been appointed to that position to begin with. This is a political appointment, and it is certain that Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, choose their Solicitors General based on ideological compatibility with their own views.

The usual cadre of GOP mental midgets has come forth to support this line of thinking. They include Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas who said; "I don't think it is appropriate for a lawyer to release documents they've produced for their clients." Of course Senator Brownback is a lawyer as are most of the nincompoops inside the Beltway. If these so-called lawyers are anywhere near the caliber in their trade as Dr. Frist is in his, then we are doomed to painful ignorance across the board. But I digress!

These minions argue that as Solicitor General, John Roberts was serving as the President’s lawyer and therefore these papers are protected by attorney-client privilege. I am not a lawyer, but I am very confident in saying, regardless of legal precedent, the Solicitor General is not the President’s lawyer. He is the American people’s lawyer, and therefore the Senate (as the people direct legislative representatives in this process) have every right to see every single document from decisions and opinions down to doodle pads if they so please.

This is not the first time this administration and others have tried to claim executive privilege. Some may remember the battle between the U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) and the Vice President’s office over the release of documents pertaining to meetings held with energy industry officials while the administration was formulating their national energy policy. They claimed that they should not be required to give up this information because it is the stated right of the executive branch to meet with whoever they want to develop policy alternatives. This is, of course, absolutely correct. They do have the right to meet with anyone they want about any subject. What they are wrong about, however, is that they have the right to keep that information a secret from the American people (in this case represented by the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and a number of other environmental organizations). They claimed that executive privilege exists in these cases.

It is funny that they should take that stand after the GOP took the opinion that the Clinton administration should release the names of all the people that they consulted on Hillary Clinton’s now infamous health care policy overhaul debacle. For the record, the GOP was right then, and now that it does not suit their needs they have switched teams. Seems like typical beltway “flip-flopping” to me!

I don’t want to get off on a tangent. The point I hope I have made is that our government does not have the right to keep secrets from us unless there are legitimate national security concerns. Even then, as I have stated, I would favor reforms to the law so that these national security concerns are overseen and audited by the judicial branch, though a good deal of discretion should be granted to the administration with regards to national security matters. I often think that they tell us far too much on this subject.

What I cannot abide is the belief that policy is best made in secret. I believe that the best policy formulation comes about as a part of a great national conversation about what the American people need and what role they want their government to play. Some will say that this is fulfilled when American’s vote. I say that is not enough, I believe that it works best when we are involved in every step of the process, voicing our opinions loudly, even angrily if necessary. Had it been left to our leaders, independence would never have happened. The Boston Tea Party would never have happened. The abolition of slavery would never have happened. The labor movement, women’s suffrage or the civil rights movement would never have happened. All great leaps forward have been the result of citizen involvement in the policy process. Perhaps restoring this will bring the people’s interest back to public affairs of state.

Hey Hillary, You’re Not Bill! Now Shut Up and Go Away!

There are a lot of people out there that are enormous fans of old #42. By 42 I mean William Jefferson Clinton, our 42^nd President. Slick Willy, Semantics Bill, or whatever you call him; love him or hate him, it is impossible to deny that Bill Clinton was and remains an incredibly gifted politician. This is a man who had a higher approval rating then the Congress that was impeaching him.

There are many who admire Hillary Rodham Clinton and believe that she was a strong first lady (especially when compared with Lemming Laura) and is a very capable senator for New York. I suppose Hillary is fine, but she possesses none of the political savvy or charisma that her husband possesses.

Many have marked Hillary as the presumptive favorite in 2008 to win the nomination and finally take America back from the “Jesus Freaks”. Come on, you have all seen the e-mail with the map of North America depicting the United States of Canada and Jesusland. Don’t deny it, quit your stuttering. Lately, Ottawa is looking pretty good, even if Bono did describe Prime Minister Paul Martin as impossible and stubborn.

I am a left leaning politico. I do not deny that. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I generally hate all things Republican and opt for the Democratic ticket. That is no mystery! That said, I do not accept the Democratic Party as a whole. There is plenty of dead wood that could be pitched overboard. Hillary Clinton is one piece of that dead wood. She sucks. There simply is no other way to say it.

In 2004 the Dems nominated Senator John Kerry a relatively straightforward, clear and consistent (is that possible in Congress) legislator and he was labeled as a wishy washy flip flopper (no Northwestern women’s lacrosse jokes please). So, what do the donkeys do? They go out a find the fakest, flip flopper of them all! Hillary Clinton is by all accounts fairly liberal. That is A’OK in my book, except until recently when she has used the long leaping strides of an Olympic triple jumper to scurry off to the center. This I cannot abide.

We live in a country where liberal is a bad word. It is interesting talking to my friends in Europe, there the definition of liberal is completely different and invariably is used to describe a center-right party. Here it is akin to being Karl Marx’ first cousin, some sort of red, commie swine. Republicans from Barry Goldwater to George W. Bush worked very hard to cultivate that perception. As a result Democrats of all stripes cringe at the very mention of the word, like zebras cringe as a lion bears down on them at the watering hole. It infuriates me that my ideological shipmates are such yella’-bellies.

If Hillary Clinton were to face Senator John McCain in the 2008 election I would have to think very carefully about who I would vote for. Like I have said before, I agree with McCain on virtually nothing but I admire his integrity. With John McCain you know what you’re getting. Hillary Clinton is an enigma. If she wants the nomination in ’08 she needs to stop being a coward and start being a Democrat in the vein of JFK, LBJ or even her husband.

Neo-conservative Republicans have a name for fellow party members that they feel are not conservative enough. They call them RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Perhaps, then, Mrs. Clinton you are a DINO! If you’re not, Hillary, prove it!

Another white chucklehead in a black robe?

President Bush has, quite literally, picked his man. After there was much speculation that Dubya would pick a woman to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, including the enticing “almost leak” of Judge Edith Brown Clement’s name, the President went ahead and selected the relatively young Judge John Roberts from the cornhusker state. Another white chucklehead in a black robe! SWEET!

I am not going to go into the details of Judge Roberts’ background or career except to say that this is a man who, at 50, has a relatively empty and uncertain past. Not that his credentials should be called into question. Roberts appears to me to be very capable and qualified. Roberts was a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist. He is known to be a conservative and known the favor states rights to the federal government. Two things that worry me, but I believe that simply worrying a liberal is not grounds to rule him out. There were more qualified conservatives and more qualified moderates. So, why did George W. Bush select this relative newcomer? Roberts will certainly appease the conservative wing, but he’s not THAT conservative. He’ll offend some liberals, but he’s not THAT offensive.

Why then, you ask, pick John Roberts for the bench? Because George W. Bush is a political genius. That’s why. President Bush has selected a man, who in his early fifties, will likely sit on the Supreme Court for 35 years. Dubya has assured that his legacy will be felt for many years to come (as if the Iraq debacle hadn’t already assured that). In appointing this judge who is relatively unknown, he has ensured that the left cannot smear him as this, that or the other, though they certainly will try. It was commented on NPR this morning that Judge Roberts’ decisions are almost too clean. By this I mean, he never allows personal sentiment to overshadow his legal argument. Does that mean that his personal beliefs don’t influence his decisions? No, it means that he has been extremely careful, as if planning for this occasion.

No one knows what kind of justice John Roberts will make. Dubya could have appointed the first Latino to the court. He could have chosen to replace O’Connor with another woman. Some believe that the fact that we know so little about Roberts indicates that he could be the perfect candidate to slip past the Democrats and get another ideologue onto the court, but remember the last time the GOP tried to slip one past the Democrats, with Justice Souter, it came back to bite them on the ass.

In the end I will reserve judgment on the judge. He is the Presidents choice and while I didn’t vote for him it is his prerogative to appoint anyone he wants.

Is Orange the new Pink? Vietnam, Iraq and General Westy

I took the weekend off and not for want of doing it, but because I simply had nothing to say. Those of you who know me, know how shocking that is, but you also know that such speechlessness cannot last. I’m back baby, and oh boy do I want to talk.

It turns out that General William Westmoreland died over the weekend. Really briefly, General Westmoreland was the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam from 1964-68, during the build up of the military effort in Southeast Asia. The good general was both praised and criticized for his handling of that role.

Those who praise him say that he did the best that could be done under the constraints laid out by President Johnson and, in fact, was an innovator the way wars were fought. They refer of course to the birth of helicopter warfare. Air mobilization combat had never been attempted before but I think it is too generous to credit ol’ Westy with that innovation. The general defended his failure in Vietnam by saying that LBJ had denied his request to widen the conflict to Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam so the military could adequately do battle with the very mobile Viet Cong forces.

I think it is Westy’s critics who hit closer to the bulls eye. The general is criticized for implementing an obsolete strategy trying to simply levee so much massive brute strength against his enemies that, he believed, they would simply cave under the threat. He was, as history proves, colossally wrong. There is a great quote from military historian and former Army major, Andrew F. Krepinevich, in today’s New York Times obituary. Krepinevich believes that Westy suffered from self-delusion stating; "In focusing on the attrition of enemy forces rather than on defeating the enemy through denial of his access to the population," General Westmoreland's command "missed whatever opportunity it had to deal the insurgents a crippling blow."

This of course brings us to the point of today’s blog piece. Does this sound vaguely familiar to anyone? Perhaps the generals in command at the Pentagon today are suffering from the same delusions as ol’ Westy and his obsolete cronies. Many try to say that Iraq is the new Vietnam. It is popular to throw around terms like quagmire and Vietnam War to describe the current situation in Iraq. Any comparison between Iraq and Vietnam are abstracts in the equally delusional mind of some pinko, peacenik, liberal, sap. Iraq is not the new Vietnam in the same sense that orange is the new pink. Iraq is the new Iraq. My point being that generals are damned slow to adapt to changing challenges because they are victims of doctrinal “group think”.

Clearly the generals creating strategy for Iraq face the same challenge albeit with different variables. The challenge is fighting a completely new style of war. I am glad that we have finally figured out how to fight the Vietnam War, but that ship sailed a long time ago. These clowns who were Lieutenants in Vietnam who were “in the shit” and are now bitter about the way the war was fought. The same way that the “Swift-boat Veterans for Truth” insist on painting a revisionist history of the Vietnam War so that it is not revealed that they fought for and their friends died for the biggest nothing in history.

Unfortunately Al Qaeda (not Iraq or any Islamic nation) are not the Viet Cong, they are not the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) or any other group involved in the Vietnam conflict. I am not a military tactician, nor am I a defense strategy specialist. So, if you came here expecting the blue print on how to fight the “war on terror” you came to the wrong place. All I know is the one similarity that the Viet Cong and Al Qaeda share is a willingness to go to any length to achieve their ends. In Vietnam that meant never surrendering, no matter how many fatalities they suffered. The same is true for the insurgency in Iraq and for Al Qaeda as a larger organization. The conflict cannot be tit for tat, we simply do not have the fortitude to go the distance with them. As in Vietnam, if we follow this approach a time will come when the public will no longer stand for it. Unlike Vietnam, the war on terror is not one that we can afford to lose.

Respect for Diversity

We in the agnostic/atheistic wing of the ideological spectrum have a really bad habit of looking down our noses at the faithful. It is as if to point out that somehow they have been duped by some con that we successfully avoided. I call it a bad habit because over three quarters of the population of the United States believe in a higher power and many who do not regularly follow a religious teaching are spiritual none the less. If it is a con it is the biggest con in the history of the world.

Of course, religious people also look down their noses at us, as if to say; poor nonbelievers, they are hopelessly lost and pathetic souls. They will, of course, deny this. Many claim that they have no problem with people who do not believe as they do. Some religious people are more straightforward. They tell you that they actively seek to convert you to their way of thinking. Religious people are often as guilty of close-mindedness as non-religious people.

Many religious groups regularly knock on your door to invite you to see things as you do. These groups believe that they are saving you. Saving us from what exactly, from our miserable lives in the dark? This disconnect in belief often manifests itself in hostility that does no one any good. Religious people claim that they could care less about the scorn of nonbelievers, and we nonbelievers claim that we could care less about their scorn for our lifestyle choices. Some of us espouse the philosophy that people of faith use religion as a crutch with which to cope with the world. I think both sides are full of crap. Religious people want their faith to be respected, and nonbelievers want their own form of spirituality or lack thereof to be acknowledged and respected.

A Catholic friend of mine recently had words over conspiracy theory (the faked moon landing to be specific) and she commented that the saddest thing was that people really believe that. I, in a rather ill-mannered, self-righteous moment of poor judgment snapped back that the same could be said of faith by those that do not believe. Of course, the truly sad thing is that I was simply playing the role of devil's advocate. I don’t believe the moon landing was faked, I am simply intrigued by conspiracy theories.

What is lacking from the discourse is a lack of respect for diversity of opinion. Everyone claims that it is okay to believe whatever you want, but we are all guilty of, overtly or subconsciously, looking down on those that believe differently then we do. When I say everyone, I mean EVERYONE!

So what do we do about this disconnect of beliefs? The answer is not a simple one. There is an old adage that goes: the two things that should never be discussed in mixed company are politics and religion. But really, this is just a cop-out that has allowed us to get into this sorry state of affairs in the first place.

What we need is more civil and open discussion about all kinds of individual beliefs. I believe that the better we understand what others are thinking and believing the more we will be able to tolerate others beliefs.

It is not an easy path to walk. There is a lot of feeling and emotion invested in our beliefs and subtle and often unintended missteps hurt real feelings. These things will happen, but if we keep our eyes on the goal of respect for diversity, then the rocky road will have been worth traveling.

As the Sabbath days of my religious friends approach I say simply, from my heart; bless you.

Critical review of artistic expression... what the hell is that?

As a music lover and a fan of good writing, I read a good number of CD reviews from a number of sources. These sources include music and national magazines, major metropolitan dailies and alternative newspapers as well as a number of web sites. I imagine that creative critical review is an art that one never masters, and perhaps that is why I find that they are always substandard. They are based on opinion as much as any skill or knowledge that the writer may possess. This is true for reviewers of books, art or movies, as well as music.

Perhaps that is why there are none that are particularly adept at this “chosen” trade. I put chosen in quotation marks, because does anyone choose to be a critic? I guess some people must. Some are better than others. In the realm of film review Elvis Mitchell of the New York Times is better than the dim-witted sorority bunny of the moment that works for Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, or any of those Hollywood propaganda machine sources. I say that only because of the way he presents his reviews. He writes them in an eloquent manner, he doesn’t spoil the plot and he actually tells you what he thinks as opposed to what you are supposed to think.

That is the handle, I guess, with reviewing other people’s artist expressions. Many reviewers are guilty of the heinous crime of passing there beliefs off as fact. Since that guy with his bachelors degree in modern Uzbek literature thinks the movie is crap, obviously who are we to disagree with him?

Perhaps this raises another point. Many reviewers of music are failed or disgruntled musicians. I am a failed musician in the sense that I failed to learn to play an instrument or I failed to own one thousand CDs by my thirtieth birthday (I got pretty damn close though!). Often music critics pick on a musician by saying that they are soft, saccharine, not complicated, simple, unchallenging, etc. They think everyone has to be Bob Dylan, R.E.M. or Ludwig van Beethoven and if they aren’t they are somehow less, well, less. The three I mention are bloody brilliant by any measuring stick. Are we supposed to believe that there is some mercantilist market of trade for brilliance and since they and others are brilliant there simply is no more room?

I don’t buy it!

The critics that are failed musicians are easy to spot. They are the ones who point how not brilliant “so and so” is. They believe that there is some master blueprint for good song writer. You know what I think? I think a good song writer, like a poet should see themselves as a conduit for words to pass through inviting the listener to find their own meaning. To me, that is what Neil Young, Bono, Kurt Cobain, Sting and many other do.

Have you ever noticed how really good song writers don’t often talk about what a song means or what story a particular song tells. That is because they know that in doing so they will ruin the special meaning, which we, ourselves, have found for them. These special meanings mesh with the everday events and happenings in our lives. They would never dream of intruding on that special area we have created for ourselves.

For instance, I am convinced that Chris Martin's lyrics for Fix You from X&Y is aboout self-improvement and he is singing to himself. Perhaps that is because it motivates me to make myself a better, or reminds me that there are real challenges in my life that need to be addressed!

So I guess the only solution to this dilemma is for me to start writing my own reviews and forcing my opinions on you my humble readers. Well, I promise you this. If I ever endorse a CD to you, it will be because I think it is the bee’s knees not because I think you will think so. You can either trust me, or well don't. Some of the worst cons were started with the words 'trust me'. So, chose for yourself. And that is perfectly OK.

Bush's Brain

I cannot begin to tell you how pleased I was to see Karl Rove’s name mentioned in your comments posted on this blog. I have been thinking for several days how to address the truly hideous evil that is Karl and all things Rove. Contrary to what many might think, I believe that most Republican’s are well meaning, good, honest Americans who, in their way, want to make the United States a better place. This I cannot say about Karl Rove.

Rove became active in politics at an early age. He is a college drop-out, though it was at the University of Utah that Rove first became active in the Republican Party. According the Bush’s Brain, Rove’s knack for ethically questionable behavior began at the early age of 19, when he broke into the office of Democrat Alan Dixon and stole letterhead. Using the letterhead, Rove wrote a campaign flyer offering “Free Beer, Free Food, Girls and Good Times for Nothing”. He proceeded to circulate these flyers at a rock concert and amongst homeless people in the Illinois community that Dixon represented.

For his crime, and it is a crime, Rove was awarded the job of Executive Director of the College Republican National Committee. Rove’s “distinguished” career is marked by similar incidents. I won’t recount all the gory details; anyone who is interested should read the book. It is a quick and rather depressing read and not one I could finish. Like most Americans, I waited for the movie!

Keeping in mind that Karl Rove is one of the most competitive, most determined and most cut throat people in this country, it should shock no one that allegations have arisen that appear to implicate him in the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name to Time Magazine. This is a man who will do literally anything to remake the United States the way he wants it. Anyone who thinks that current policy in America is attributable to Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice or anyone else is way off. American policy from top to bottom is the design of George W. Bush and Karl Rove. As Rove is extremely manipulative and the President is not particularly bright it becomes clear that the map is being drawn by Bush’s Brain. He may not be making the day to day decisions, but the big picture is all his. He is the one who has created the tenuous coalition that is keeping this policy moving forward.

Democrats are calling on the President to take the action that he said he would, if it is revealed who was involved in the leak. I will save you the suspense; anyone anticipating the bloody decapitation of Karl Rove from the balcony over-looking the Rose Garden at the White House will be sorely disappointed. No such event will take place. In order to fire Karl Rove, President Bush would need to tacitly acknowledge that he was wrong about his pit bull. Acknowledging error is one thing our President has proven painfully unable to do.

You see, when you are an ego maniacal cretin and have already been humbled by excessive consumption in your life (in this case booze and drugs) admitting error would be admitting weakness. When most people need to address addiction they do so through an extremely humbling process, most commonly a 12-step recovery program. This process, as I understand it, requires an admission that you are powerless against your addiction. That only then can you face and overcome your “demons”. I cannot imagine how difficult this must be, I am awed by anyone who can remake their life after overcoming such a high hurdle.

President Bush, however, did not use the traditional 12-step process. No, he was saved by Evangelical Christian teachings. He likely did not admit powerlessness, but rather empowerment through shear force of will and determination. Overcoming addiction in this way is equally impressive, it shows that Bush has determination, strength and will, but to me it also indicates an immense sense of self-importance. Bush truly believes in his crusade. He is humble before God and no one else. God has clearly given him the strength he needed to overcome his substance abuse issues. No one could or should ever think ill of him for this. But, I wonder if a man who is humble before God and God alone is a good person to lead this country.

To be a leader is to be humble. It is having the strength to unwaveringly lead when necessary and having equal strength to reassess missteps and change course when current policy is failing. President Bush fails miserably on this count.

All this and more will prevent Bush from firing Karl Rove. Bush’s Brain may be forced to resign, but I don’t expect he will ever see the inside of a jail cell. Don’t rule out a Presidential pardon wrapped in the American flag (phrased as, “so we don’t lose sight of our goal to hunt down the evil-doers, etc, etc, etc… blah, blah, blah, 9/11”)

Is Karl Rove guilty? Who can say for sure? I am not a political insider in Washington, but rather an observer sitting in the middle of the Pacific Ocean banging away on my laptop on this intensely warm Honolulu evening. I can say this much, Karl Rove is sweating tonight. I can smell his stank B.O. from here.

Those who can't do...

Ladies and Gentlemen, I read a review recently in the San Francisco Chronicle of Coldplay’s new album X&Y. It was written by Mark Morford and can be found at:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2005/06/17/notes061705.DTL&nl=fix

I think this is a well written article, but I had a few question for Mr. Morford so I wrote the following e-mail him.

Michael, [those who read the article know his name is Mark, oops!]

I am a reader who lives in Honolulu. I just read your review of X&Y online and I wanted to tell you that I thought the piece was incredibly well written. It had the right mix of appreciation and San Francisco "look down my nose at you" scorn. Really excellent stuff.

Just a thought, open your article in Microsoft Word (or whatever word processing software you use, you're likely a trendy Mac user) and do a search and replace substituting "The Beatles" for "Coldplay" and replace "X&Y" with "A Hard Days Night" and you would have a pretty killer review of the Beatles third album. Don't you think?

Do you think Coldplay has the potential for growth? Perhaps not on a "Beatles" scale, but growth none the less. Don't you think that the Beatles, in 1964, were writing songs with mass appeal, "a little saccharine and uninspired and safe?"

I wonder if that isn't the hallmark of how a band grows.

Thanks for the entertainment! I honestly think you are a very talented writer.

Cheers,

[Name removed for blogging]

Angry Words

Upon reading my blog pieces from this weekend my mother exclaimed that the topics were interesting, but that they might have more weight of legitimacy behind them if I didn’t use so many “angry words”. This weekend I had the filthy mouth of a 19th century Irish sailor and for that I profusely apologize if it offended you! Out of this conversation I decided that today’s piece should be dedicated to the discussion of “angry words” and their impact on us.

I have always wondered why some words are considered taboo and others not. In that vein, I question why some words are derogatory and others are not. I think these perceptions come from two angles. The first angle is the way the speaker/writer intended their language to be perceived. Often people use curse words to enunciate a point or add inflection. But sometimes curse words are used to demean or degrade someone; it is at these times that the words become inappropriate.

This brings us to the second angle. That is, the way the words are perceived. Often times, especially with written words it is not clear what the writer’s intentions are. Is the writer being facetious? Does the writer intend to insult me with this statement? Letters, e-mails and other written forms of communications are, in my experience, notoriously dangerous mediums to get creative with language and sentence structure. Why, then, do we continue to use them to communicate emotions and feelings?

People are only offended by what they allow to offend them. I try to never allow harsh words or racial epithets directed at me to cause me emotional injury. It goes back to the childhood saying that my father taught me; “sticks and stones may break my bone, but names will never hurt me.” I know what some of you are saying: easy for a white man to say, how many racial epithets have been tossed your way. Well, that really isn’t the point. The point is to not allow anyone to control, categorize, insult or belittle us with these “angry words”.
We must have the strength to overcome this and be strong in the face of such ridiculously “small” behavior. Once we master this we can turn our attention to a far more perilous problem; responding to the people, who control, categorize, insult or belittle us using words that are widely considered acceptable in civilized conversations. These are the people to pay attention to. They are the dangerous ones!

Crusty old white men rule the world!

George W. Bush is an idiot, most of his staffers are shortsighted troglodytes with a complete inability to see one move, let alone ten moves, into the future. I would love to take Dan Bartlett, the presidents Communications Director and sit him down with Bobby Fisher (even in his current nutty state) for a game of chess. I am thinking that would last about twenty seconds. Perhaps they could play a neutral game like dominoes. I am still figuring that it will last less than five minutes before the thoroughly anti-American, unpatriotics cold warrior cleans old Dano’s clock! With that in mind, I wonder if these are the best people to be picking the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

We are on the verge of getting our first new justice in 11 years. It has always seemed odd that the people who really impact our daily lives, the people who make decisions free from public scrutiny, the people who are the “impartial” arbiters of the people’s interests were appointed by politicians. As far as I can tell politicians have always been conniving little shits. Even Thomas Jefferson was an arrogant, manipulative, two-faced politico (even if he was an exquisite writer).

There are exceptions on all sides of the political spectrum. I suppose you will want some names. I will be happy to oblige. John McCain, I agree with this man on almost nothing, but he is honest, frank, and could care less what the powers that be think of him. Howard Dean, he isn’t really a politician anymore so he probably doesn’t belong on this list, but I must say his verbal missteps are refreshing.

The thing that pisses Republicans off the most about Dean is that he is invariably right. He always sounds like a stuttering idiot, but his point is right. Dean “put his foot in his mouth” when he said that all Republicans are rich, white, Christian men. While that isn’t an accurate snap shot of party members, it is a very, very accurate picture of party leadership. Sure, the GOP will cart out the Jewish Ken Mehlman as proof that this assessment is wrong. Well, what could prove Dean’s point better than Ken Mehlman. There is a line from the some mafia movie that goes something like; behind every mafia family was a Jew laundering the money. Sure, the GOP has Mehlman as a fundraiser. Who are the men in positions of real power? Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, George W. Bush. Seems pretty “crusty old sad white bastard” to me.

At the end of the day, these are not the men who run our country. They are the people selected by the Fortune 500 to take care of tax issues and legal problems for them. According to a little research that I did over 80% of CEOs are white. The next largest group is Asians at 8%. Even more staggering, 93% of CEOs are men! That is some pretty sorry S H I T!

We wonder why education dollars are not flowing into neighborhoods comprised of minority populations. It is clear that there are token efforts taken to throw minorities a bone, but has anything changed? Slowly, the powers that be say, things take time. It is pretty clear that for women and minorities there is a glass ceiling made of the same glass used to make NBA backboards. It’s not breaking unless Shaq hangs from the rim!

Clearly things are not going to change until people start protesting with their wallets!

MTV are a bunch of punk ass bitches!

Well, after last weekends coverage of Live8, I was ready to get on a plane to Los Angeles and fire-bomb MTV’s offices in Santa Monica, but they redeemed themselves this weekend by airing 5 hours of uninterrupted musical performances from the concert. That is more music aired in one day then the last decade combined.

I know I am not in MTV or VH1’s target demographic, but shit! Come on guys, play some damn music. Anything! I don’t care, play Kanye West, the new and improved (and off the rehab) Backstreet Boys, Justin ‘Mousekateer’ Timberlake… anything!!!

Instead, MTV has started showing crap like Who Wants to Date My Mom and Punk’d. I guess it is partially my fault. I will accept my fair share of the blame. After all, I did watch the first several seasons of the Real World. What can I say? I liked hearing Lars and Sharon argue on Real World London! I guess that was the birth of reality TV.

Well, I’m sorry. I used to think cable television was worth having. Now, if it wasn’t for The Daily Show, I would heave that accursed digital cable box off my 9^th Floor balcony and watch it shatter into tiny shards on the street below. Perhaps it would clobber a passing scooter (that would be an added treat).

I guess I have nothing pertinent to add today so I will leave and go to bed!

Pray for surf!

London, the G8, and how the hell do we make this world better?

Yesterday, in planning my entry for today, I had thought of writing about the jailing of Judith Miller, the New York Times journalist who has vehemently refused to divulge the name of her anonymous source in the on-going investigation into the leaking of a CIA agent’s identity. This morning, however, I awoke to the news that someone (no finger pointing here, though likely Al Qaeda) had undertaken another coordinated attack on a mass transit system in Europe. This time it was London. I shudder to think that Copenhagen, my home away from home, will eventually feel the sting of such an act of senseless violence.

I got an e-mail today from a friend asking me what I thought about a website that calls for energy independence. The website, that can be found at: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/, calls for the U.S. to take steps towards energy independence. Advocates of this course of action believe that once we are less dependent on foreign oil (read authoritarian monarchies in the Middle East) that we will be safer. Some also think that this will make us safer as we will not have to send men and women to die in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else.

Curling ourselves into a the fetal position, pulling the covers over our heads and pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist, though tempting on days like today, will not make us safer. Bin Laden and his cronies hate the way we live. They hate the way Muslims are treated in Europe by anti-immigrant groups. Extremists hate the freedoms that we enjoy because while they sit hiding in rat holes in Pakistan and Iran we live in relative comfort. Even the poorest among us lives relatively well compared to the poverty in the Islamic world. This is a case about former colonial powers (Europe) and current economic powers (the U.S.) and a perceived belief that it is not fair that we should be so comfortable while Muslims suffer under awful leaders. All of this is true. Many, many Muslims yearn for the freedoms that we often take for granted (as evidence, please note the voter turnout in the 2004 election, record turnout and still embarrassingly low).

Proponents of our current foreign policy goals claim that it is a waste of time to try to understand why someone hates us, that the only thing to be done is destroy those people. After days like today it is easy to subscribe to that philosophy, but it does not get us any closer to the solution. Ironically, we react exactly how Al Qaeda anticipates that we will. Our reaction makes their job easier. I would like be dubbed unpatriotic for questioning our current strategy that I don’t support the troops because I don’t support their mission. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, my whole line of think is: how do we ensure that no Americans have to die to achieve our goals.

The question, of course, is; how do we go about this? Is it our responsibility to improve the lives of these people? Some people, for lack of a better name we will call them Neo-conservatives, take the idealistic view that the U.S. and the greater “western civilization” can simply force democracy and freedom around world. Of course it is not bad to desire democracy and freedom around the world, and many neo-conservatives really desire this. Just as, however, simply want more American style consumer societies to which they can sell more useless junk that no one needs, in exchange for cheap oil.

What is becoming clear in the Middle East is that the democracy that is going to evolve there is not going to be the secular style that the west embraces, but rather a democracy that embraces Islam. This is, of course, perfectly natural and totally logical. The Middle East still holds its religious beliefs very close to it. The new Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was clearly not our first choice, but he was the choice of the Iranian people. We do not get to choose the leaders that we must deal with around the world. We get what we get, and we have to live with that. Some question if President-elect Ahmadinejad may have come to power through election irregularities. It was widely reported in the American and European press that former President Rafsanjani was the favorite to sweep to victory. This was another case of the U.S. looking at the outside world through rose colored lenses. It was wishful thinking. In truth, Rafsanjani was probably harmed by this distinction as much as anything.

Now there are allegations that President-elect Ahmadinejad was involved in the hostage incident in Iran in 1979 and perhaps some murders in Europe. This is part of the natural path that an element in the U.S. takes when they don’t get their way. If we cannot beat you, we will smear you. It is not the first and, I fear, not the last time that we will do this. We have done it with many in the past, including Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. These people are useful to us when we can use them to advance our goals. Truth is, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were bad all along, it was just easier to tolerate when they were fighting our “enemies”. I put enemies in quote because, in fact, the American people don’t have enemies. I think if you go out into the world people perceive the American people positively. These people are enemies of the American government. They conflict with our interests so they must be demonized and vilified. Well, many are demons and villains, these two, for sure.

Perhaps instead of constantly assessing who our enemies are we should spend some time looking within ourselves. It is always easier, in all thing, to blame someone else. But maybe, just maybe, it is our American interests that are all messed up. Honestly, why do we care about the Middle East? Is it really because we want to spread democracy? That is a way we deflect attention away from the real goal. It is a nice distraction, even a noble one, but alas a foolish one. You cannot spread democracy. Democracy was not spread into the U.S. by anyone. We fought for it. We brought it upon ourselves to force off colonial oppression and bring about democracy, freedom and liberty. Even then our democracy and freedoms continue to evolve. Even the U.S. has not achieved pure freedom and liberty.

No, democracy is not the reason we are in the Middle East, so what else could it be. What drives most, if not all, political thinking in the western world? Money, economics and security is what. What do we rely on more than anything else? What can most easily affect our economies? Oil, no this war, directly or indirectly, is about oil. It may not be about controlling oil directly, but it is most definitely about securing our supply of oil.

So, is Ron Bengston at American Energy Independence dot com right that we need to be energy independent? Maybe, but I am not one of these anti-globalization isolationist people. I think that spreading the money around the world makes people better off everywhere (including here, even if we export some jobs in the short-run). Only an ostrich buries his head in the sand and pretends that his problems do not exist. He may not see the lion, but the lion sees him and it is still hungry. As long as we wield economic might, not cultural and military might, we will be loved and despised by some. It is the price of success. These people don’t hate us, they envy us. They hate our rather success. It calls into question all their beliefs, and people don’t like to question their beliefs.

Instead of energy independence and isolation, the focus should be on fostering economic growth and prosperity around the world. This is one thing that I agree with true neo-conservatives on. We just disagree on the tactics to be employed. I believe it is rather unintelligent to believe that you can bring peace and prosperity through the use of guns. Especially in a place that has known nothing but violence and wars and oppression for generations. Can you blame the Islamic world for not trusting us? They have known nothing but outside invaders throughout their entire history; from the Crusades, to the Ottoman Turks, to European colonialization, to oppressive authoritarian rulers. The Middle East has never known a different way, and we cannot force one upon them. They must find it themselves, and they will.

The sad irony is that Prime Minister Tony Blair was set to go to bat for the Third World at the G8 summit in Scotland. Of course, Al Qaeda and their colleagues have been so overwhelmingly immersed in their “hate philosophy” that they can’t see the forest for the trees. I’m not sure that even they know what they are fighting for, but the reason that it appeals to some young Muslims can be erased with effort. It is not an effort that our military is qualified for. Nor is it an effort that Christian missionaries should be involved. Christians do some good things in Africa, Asia and South America, but in a part of the world that still feels anger over the Crusades, the good intentions of Christians can easily be misconstrued.

The good news is that the world is not a vacuum. We must continue to push for fair trade, sustainable/eco-friendly development, and fair wealth distribution and educational efforts around the world. The first step should be taken at home. We must improve our education system so that kids return to interest in math and science. We must push for technological development that allows us is to reduce are disgusting thirst for oil. I tell you, the minute we do that and the Middle East is no longer a strategic interest, then we will have won a serious battle in the war on terrorism. Our actions will no longer be perceived as selfish and the justification for terrorism will have been dealt a serious blow. Spread the wealth; no longer rely on oil, give the people a hand up and Democracy will flourish the world over.

Until then we will have to get used to waking up periodically to the horror that occurred today in London. My thoughts today dwell on them.

Is Bush a Retard? Chinese Oil and Gluttony in America

Let me start by saying that, no, George W. Bush is not retarded. I would imagine that there are a number of liberal retards out there that would take offense to that characterization. Anyways, I just have to say; Mr. President I think you should avoid two wheeled transportation. First the segway, now a bicycle? Good grief!

OK, so here we go with my first official blog post, at least that I wrote myself. To the viewers out there I will add that opinions are mine. You are always welcome to share your thoughts with me, but if you are seeking to change my mind… well… smarter people than you have tried and failed.

When trying to decide what I was going to write about today I was kind of torn. Ordinarily I will pick one topic per day and stick to that, but today there were just way too many interesting options from Chinese anger over failed oil deals to government intimidation of the press and of course the G8 summit in Scotland. Today I will focus on the Chinese oil deal gone bad!

In the news over the last several weeks there have been a number of interesting articles regarding the Chinese company CNOOC’s attempts to buy Unocal. Well, it seems the U.S. House of Representatives took offense to that effort and voted 333-92 to block the Bush administration from approving the $18.5 million deal. I’m not sure that they can do that, but I’ll assume that the legal minds in Washington have considered that. Some may wonder why Congress would be so up in arms over this. It turns out that CNOOC’s largest shareholder is, well, the Chinese government. Congress probably feels that it is bad enough that China is our largest debt financer; it might be dangerous to allow them to control our oil supply too. Do you think?

The Chinese government didn’t react well to this move. In a strongly worded statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry demanded that Congress take steps to correct its ways in “politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering in the normal commercial exchanges between enterprises of two countries.”

I know that the Chinese are relatively new to the world economic stage, but they have, assumedly, been watching from the sidelines. One would think that they would know that oil is political. This is especially the case when we have a semi-literate failed oil prospector from west Texas in the White House. President Bush does not take action on any policy issue from energy to foreign affairs with considering the ramifications that it will have on our steady and gluttonous supply of oil. Of course, that doesn’t mean his considerations always lead to the “right” path. As examples I would simply point at our quagmire in Iraq, drilling in the ANWR, or (perhaps closer to home) his family doing business with despicable people like the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladens).

There is something horribly hypocritical in hearing the Chinese complain about U.S. interference in this market. Are the Chinese not the ones who peg their currency to the dollar as opposed to letting it float on its own?

In the end, it sounds like a colossally bad idea to allow a Chinese government controlled entity to exert influence over our oil supply. But, then again, without a drastic occurrence, like $6/gallon oil or short supply, this country will never adequately address our disgusting over-consumption. It is time for us to get serious about addressing the gluttony that is rampant in our society and is evidenced by our belief that we are entitled to drive car that get 10 mpg., be over 100 pounds overweight and pay the same for air travel as everyone else, smoke and pay the same for our health insurance as everyone else.

We are pushing a belief and philosophy of individual responsibility on the people of this country. I think that we should be pushing a belief and philosophy of community responsibility. You can’t do whatever you want. You do not exist inside a vacuum. Your actions have consequences to those around you, so stop being so goddamn selfish and self-righteous!

The G8 Approaches

Well, the G8 is almost upon us. The rock stars have made their noise, so I guess I should make mine too. I will insert my thoughts in the coming days. I will start with the case as laid out at http://www.one.org

AIDS More than 38 million people around the world are infected by HIV/AIDS, 25 million in Africa alone. Left untreated, AIDS leads to an early death for people in their most productive years who are needed to raise crops and families, teach school and care for the sick. For more information about global AIDS click here.

EXTREME POVERTY Extreme poverty means living on less than $1 a day, unimaginable to us as Americans. ONE in five people around the world survives on this amount, with few opportunities to earn more. For more information about extreme poverty click here.

EDUCATION Parents in Malawi know just as well as parents in Missouri that education is crucial to their children's future. But around the world, 104 million children do not go to grade school, because their parents cannot afford fees, books or uniforms for all their children. For more information about getting children into school click here.

WATER ONE person in seven has no access to clean water for drinking, cooking or washing. In addition to spreading disease, this has multiple negative effects –– girls growing up in villages without water are far less likely to attend school because they're too busy spending hours walking to and from the nearest water source. For more information about clean water click here.

CORRUPTION While corruption is harmful to all governments, losing resources to corrupt leaders is particularly devastating in poor countries where ever dollar lost results in one less child in school or one less well dug to provide clean water. Approaches like America's Millennium Challenge which direct assistance to honest governments are the most effective, as is channeling assistance through private (and faith-based) relief and development agencies. For more information about fighting corruption in the poorest countries click here.

FOOD Around the world, ONE person in seven goes to bed hungry each night. We need to address hunger not just by giving food, but helping farmers in poor countries grow better crops and helping countries build farm-to-market roads so farmers can supply distant cities. For more information about hunger click here.

ORPHANS 18 million children have already lost one or both parents to AIDS, 12 million of them are in Africa alone. Unless more is done, there will be 25 million of these children around the world by 2010. We have the opportunity to help. For more information about orphans, click here.

TRADE As much as people in poor countries appreciate development assistance, no one wants to rely on a handout –– they want to trade their way out of poverty –– but international rules make it difficult. A fair trade system would give people in poor countries the chance to earn their way out of poverty by participating in the world economy. For more information about trade rules click here.

DEBT CANCELLATION Every year Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region of the world, spends $14.5 billion dollars repaying debts to the world's richest countries and international institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Though we've made efforts to relieve them of these unpayable debts, many poor countries still spend more each year on debt than on health care or education. For more information about debt cancellation click here.

Not an original start to my blog... but so what!

In the coming months you will be able to come to this blog and find a cynical and blunt perspective of politics, the United States and the world in general.