Where were all the first responders? How about the second responders? Third?

Watching the events as they unfold in New Orleans and many other parts of the Gulf Coast of the United States is horrifying. I am glad I waited a few days to right this because I have allowed my anger and outrage subside a bit. As such there will be far less blood-spitting vitriolic language in this post then there likely should be.

I am on a weekly e-mail group where a friend of mine from college sends out an e-mail with a question for everyone to ponder. We do and then some people each week reply to all with their opinions on the question. Today my friend wrote her weekly question asking what people could do to help from far away. I responded by saying that it is difficult for people in far off States to be of much help. And speaking as someone in the far off State of Hawaii that is very frustrating. I guess I moved here for that remote, detached feeling, but at times it can make you feel isolated in a bad way.

What the people in the Southeast need is money, money and more money. People who want to help should donate to the United Way, Red Cross, or other reputable charities (this is not the time to try out a new charity).

We also need to pressure our government to put more money into our own country and less into others (namely Iraq). This is not George W. Bush's fault, or Congresses for that matter, but it is a fact that our infrastructure is neglected. Bridges, roads, railroads, harbors and transit systems, sewers, water mains, landfills and power lines, our country neglects the details because it is the stuff that no one thinks about until something major happens, and then a policy window opens, as my old public policy Professor Juliet Musso might say.

More money to the Army Corp of Engineers would not have stopped the levees from breaking, those levees were built to withstand a tidal surge of 15 feet maximum, and by all accounts the surge from Hurricane Katrina was 20-25 feet. More money for Homeland Security (and not for searching backpacks in Grand Central Station, and other important anti-terrorist measures, I mean more money for HOMELAND security) would have gotten Federal boots on the ground faster. It is unbearable to watch as people wait for help that simply isn’t coming. I was glad to see that the Tulane University football team arrived safely in Houston last night, but what about the 30% of the population of New Orleans that lives in abject poverty? What about them? We need to get money on the ground faster.

In the days after the disaster I was really angry that people were looting and taking "advantage" of the situation, but I have reversed myself. It is clear now that in the absence of outside help, people have to help themselves. I don't blame the looters, most are just trying to survive. There are reports that some parts of the disaster areas have not even been visited be relief officials. These people have lost everything that they have spent a lifetime building. They need help and our government is FAILING them.

We need to get money to aid organizations to get them on the ground pronto. Why were we so fast in Banda Aceh and Phuket but so slow in Shreveport and Biloxi? It is outrageous. This is the reason we have a Federal government. All the other stuff is icing on the cake, this is why we have a Federal government. And Homeland Security is failing its first test miserably. I am afraid for the next terrorist attack.

Of course, the reason we got money to Banda Aceh and Phuket and other tsunami stricken areas so quickly was because it was clear who was in charge and who was running the show. In the United States, when it comes to delivering public policies efficiently and quickly, we have way too many levels of Government. In the immediate aftermath it was clear that nobody in Government knew who should be doing what. There were individual city and State efforts being undertaken along with federal efforts, but no one was talking to anyone else. We have too much government (never thought you’d hear the freak blogger say that, did you?). We needed the federal government to come in, federalize the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (as well as the Florida and Texas) National Guards, they needed to take control on the ground. But our Homeland Security Department, brand new and touted as a rapid response ready department, failed to take clear and decisive action either before or after this event. It should not have been a surprise; the Army Corp of Engineers has gamed out this scenario years ago.

Homeland Security are not to blame for what happened, but they are to blame for react so poorly to it. They should have been prepared in advance. If there are not enough National Guards personnel to handle this, then some need to be pulled out of Iraq to deal with it. That is, after all, why we have a “National” Guard in the first place.

Our President’s Press Secretary tells us it is not time to politicize this event and point fingers. He is half right, we shouldn’t politicize it. The President should steer clear of this area and let his federal government handle to situation on the ground. But Scott McClellan is also half wrong. We should point fingers. We should be trying to figure out how we were so completely ill-prepared to deal with this situation. It is the only way we will ever be ready next time.

So the synopsis answer to my friend’s question: Send money! Oh, and voting next time would be a good idea too. Not for any particular Party, but voting for candidates who think we should invest as much in the real American democracy as we do in fictitious Iraqi democracy.

Ahh, the good ol' days

I received this e-mail from forwarded to me...

Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.

But there is no oil in Bosnia...

The Poor Get Forgotten Again…

It seems every time we turn around we see a new study talking about the poor in this country. Today I was on a Webcast put on by the U.S. Census Bureau. It dealt with “Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance” in the United States. The Census Bureau never ceases to amaze me with the data that they present. I, of course, would have no idea if they were pulling the wool over my eyes, but it looks good to me.

The statistics that they presented were staggering. The median household income in the United States in 2004 was a $44,400/year. Does anyone else think that is way too little to be caring for a family with, even in Wichita, let alone New York City or Los Angeles? 12.7% of the people in the United States lived in poverty in 2004. That amounts to approximately 37 million people, up only very modestly from 2003. Why is that we hear nothing but how well our economy is doing and yet over a million more people are “officially” poor from one year to the next? Does someone smell rotting fish?

37 million people exist in this country in poverty, and I would consider our measure of poverty far too laissez-faire. 37 million people is approximately the population of Argentina. Does anyone think that a country that has split the human genome, harnessed the atom and “successfully” prevented inflation for nearly twenty years, think that it is atrocious that 37 million people live in poverty in this country. And that the true number of people struggling not only month to month, or week to week, but day to day is probably far higher.

The saddest statistic is that the percentage of children in poverty is higher than the national average (17.8%). In this Webcast it was presented that 11.2% of children do not have health insurance. 18.9% of children living in poverty have no health insurance in spite of the fact that programs like Medicaid and State Childrens Health Insurance Plans (SCHIPs) are designed to cover the poor. I cannot abide people denied health coverage, I find it especially shameful when children are denied.

Poverty is a natural by-product of the economic system that we have selected for ourselves. I do not mean capitalism, you neo-con slugs! I mean a self-serving, self-centered and self-interested variety of capitalism. Until several years ago ethics classes were not part of standard business school curricula. It took the Enron and WorldCom scandals to get those classes taught.

As for corporate social responsibility, that has absolutely not caught on in this country. There is no incentive to help working people struggling to make a bit more money. Paying people a fair wage is antithetical to our profit-driven business model. I am, of course, laying down vast generalizations. Not all business owners are awful, and many truly cannot afford to pay more, particularly small business owners. But why does it always seem to fall on the little guy; the mother working multiple jobs, the father who has taken a menial laborers job because a plant was moved overseas to make a company more profitable? I don’t see a lot of out of work CEOs or executive salaries lagging?

A raise in the minimum wage or other labor friendly regulations are slammed as typical liberal, anti-business shenanigans. John Kenneth Galbraith said it best in a speech in 1998: "Who is hurt, then, by a rise in the minimum wage? I'm enough of an economist to believe that people are rational, and that therefore workers are rational when they favor a rise in minimum wages, and that certain employers are rational enough when they oppose it. Who are they? The most predatory, the most abusive, the least desirable employers in our economic system, those who thrive on low-wage shops and who use the lever of low wages to drive other businesses to the wall. If a rise in the minimum wage hurts such businesses and helps some others, in my view so much the better." We need to become better at argue that these are not anti-business but pro-employee.

Not all American businesses have taken this approach towards labor costs. If one looks historically, Henry Ford, generally considered a vicious competitor and typical capitalist businessman, the founder of the Ford Motor Company and father of assembly line manufacturing said; "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." The $5-a-day minimum-wage scheme he voluntarily implemented in 1914, the first in the nation, came at a time when the average wage in the auto industry was $2.34 for a 9-hr. shift.

Ford not only doubled that, he also shaved an hour off the workday. This all happened before the government mandated a minimum wage. Ford, for all his personal flaws, was model of corporate social responsibility. But instead of being praised Ford was scorned by the business world. The Wall Street Journal called his actions "an Economic Crime". Henry Ford got the last laugh. The critics were shortsighted and unable to see that in lowering his "costs per car", the higher wages didn't matter — except for making it possible for more people, including his employees, to buy his cars.

Henry Ford understood a theory that has come to be known as the Labor Theory of Value. That is that paying employees a livable wage will improve morale, it will increase productivity, it will inspire "pride of ownership" in employees. After all, as John Locke pointed out, in the workplace all a worker owns is his labor.

So, how and when does it all change? It isn’t easy (it never is, is it?). People must make a conscious decision to take a stand against companies that do not practice corporate social responsible behavior. We need to not support sweatshop businesses. We need to take a stand against predatory businesses that drive down costs at the expense of worker salary and benefits. (Wal-Mart, I’m looking at YOU!) We need to decide that the lowest possible cost to us isn’t necessarily the best deal. Ironic isn’t it that so many poor people shop at Wal-Mart and yet it is Wal-Mart style businesses that are driving the cost-cutting craze that prevents poor people from getting a leg up.

It isn’t just Wal-Mart, it isn’t just their business practice of strangling suppliers to cut costs, but they are a huge part of the problem. Identify companies in your community who treat their employees well, who provide them with good benefits and a fair wage. Support those businesses and urge your friends to do so too. You might just be the mouse that roared.

The Plame Game...

In the on-going saga of the White House leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, there is really no new information to present. But this week the Los Angeles Times printed an excellent summary of the events that have transpired to date. It goes through all the events in the order they transpired and give a bit of an assessment of them. I think the best point that this article makes time and time again is that answers are severely lacking in this incident.

The administration made a huge mistake, intentional or not, in leaking the identity of Ambassador Joe Wilson’s wife to the press. The administration made even more colossal mistakes in assessing the evidence against Iraq when trying to justify the war. And yet, we aren’t having a debate about why we went to war. We are having a debate about the legality of divulging the name of a covert operative.

Where the hell are our priorities? I am quite fully aware that the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity was an incredible lapse of judgment by this administration, possibly a criminal one. But it is the type of hardball tactics that are to be expected when doing political battle with a Rottweiler like Karl Rove. But in the mix, we have allowed the administration to succeed in its mission. That mission, as undertaken by Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and a number of other buffoons in the Bush administration, was to distract the American people’s attention away from the reality that we found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Let me repeat that for all you Republican numb skulls. We found NO Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Oh Mr. Blogger, why is that so significant? We went into Iraq to deliver democracy and liberty to the Iraqi people. And clearly, they were a haven for terrorists. Hogwash! Do not forget the fact that our sole and entire rationale for invading the sovereign nation of Iraq was because we believed that Saddam Hussein was in violation of a gaggle of United Nations Security Council resolutions dealing with Weapons of Mass Destruction. We were particularly fearful that he might be a weak link in our efforts to prevent the proliferation of these weapons to some of the most undesirable hands.

Make no mistake about it, Saddam Hussein is a pig. In fact, that is an insult to pigs. He is a disgusting megalomaniac, but that in and of itself is simply not sufficient justification for violating the sovereignty of an independent nation. Unfortunately our entire legitimate rationale rested on the fact that this man and his Bathist buddies were in violation of rules set up as a result of the Gulf War. They were the terms of his surrender in 1991. We were convinced that this guy was pulling a fast on the weapons inspectors placed in Iraq by the UN. We were so convinced that we went around the UN and invaded anyways. In so doing we destroyed the goodwill of the international community that came about as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11^th.

The Plame Game goes on, but don’t be distracted. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, there was no tie between Saddam Hussein’s Bathists and Al Qaeda, and if our intention was to build a stable democracy in Iraq, I think we should quit while we’re behind and sinking. Our administration lied to us, they distracted us and stalled to get their puppet re-elected, and now they have us bogged down in this Karl Rove leak investigation. Who cares! Karl Rove is a big fat (and I mean rotund) ZERO. The people we need to investigate are Vice President Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. These are the people who perpetrated the alleged fraud against the American people and against the world as a whole.

Don’t be distracted.

Lance vs. the Frogs

This week events unfolded in France that have again called into question the legitimacy of Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France victories. It took me several days to formulate an opinion on the matter. But fear not dear readers, your opinionated blogger never fails to develop an opinion on any number of issues.

The way I see it, the French are extremely bitter about the fact that a Yankee has come to their back yards for over a half decade and spanked their Bordeaux drinkin’ derrières. The have a national psychosis over hating all things American that they cannot beat. Lance Armstrong should save his breath. He describes his relationship with the French as being of the love/hate variety. I suppose that is true, if by love/hate he means that the French love to hate him. It has nothing to do with his cycling ability. The Frogs certainly didn’t hate Miguel Indurain, a Spaniard, when he won five straight Tours in the 1990s.

Indeed, the French were eventually going to find a way to nail Lance, and in the end the French can go on looking down their noses at all things American. In the absence of “evidence” the French had to grudgingly respect the feat that Armstrong had achieved. Certainly none of their riders have ever been able to achieve such success in their race.

Just as the French have dismissed Lance Armstrong based on the article published in L’Equipe, Americans will completely write off this as an anti-American witch hunt. Because like the French, Americans have a national psychosis about Armstrong also. He is our boy, our king, our champion. He is the conquering hero. He overcame a fatal diagnosis of cancer and went on to not only to return to form in the sport of cycling, but indeed be even better. We refuse to see anything that might disturb this illusory image of Mighty Lance.

So, no, dear anonymous poster, we will not stop wearing the LiveStrong bracelets. We will especially not be persuaded on evidence presented by the liberal French media. Whether Armstrong actual dopes or not is really immaterial. It is my suspicion that he probably did. I would imagine that anyone that finishes in the top 50 in the Tour dopes in one way or another. Even if he does, it does not diminish his accomplishment in my eyes. He was simply the champion in an era of “cheaters”. The Tour is as much about tactics and teamwork, and Lance Armstrong certainly assembled the best team in the history of the Tour and they have executed their tactics better than anyone else ever has.

The difference between an “icon” and an “expert”

Icon:
Patt Morrison, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times wrote an excellent column this week. I believe it fits in quite nicely with the theme that I have been writing about over the last several weeks about special celebrity status and accountability of experts vs. icons. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier that died in Iraq, is an icon. Though she has been treated as a celebrity, she isn’t. Sheehan is a grieving mother with a very understandable gripe with the President of the United States. If you’re an anti-war protester and you’re turning to this woman for guidance and leadership you’re in need of some serious medication and counseling. This is not a woman who should lead the anti-war movement; she isn’t nearly qualified for that. But she is a powerful image that evokes sympathy and outrage. Both of those emotions should be levied in this effort.

This woman is obviously grief stricken. And those on the right, with their kids safely tucked away at some expensive private university, should not judge this person until they have walked a mile in her shoes. Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, I don’t see many medals on your lapels. It seems that the most gung-ho are those that have never fought a battle in their lives. They should not rail that Sheehan is dishonoring her son’s memory. How would they know? Even if Casey Sheehan was a proud soldier who believed in his mission to the core of his being, his mother’s protests are totally appropriate. Cindy Sheehan is not trying to honor or dishonor his life; she is trying to protest the circumstances of his death and, in her way, make sure that no more mothers ever feel the way that she does.

I am glad that Sheehan has returned to Texas. The President will have to learn that this issue is NOT going to go away. The nation is not as easily fooled by the lame rhetoric that he throws around. He sounds like a tired old rock star belting out the same putrid clichés over and over again. Someone buy Dubya some leather pants and put him on stage with the Rolling Stones (sorry Mick). The administration needs to realize that the people who oppose the Iraq War are not an insignificant band of pitiful hippies. Not everyone is so easily reduced to stereotypes. Cindy Sheehan and her friends are the tip of the iceberg. The anti-war movement has been emboldened by this icon of anguish.

“Expert”
Likewise, when someone who already has attained celebrity, when they have a pulpit and captive audience from which to espouse an ideology which is not only morally reprehensible but also illegal. When this person is an influential member of a constituency which is closely linked to the President of the United States, is a member of the President’s party, and actively raised money to re-elect the President, I do not believe that his words should be cast aside so lightly. I do not believe that the Reverend Patrick Robertson should be written off as a private citizen; he isn’t. He is a self-proclaimed expert on just about everything.

Pat Robertson is not only the anti-Christian; he is also the most hateful hobgoblin to ever walk the face of this Earth. Like most neo-conservatives he claims to be a devout man, but has not a shred of Christian ethic in him. Neo-cons worship at the altar of American hegemony. They believe to the core of their soul that America is “god’s country” (sorry Bono) and that as such we should be able to impose our beliefs on any banana republic that we want.

The banana republic of the moment is Venezuela. Pat Robertson openly advocated the assassination of President Hugo Chavez. The specifics of his speech are not important because everything he said was rendered total rubbish when he proclaimed that the United States could save itself a ton of money if it just offed Chavez, a critic of U.S. foreign policy.

It seems that Robertson believes that El Presidente is a threat to the United States. He is, apparently, in league with (hold your breath) Fidel Castro. Can we find more ways to lose focus on the war on terror? First we bumble and stumble our way out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. Now we’re going to go all McCarthy on ‘em and take on the commies? Good grief! Are we really back to this again? I thought we were all done with the communists. Have we not already proven that free market societies are far superior to top-down autocracies? If we’re going to take on the communists again, why Cuba, why Chavez? Well, the Chavez part is simple, oil. Venezuela is the world’s fifth most oil-rich nation. Makes you wonder, do we ever get involved in humanitarian missions in countries that don’t have vast reserves of oil.

Everyone in the Bush administration seems to have received and read the memo because they are all reciting the same party line about Robertson being an individual citizen and being allowed to say anything he wants. They go on to say that they don’t assassinate foreign leaders in complying with an executive order handed down by President Gerald Ford. Well, it is good that they made their stance abundantly clear. I just have one tiny little beef. Robertson is an individual citizen? I don’t think so. This man is extremely influential among religious conservatives. President Chavez is coming to the United States next month for a United Nations General Assembly meeting and this “Christian” fundamentalist has issued a fatwah against him. Make no mistake, what Pat Robertson did in making this statement was exactly akin to what Osama bin Laden does. He has urged his followers to take matters into their own hands. Also, let’s be clear about one more thing, Pat Robertson knew exactly what he was doing.

We can fight a war on terror. We can be righteous and on the side of all that is good and right with the world, but not while trolls like Robertson make outrageous statements and his friends in government don’t take him to task for them. Is this war worth winning if we sink as low as our enemies? I know the position advocated by Robertson is not the policy of our federal government, but President Bush needs to publicly scold his ally in the clearest possible terms, not just distance himself from the comments. He needs to stand up and say that Robertson’s comments were foolish and the ramblings of an ignorant ideology of evil. Would he say any less about bin Laden?

As for you in the press, get with the program. Cindy Sheehan is an individual citizen expressing her opinion. Don’t grill her for insights into strategic foreign policy information. Pat Robertson on the other hand is an “expert” on everything. Fry him up with your morning bacon! Take him to task for what he says and how he says it. His influence has merits among a deranged constituency in this country. It is time to hold him accountable for this. Sure, he can say whatever he wants, but he should be challenged on it. Do your job Tucker Carlson, you twerp!

Osama Yo Mama! How you been?

It has generally been my modus operandi to give my perspective on events that are actively being covered in the press. Issues that, for good or for bad, are getting a lot of coverage. I try to discuss both the topic and the quality of the coverage. My idea for today is to write something a bit different, and cover something that is not getting nearly enough press and talk about why it is being overlooked.

Osama bin Laden! Anyone remember this half man, half pig (oh yeah, that was a direct stab at his fanatical style of Islam, baby!)? So, how do I know that Osama has all but disappeared from the press? Well, aside from the fact that I am a famous know-it-all, I decided to do a word search on Yahoo! News. I searched under the term “Osama bin Laden”. I came up with an incredible 19 news articles. I find this to be outrageous considering that Yahoo! News regularly includes articles from the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, in addition to every major newspaper in the United States and a good number of fairly random news sources. So how does this rate as compared with other celebrity evil-doers? Well, Saddam Hussein rates 93 articles and “Karl Rove” rates a measly 6 articles. (but this is another outrageous topic for another day). Meanwhile, Michael Jackson, public enemy number one that he is, rates 2,816 news articles and “Carrot Top” the most likely of all terrorist suspects (if for no other then his comedy routine could be argued to be torture under the Geneva Convention) rates 71 articles.

So, how can it be that Iraq is the frontline in the war on terror and yet Osama bin Laden is all but forgotten? At what point did we decide to shift our focus from the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, which has never had any relationship whatsoever with the terrorist super group? It is my belief that this is clearly a result of the capable skills of Paul Wolfowitz, and his ability to shift the focus of world attention and unity to the non-issue of Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz worked in the first Bush administration during the Gulf War. He and his neo-conservative compatriots had eagerly lobbied then President H.W. Bush to take down Saddam Hussein. The neo-con doctrine of pre-emption, they claimed, gave the U.S. the right to impose democracy on the world and use force if necessary to achieve that end. Basically, carry a big stick and use it at our sole discretion. I don’t know what neighborhood you grew up in, but where I come from, we call that a bully. So, we stopped short of taking down Al Qaeda’s leaders and turned our target sights on Iraq, a place that was run by a sociopath with a napoleon complex, but was no harbor for terrorist.

Alas, that was Iraq, the 2003 model. Iraq the 2005 model is the frontline of the war on terror. Like the jealous lover who is convinced that his partner is up to no good and the jealousy in turn drives the lover into the arms of another. The terror problems in Iraq are entirely our own making. We fucked it up (sorry mom). We saw it coming, any idiot could have predicted what was coming. Anyone who has paid attention to the Middle East during the last 40 years could have predicted that insurgents would flood from far and wide into Iraq to fight what they perceive as the next in a long series of Crusades. To Muslims this battle is being fought on two fronts, in Palestine by the Israelis and in the wider region by the United States. They don’t separate these two, they see no distinction, nor should they.

The administration sold us this cockamamie story which was not supported by any evidence except for the kind of intelligence that really doesn’t make you feel very good inside. It is the kind of evidence you wouldn’t place much faith in when betting the kids’ college fund at the sports book at Caesar’s Palace. So why on Earth would you send American’s to die in Iraq? I know this has all been said many times, but I wonder how we could take our eyes off the ball just as it was crossing the plate. We were in Afghanistan, we had world opinion on our side, the Taliban were scrambling into the mountains like antelope fleeing a Lion, and Osama bin Laden was on the run. Some evidence supports the case that we had Al Qaeda’s top leadership surrounded at Tora Bora and yet we failed to catch him.

Remember Osama bin Laden! Don’t lose focus on him. I don’t mean Osama the swine, I mean Osama the movement, the terror movement, Osama the poster child in fanatical eyes who resists the imperial crusaders. This is the war on terror, not the side show that is going on in Iraq.

America, the Idea!

Who knows, maybe I am a blowhard who is expert at pointing out all that is wrong with the world but fail to offer a realistic solution. I will tell you this much, though. There are a lot of people out there who can accurately state the flaws with our current cultural path, but very few can point to an easy fix all cure.

I was not attempting to be trite in my diagnosis of our failing culture. By saying that no one is special, it is my way of saying that everyone is special regardless of material worth, education or celebrity status. When I complain that there is no social responsibility ingrained in our society, it is my way of saying that people want the best for their neighbors. If for no other reason then it makes their own house more valuable. Most Americans wish no ill on others, but we are a very self-absorbed society. It is a by-product of how our country was founded. We are unique in the sense that the United States is the only country on Earth founded on the premise of self-determination, liberty, equality, justice and other such freedoms. Think about it. Many nations in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world have come to embrace these notions, but none were founded with these beliefs ingrained in the national character. The French came to adopt the philosophy of liberte, egalite, and fraternite, but France was not founded on these principles. Likewise, Britain’s last written constitution was the Magna Carte in 1215. Obviously, no one would argue that the United Kingdom is not an enlightened and free society, but the nation was not founded on these premises.

America is one of the world’s great experiments and for over 200 years it has been, generally speaking, an enormous success. The central premises found in our Constitution ensure the rights of all. And while we have failed in the history of our country to apply these rights equitably to all Americans and our immigrant population, we do make progress every day of every year. Our history is full of mistakes, but for hook or for crook they are our mistakes and as societies go, ours are fairly innocuous.

Our nation has been a success because it affords people the right to ask hard questions about our values and our core principles. President Ronald Reagan once invoked the classic adage that America, the idea, is a shining city on a hill. America is more an idea than a country. Certainly we are a melting pot of cultures. We have not one state religion but many. We have not one official language but many. And more important than all else, we have not one set of values, but many, founded on many diverse cultural foundations. The thing that we all share is the idea that is America. It is the idea of equal opportunity. It is the idea that everyone regardless of cosmetic differences shares the belief that “greatness is a road leading toward the unknown.” Sorry to quote Charles de Gaulle, but he said it best. He evoked this phrase to describe the greatness that he saw in France and the French people, but I believe that it is just as suitable a description of American greatness. America’s real strength is that it is a rudderless ship sailing always forward, following no path and seeking no specific end. Not one person can tell you what America will be like in 10 years, let alone 100 years.

As such, all we have is our values. All we have is each other, in spite of our difference, in spite of selfish belief in self-determination, America binds us together, and many of us thinking that America, the idea, is wounded by arrogance and belief of ideological superiority. Our nation was once pure and free of the imperial shackles that bound Europe almost as much as it bound their colonial territories. This imperialism made European claims of freedom and justice ring hollow. For certainly, how cold Europe truly embrace these guiding principles if they did not afford to all of their peoples.

No, America is now the imperial power on Earth, exporting not our legal and political control, but our ideology and culture. If American style democracy is good for us, it must be good for Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries in the developing world. The main difference between European and American imperialism is that Europeans in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries were interested in economic superiority, the world over. America already has economic superiority and we achieved it by growing internally and then unleashing our economic might on the world. The way we hope to maintain that superiority is by forcing our consumer-driven culture on the world.

Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times several weeks ago that France and other nations have taken a different approach to economic expansion. They willingly sacrifice a bit of economic growth in favor of societal and familial strength. The French, he points out earn less money yet live better than Americans, on average. Why is that? It is not because the French are any smarter than us. (Though before you snicker, nor are they any dumber.) Perhaps France has achieved a societal maturity that we have not. Perhaps France and most European nations have been around long enough to realize that there is more to life than superiority. Or perhaps since Europe is no longer the defining power in the world it frees them up to focus on other goals.

I love America the idea. I love everything about this country. I love traveling around this country to experience all of the regional cultures that it has to share with the world. I believe that this nation is full of great people. I take them to task for short-comings not because I wish to see it fall. I do so because I hope in so doing it may never fall.

You’re not your khakis!

Some people don’t like being brow beaten over how lazy and apathetic our culture is. It makes us uncomfortable because we all know it is the truth, whether we admit it or not. They say I should do something about it instead of “bitching” constantly as one anonymous reader put it. You are right dear phantom reader. I should do something about it and I do. I don’t watch reality television. I never have and never will. I choose to lead by example. I choose not to fall in with the lowest common denominator. I choose to focus on television which does have redeeming artistic or educational value. In addition, I choose not to read crap magazines, unless I am in the doctor’s waiting area and there is nothing else at hand. I choose my books carefully, I am a snob about movies and music, and I absolutely never watch network news. I only watch cable news to educate myself about what the mainstream sees on a daily basis.

Any derivation from this strict pop-culture diet is done only in an attempt to understand the appeal on the mainstream. I don’t get it. I cannot fathom the appeal. In fact, I am the most un-hip person you are likely to ever meet. I am not cool, stylish or any of the other pimply hyperboles that you can come up with. And I’m ok with that. Make no mistake about it, I am not special, I am not individualistic. I don’t want to stand out, because I realize that is a fruitless pursuit. With over six billion people on this planet, individuality is a pipe-dream.

My personal take on popular culture is similar to what Henry Rollins says: “There are no dumb people, just dumb [television] shows”. For us to say that this crap is what we want is a cop out. It isn’t what we want, I refuse to accept that. It is just all that we are given. So how do we get out of this pickle? I honestly don’t have an answer, and that is not for lack of thought on the matter. I have some ideas though.

We are caught in a catch-22. We have designed a culture for ourselves which punishes you for not buying in to the hype. The hype expresses an urgency to be an individual while defining what that individuality really entails. We are not cool if we don’t have the new style of jeans, the newest hip album by 50-Cent or the Youngbloodz, and we don’t watch the latest “show” that everyone is talking about at work. That show is of course endorsed by a number of advertisers who show us scantily clad men and women who look good in the new style of jeans, listening to the newest hip album. It is a messy cycle that spins like a Frisbee in flight. Of course all this is a pursuit to be the first one to find a new style, to be a trendsetter. The truly hip people in our culture are the ones who set the trends. That isn’t Kanye West, it isn’t Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. It is the people, who are far less beautiful, who pick out their clothes. Celebrities don’t set trends. Publicists and PR spin-doctors do.

Cross promotional modern marketing is the new Salem witch trials. They used to burn witches at the stake for being different. Now we scorn them for not being hip. The amount of “hipness” that you possess can, depending on your career path, directly impact your professional success. So, how do we repossess our culture? It is hard because it used to be that apathy about what is hip was the escape, but the Madison Avenue crowd has caught on to that ploy and now apathy is hip… ARGHHH!!! Where do we run and hide? Mountain Dew tells you to express your individuality by drinking Mountain Dew and dressing like a skater. Extreme sports started out as a way for all the nerdy kids who didn’t want to play football, baseball or hockey to get exercise, but they ruined that by making it mainstream with the X-Games and other events. A millionaire skater is an oxymoron! Tony Hawk, you’re a sorry sell out! A videogame? A clothing line? You used to be punk rock! Now you’re just a punk!

Our society has changed since the 60s. Our parents didn’t sell out totally. All the emphasis on feelings and happiness survived the cocaine and money of the 80s. Now everyone is in therapy talking about why we are all so miserable. We are miserable because everywhere we look there is someone telling us that we should be in touch with our feelings and aiming for constant bliss. We put too much emphasis on following our hearts and finding happiness. We are taught to never repress our feelings.

Does anyone else note that our grandparents didn’t follow that path and they seem a lot happier for it? Our grandparents came from what Tom Brokaw refers to as the “greatest generation”. They came of age during World War II and learned that nothing comes easy. They learned that you put your head down, you work hard, you do your job, you buy a house, you raise a family and you pay your taxes. They all seemed ok to me. Not happy, but not miserable on nearly the same epidemic scale as now.

Even our parent’s generation seems to handle life fairly well, but that is because they were raised by our grandparents without the touchy-feely emphasis on happiness and individuality. But we were raised by and large by people who taught us to mind our feelings and be in touch with our emotions. Do you think kids went to school with guns in the 40s to shoot the school bully? No, the Trench Coat Mafia is a direct result of being taught that we all have to be happy all the time. It is impossible. Some kids get teased in High School and it sucks at the time, but you know what? If they survive that, the rest is a cake walk. They are the Bill Gates’, the John Lennons’, and the Kurt Cobains'.

Our pop-culture is an impossible quest for individuality which we believe will make us happy. Of course no one is an individual. So I guess the solution is, worry less about what is cool. Whatever you do, don’t worry so much about being special. I’ll save you the mystery, you’re not. Once you find that realization, happiness will be less elusive. You know what, you may never be filled with glee, but that is OK, whatever you are… be it with pride. I mean, I am listening to Huey Lewis and the News while I write this. Think I’m lame? So what!

So, phantom reader, you want to know the solution? Realize that it isn’t all about you, it isn’t all about how you feel and what makes you happy, or sad, or mad. Focus less on yourself and more on how you impact society. Once you realize that you are part of something bigger than you and your feelings, you will realize that our pop-culture and all the hype can and should be a source of amusement. But amusement should only be one facet of our life, not the sole defining center. We have lives filled with love and family, jobs and activities. In addition we have a social responsibility to contribute to society. The contribution that you make to society, I cannot define for you. Your contribution need not be monumental. We are not all destined for greatness, but our individual contributions to society are all important, regardless of scope. It can be creative or just being a caring person aware of the world around you. That would make you special.

Unreality and the lazy President...

In the last several days there has been an interest and very noticeable shift in the Bush administration rhetoric about the war/effort/struggle (whatever we are calling it this week) in Iraq. First came an article in the Washington Post (read it here) quoting administration officials as conceding that they need to lower the nations expectations based on the un-reality of current expectations. Sounds like the administration isn’t as dumb as we think they are. They are just really slow. Someone should put one of the SLOW CHILDREN signs in the drive way at the White House so staffers are not run over by cars entering the grounds.

This “un-reality” has been apparent to many of us unpatriotic terrorist-sympathizing Americans who have been leading public outcry against the administration current approach all along. It would have been nice if our President and his merry muppets had listened to us to begin with. Maybe we could have saved them some pain and trouble. Not to mention 1816 American men and women serving in our military (according to the Washington Post) and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians. The death and mayhem in Iraq is distressing to everyone, but to some of us it seems so utterly pointless and could easily have been averted.

As if all this wasn’t enough, this writer’s favorite columnist; Maureen Dowd is back with a vengeance. She was filling in for Thomas Friedman, who apparently is off testing his theory that the world is flat. Dowd’s column calls out the President for going on a five week vacation when troops are dying in Iraq. I guess he seems determined to press on with his life and maintain a “normal” existence despite all the madness that he has single-handedly unleashed on the world. Funny, I recall him taking a damned long vacation back in the summer of 2001 too. Why does he get so much vacation time in his first year on the job? When I look at my pay stub, I appear to have only accrued 30 hours of paid vacation/sick leave. I guess I’ll have to get myself elected President of the United States. Then I can lead a “normal” life. Seems logical to me.

At any rate, two things are clear. First, the situation in Iraq has officially become un-spinnable. The President is simply not popular enough among the American people anymore to have the constant excrement flowing from his mouth sucker us. Second, our President is the laziest man on the face of the Earth. There is a line from the West Wing where Josh says to his assistant, Donna, that if she was in a car accident he would not stop for a beer on the way to the hospital. To which Donna replies that if Josh were in a car accident she wouldn’t stop for red lights.

If I was President Bush (and thank god, I’m not), I wouldn’t go on vacation while the troops are bogged in a quagmire that was completely of my own making. Does anyone else think that this war in Iraq is an impeachable offense? I’m not saying that he will be impeached, but he ought to be.

You Sleep Better When You Are Un-phenomenal!

To recharge my batteries a bit, I am going to step away from writing a political blog entry for today. I want, instead, to discuss the status of current popular culture. This is something that I bring up periodically, and those that know me, know that I have plenty of opinions on the subject. In particular I would like to focus on the special status that we give to celebrity in our culture. This is special status regardless of talent, ability, intelligence, creativity or any other redeeming quality that you can come up with.

This is particularly odd because you do not find this in any other country accept in the United States. Sure, in Britain there are tabloid newspapers filled with paparazzi articles in which celebrities are stalked and haunted by the press. There are “embarrassing” pictures of females actors topless in the south of France and men with guts that surely no celebrity should have. But in Europe, as with other places, that treatment is reserved for people who have actually achieved something. People like David Beckham, star midfielder for Real Madrid and captain of the England national team or the late Princess of Wales, Diana Spencer. Generally speaking, no one cares what these people think. They just want important details about their private lives. This is standard for people, who cannot separate the athletic feat from the person or the song from the musician.

But in the United States, it is taken to whole different level. Andy Warhol once said that everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame, and ever since it seems that Americans are intent on getting theirs. Just like freed slaves were promised forty acres and a mule, Americans now feel entitled to fame, like it will somehow make them special or, at the least, less worthless.

What is our fascination with celebrity? Why do we place so much stock in the magical powers of fame? If we are not, ourselves, seeking fame and fortune, we are desperately trying to find out how celebrities think and feel on any manner of issues. Unlike in Britain, we don’t want our celebrities to be publicly ridiculed or humiliated. Our celebrities are held up as the elite in society. It used to be that the elite were people who excelled at art, theater, music, business, politics or any number of other disciplines, but now the elite are those who are not most able but the best self-promoters.

We have celebrities of all kinds becoming active in politics when they have no clear understanding of the issues and are no more well informed on the issues than anyone else. Yet their opinion matters and yours does not. Politicians try to share the spotlight with celebrities whether it is John Kerry having Bruce Springsteen campaign with him or the President going mountain biking with Lance Armstrong. These celebrities have what the politicians want; appeal that transcends political ideology. I promised I wouldn’t go into politics, so I will end this line of thinking right here.

In our endless lust for fame and fortune, which we directly equate with being special and not necessarily being talented, our media has brought us reality TV, which Joel Stein says is neither real nor good TV. But, as Stein also points out, we don’t care. We love reality TV, can’t get enough of it. When it isn’t on, we fiend it like crack-whores. It started on cable with the Real World on MTV and slowly invaded every channel on TV including ESPN. Now nearly half of all television is reality based programming with everything from making beautiful women eat maggots on Fear Factor to glorifying plastic surgery and showing you how ugly you all really are on the Swan.

The joke is on you America! Hollywood has never held the same image of celebrity as the rest of the country. It is part of the reason so many famous people live in LA. When you see a celebrity in Los Angeles the only people who lose their minds are the paparazzi and then only because they need to get the shots on the web or on Entertainment Tonight so Middle America can get their famous people fix. I didn’t know one person in my seven years in L.A. who gave a damn about celebrities accept for people who worked in the industry. And then that was because people in Hollywood are so self-centered they believe the hype about themselves being the elite of America. Celebrities are so convinced that they are the elite that the campaign for politicians, they adopt causes to champion, or write memoirs about how hard their lives have been and how they are all really deep people despite the patently megalomania that Hollywood is replete with.

I say again, the joke is on you. Hollywood sees how desperate you all are for fame and fortune. Likewise they see that you do not equate this fame and fortune with creative ability of any kind. Let’s face it; most of you are talentless, at least not with any skills that would warrant celebrity. This is why they created reality television. Pretty girls are a dime a dozen in Hollywood and yet they keep flooding off the buses from Duluth, Davenport and Dallas in droves. Most of these beauties have half a brain in their skulls and even less talent. But they were prom queen back home. They dated the varsity Quarterback and all the nerds lusted for them. I’m not trying to be trite and sexist, the same is true for pretty boy guys who starred in Anything Goes their senior year in Danbury, Dorchester and Durham. For their fifteen minutes of fame, Hollywood makes them roll around in worms or eat buffalo testicles. The people see them back home on the idiot box and when these people slink back home with their tails between their legs and no Screen Actors Guild card in their pocket they are welcomed as conquering heroes, not abject failures.

Wake up people! There is no link between talent, fame or fortune and celebrity. Look at Paris Hilton. Her only talent is that her grandfather was a smart guy and made a load of money. Well, that and she is attractive, in the way that strippers are attractive. She has parlayed this into reality television fame and a modeling career. The sooner we realize that celebrity is as worthless as Paris Hilton is, the happier we will all be. We are all so desperate to be anything but what we are. It is a national psychosis. We need to learn that, as Mark (Peter Sarsgaard) says in Garden State, it is okay to be un-phenomenal, you sleep better.

Am I cruel? Nazareth said it best: “Love Hurts”.

The War of Ideas

After yesterdays blog entry I decided that I wanted to find another quote that would inspire me to express an opinion on a matter. I again chose a quote from President Kennedy.

“If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal,’ then I'm proud to say I'm a ‘Liberal.’”

It has been on my mind for a long time that I am a member of a political party that is mostly made up of wimps who fail miserably to clearly explain why they are liberal and why liberalism is clearly the better political philosophy for the society as a whole. Sure, if your goal is to improve your own station in life alone and you are not at all concerned with the success of others, libertarianism or conservatism are your best approaches. But these people who self-identify as conservative or libertarian believe that they live in a vacuum where the actions of others in a society do not affect them at all. They clearly have a distorted view of what it means to be a member of society. If you’ve come here to hear about how evil and selfish these people are, you’ve come to the wrong place. Many well meaning conservatives and libertarians give great resources to their church or charities. They simply feel that the government is not the best instrument to assist the disenfranchised with improving their station in life.

I disagree. I believe that churches and charities do offer assistance that is extremely valuable in assisting the poor or cleaning up blighted neighborhoods or patrolling neighborhoods to lower crime. Their work is noble and it is righteous, but so is much that the government undertakes. Remember that many charities receive a lion’s share of their funding from the government. The reason I do not support the same funding for faith based initiatives is because of the invariable proselytizing and conversion that occurs as a result of the efforts. I do not believe that these religious organizations are out of line in this course of action, I just believe that it is an inappropriate use of government money in a nation that has no official state religion.

Clearly JFKs quote is intended to imply that liberals, unlike conservatives see the world in shades of grey. Things are not either black or white as conservatives, including our current President, would have you believe.

The definition of the term liberal in the American Heritage dictionary is: “not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.” Clearly liberals believe that there is more than one good way to achieve a policy objective and that the best approach is an enlightened and engaged debate where society chooses the public policy which will best achieve the goals that they judge to be in their national interest.

On the other side of the coin are conservatives. The word conservative is defined as: “favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.” I believe that the last part is most telling; tending to oppose change. I believe that conservatives want to see things through rose colored lenses. Everything in our society is as it should be. Of course, it is hardly shocking that a majority of fiscal conservatives are rich and a majority of social conservatives are religious.

Unfortunately our society has not reached a place where our traditional views and values are sufficient to ensure that all in our society have equal opportunity. Racism is still rampant in the United States. Not everyone is judged equally by all people. Therefore policies which are inherently racist, such as affirmative action, are necessary to level the playing field. I don’t think that anyone believes that affirmative action is an ideal public policy. If you asked African Americans, I believe that they would tell you they would prefer a society where they are judged by who they are and what they know, not what they look like. As a true liberal I must concede that affirmative action creates contempt in certain segments of our population. As someone who is willing to consider other options I would willing engage in a policy debate with people who view the issue differently and try to find a better policy. But conservatives are not interested in the debate. They simply want to do away with affirmative action. Conservatives demonize the policy to breed fear in white Americans by calling it a quota system and telling whites that they will not get this job or into that college because of the color of their skin.

Conservatives in this country have become very adept at cloaking their agenda in the guise of compassion. In the late 90s they spawned a whole compassionate conservative movement claiming that George W. Bush was their standard bearer. This type of subterfuge is not uncommon. You will all notice that this is not a title that conservatives use anymore. Do you know another name for a compassionate conservative? They are called liberals, because compassion walks hand in hand with open-mindedness.

You will notice that I did not mention political parties in today’s piece. That is because there are liberals and conservatives in both parties. I did choose to single out George W. Bush, because I believe he is a particularly good example of a conservative without a shred of true compassion in him, at least not for anyone who is remotely different than him. I, like many observers, see the Democratic Party as the liberal party and the GOP as the conservatives, but it wasn’t always this way. As I stated several days ago, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts in the 60s than did Democrats, but that has shifted and when that shift occurred progressives in the Republican Party were replaced by the likes of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The disappearance of progressive Republicans did not happen overnight and they are still out there. They are a stunned and silenced segment of the Grand Old Party that needs to awaken and reclaim the party that was stolen from them 40 years ago. Until they do, a fruitful and constructive debate on any public policy in this country is an exercise in futility.

Of course, there is no incentive for these progressive Republicans to re-assert themselves while the opposition Democrats appear weak and unable to defend the liberal ideologies that they hold dear. More on that in the days to come.

Freedom Requires Energy, Faith and Devotion!

In his Inaugural Address on January 20, 1961 President John Fitzgerald Kennedy made a bold proclamation about how leaders should approach adversity. He said; “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.”

[Listen to JFK Inaugural Address]

Anyone alive in this time and place in history must know that we live at another such epic crossroads where we must face adversity. It is in times like this that great leaders emerge to show us the way through the challenges of our time. They guide us along the edge of a knife where teetering to one side or the other will bring Armageddon. I thought it would be interesting to dissect this quote from one of our great Presidents to assess how our current administration is fairing.

All generations face challenges both domestic and international that must be addressed in a skillful manner. The skills required vary to a certain extent. During the Civil War we needed a President who would focus inward and force us to answer difficult questions about the type of society we wanted to create for ourselves. Abraham Lincoln was the perfect President for his time and place in history. Lincoln was a charismatic Midwesterner who grew up on the frontiers of our young nation. He was born in raised in a border state between the North and South on the frontlines of what would eventually be the battlefields of the Civil War.

In the early 1930s the United States economy was bleeding, near death. The government was sleepwalking under the leadership of President Herbert Hoover. The Great Depression of the 1920s and 30s could easily have extinguished American greatness before it was able to take shape. Many have credited President Franklin Roosevelt with being a war President, who saw us through our most difficult years, but FDR was not elected to be a war President, he was elected to rebuild the powerful engine of American innovation which had been brutally savaged by years of rampant poverty and economic decay. Like Lincoln, FDR was the right man for the right time. He saw that American morale was devastated by rampant unemployment. Many men and women who were capable and eager contributors to economic growth in the 1920s were shocked and awed by the economic maelstrom of the Depression. Roosevelt’s greatest achievement as President was restoring our honor and sense of pride. In addition, he created the beginnings of our social safety net that still functions capably today.

In our time, with our challenges, September 11, 2001 has become a cliché. Not the events that occurred that day, but what those events have been used to justify. Into all times of great need steps a leader who restores faith and pride to the people. President George W. Bush was surprisingly capable in the days following those tragedies. He had the country unified in intent and purpose as no one had since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. In addition, he had the good will of the whole world and the ready support of allies to wage a war on terrorism.

It all rings so hollow now to a great many people around the world. All that good will was taken and used to justify the status quo. The same tired and failed philosophy for dealing with foreign threat. In a time when we needed to rip up our military play book and start a new, our government simply spruced up the same play book that we have been using since the Civil War. It is our government’s belief that when adversity is faced you must levee the full weight of the United States military against it. The terminology used at the time was “shock and awe”. It was the same philosophy which General Westmoreland tried to employ in Vietnam. He, like our leaders now, believed that the enemy would simply shrink in the face of such raw power, but the lesson that we learned in Vietnam and then promptly forgot is that our enemy was willing to go through any hardship, endure any amount of losses and would either win or be wiped out trying.

Not surprisingly this shock and awe philosophy has won us very little goodwill with the people in this region of the world. Our first military moves after 9/11 was to invade and “liberate” Afghanistan from the hard line Taliban government. In so doing, we drove Al Qaeda out of cities and into the hills. This was an operation that was widely supported by the international community and so they should hardly have been shocked when the U.S. government took this as tacit approval of using a military paradigm for dealing with terrorists. In the end the Taliban are not gone and Al Qaeda is far more difficult to track. In addition, farmers in this region of the world have begun growing vast quantities of poppies used in making heroin. In spite of all this collateral damage, our government has claimed that Afghanistan was a great success. We have installed a friendly government that really has no power outside the capital of Kabul.

Our next phase was to go into Iraq and take down Saddam Hussein. This was in spite of the fact that there was no clear link between Iraq and any terrorist organization and in spite of the fact that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. at all. The government trumped up charges of stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. You all know the events that have followed in Iraq from the “liberation” to the elections which went on despite the fact the Sunnis did not participate in the vote. What we have done is create a terrorist breeding ground. It is what some might call a charm school of jihadi Middle-easterner extremists bent on doing battle with the west.

Our President now tells us that it would be foolhardy to pull our troops out of Iraq because it would send the wrong message to our allies and enemies alike. I am not a foreign policy expert (which I guess would make me a perfect candidate to work on this President’s foreign policy team) but I believe that our presence in the Middle East is part of the problem not the solution. Who cares what message it sends to the terrorists, it is not because of the insurgency itself that we should leave. Truth be told we could do battle with these insurgents indefinitely. It is because if democracy is really to flourish in Iraq then it must come about as a result of their efforts, not ours. I believe that the message we will communicate to our allies in Iraq is that democracy is worth fighting for and ethnic, religious or other differences will not preclude democracy from succeeding there. In the final analysis it is the countries that struggled for democracy, that earned it through hard effort that succeed. These countries include Poland, France, Japan, Mexico and the United States. We are all examples of countries that overcame much to bring about a representative style of government.

The part of JFK’s quote that jumps out at me most readily is the last part where he says; “The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.” If the Iraqi people value the right to self-determination no insurgency, no matter how large, will get in its way. One should never underestimate the determination of a people to be free. One need only step out of the way and see their will be done. Of course we will be a friend to Iraq. We will assist them financially and morally in the accomplishment of this goal, but the actual victory must be born of Iraqi blood and sweat. If it is not, they will never place the proper amount of value in it.

Innovation In America: Why Are We Falling Behind?

We are a country that is falling farther and farther behind every year. In science, math, computers, innovation. You name it, we’re falling behind. For most of the 20^th Century the United States was regarded as the unequalled leaders in scientific innovation, medical advancement and a place where inventors abounded.

Whether it was Jonas Salk who cured polio, or Wright Brothers who invented the airplane or Henry Ford who invented the assembly line manufacturing facility, ours was a country with the can do spirit about everything it set its collective mind to. As conservative (though recently sounding very moderate) commentator and columnist George Will said on ABCs This Week with George Stephanopolous, our country was founded during the time of enlightenment thinkers. Our nation was designed with the spirit of the enlightenment in mind.

Then why is it that our country has turned so sharply away from the spirit of discovery and progress? Let’s look at some of the issues. Stem Cell research; in 2001 the President changed the federal rules regarding funding research that uses human embryonic stem cells. This was in line with his Christian fundamentalist beliefs on when life begins. It is interesting that as this debate roars on in this country, a debate that is not taking place anywhere else in the world; our scientists are being left in the dust. In Korea last week, scientists cloned an Afghan hound. In this country we can’t even decide if this type of research is ethical.

Now there are few that would deny that a serious ethical debate needs to take place in this country. I firmly support that. Many want to create guidelines for stem cell research so that we don’t start walking down a “slippery slope.” But, as George Will also pointed out, life is lived on slippery slopes. As an example he raised the specter of taxation. Well, taxation could easily become confiscation, Will said, but we are relatively confident that we would be able to put a stop to that. Likewise, I believe that we should be confident that we could put a stop to all forms of inappropriate cloning. It is time to get off the sideline.

It is not only in controversial areas of science that we are falling behind. It is true that American universities are still the most sought after institutions in the world to pursue the study of scientific knowledge, but that is becoming less and less the case. Invariably students are opting to go to Europe, China and other Asian countries. More and more innovation is taking place outside our borders, and even the innovation that occurs in the United States is being undertaken by foreigners.

Most distressing to me is the news that the Kansas board that has been reviewing the “Intelligent Design” issue now stands poised to recommend changing the State’s educational guidelines to include this in the curriculum. I am not going to go into the tenets of intelligent design. If you want to read further you can find Paul Krugman’s August 5^th Column in the New York Times. What is distressing is that our solution for our falling behind in innovation and scientific exploration is to educate students INCORRECTLY about science. Intelligent Design, like Creationism before it, is a pseudo-science that has absolutely no place being taught in our schools.

If you need evidence that American science is faltering you need look no further than the areas where only American scientists exists. NASA is a great example. We still explore space in that nearly 30 year old jalopy of a space shuttle when we could easily find new means for getting our astronauts and our supplies into space more quickly and for far less money.

Shame on the state of Kansas for such backwards lunacy! Shame on President George W. Bush!

The Last Democratic Wolf vs. the Sacrificial Lamb!

Earlier this week champions of all that is right and just in this world won their first major victory in recent memory. By recent memory I mean since George W. Bush was judiciated the Presidency of the United States in 2000. Robert Novak, syndicated columnist and blowhard extraordinaire was finally bested on the sets of CNN by the Democratic strategist and political commentator James Carville. Score one for the liberals. Of course it would be the one Democrat who’s not a total weenie! James Carville, or Jimmy C as he is known in my house, is consistently the only Democrat who will call Republicans out on their complete tomfoolery with anything more than the pathetic whimpers of a school-girl with a skinned knee.

The Ragin’ Cajun should know something about evil Republicans. After all, he is married to one of the most vitriolic Republican of them all, Mary Matalin. Matalin is a senior advisor to Vice President Cheney. Carville clearly understands the mind of the GOP. In addition, as anyone who is married will attest, has learned over the years of his marriage the secret tricks on how to drive them “out of their skin” bonkers.

Those of you who have been living on the moon for the past several years, or are just severely maladjusted, know that Bob Novak has been embroiled in a scandal of epic proportions. His role is not one hundred percent clear. It was Novak’s column in 2003 that leaked the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame to the public, yet Novak has thus far sailed through the whole scandal relatively unscathed. In fact, if one was to ask Judith Miller of the New York Times, who is currently breaking rocks with a chain gang, I am sure she would think that Novak was fairing quite well. It seems sadly ironic that Miller is in jail and she didn’t even write an article on this subject and Novak, Bush’s own personal mouthpiece in the press, is sitting free to write his vitriolic diatribes about the liberal media and how Democrats are ruining this country.

But of course, if his CNN outburst is any indication, Bob Novak is clearly cracking from renewed pressure as the media continue to probe deeper into the scandal and begins asking the hard questions that he has miraculously eluded for two years. It is nice to see that the press finally has their collective heads in the game, though it is a stark contrast in the days since the death of the last mainstream American journalist, Peter Jennings, to see that it has taken the press so long to get anywhere with this story.

In their defense, when the subject is a White House leak, increasingly likely perpetrated by Karl Rove, making anything stick can be infuriatingly difficult. This is a White House that closes ranks with staggering proficiency. From Dan Bartlett, the Communications Director to Scott McClellan, the Press Secretary to the President himself, this Administration marches in lock step when troubles arise. If one was forced to compliment this group of rodeo clowns on one thing it would have to be their stormtrooperesque discipline.

I used to just blatantly slander Bob Novak by accusing him of being Karl Roves journalistic stooge. That was until Novak came forward and claimed that in his conversation with Rove it had been he that had told the President’s political advisor that former Ambassador Joe Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame was the CIA agent in question. This might have been believable if it wasn’t so obviously complete hogwash. Novak, of course, cannot account for who revealed this fact to him. This inability to reveal sources make it clear that not only is Novak a blatant partisan hack, he is also a miserable liar. This excrement smells so bad it is no wonder that old Bobby has a sour puss all the time. Or perhaps it is just that, like Ebenezer Scrooge, Novak has been visited by the ghosts of purgatory past, present, and future and he doesn’t like what the future has in store for him.

Who knows how deep this scandal goes. A crime has been committed. If it was not a legal crime it was at the very least in an ethical one. There is now talk that this may also include the Vice President’s chief of staff Scooter Libby. I think when one achieves the position of chief of staff to a high elected official one should probably drop the elementary school nickname. Who knows what the facts are. Well, let’s hope the U.S. Attorney and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knows.

Make no mistake, Bob Novak is going down. I wrote in a previous blog post that Karl Rove will not be scathed by this investigation. Instead the Republicans are going to throw Bob Novak out as the sacrificial lamb. Though he may get lucky, it appears that all the Democratic wolves have been de-toothed with the exception of the Ragin’ Cajun.

I won’t lose sleep waiting for criminal charges. Instead I will await the next installment of celebrity boxing where we will see the Cajun vs. Novak and Scooter vs. Turd Blossom. Now that would really be something!