Lovable Liberal

Movin' On...

2004-11-18T11:42:00.000-08:00

The place to find the latest is either through the link below or directly to www.lovableliberal.com

Rules of War: Shoot The Wounded

2004-11-15T16:06:00.000-08:00

Call me naive, but I really thought there were rules for war. I thought we had all agreed, sometime after World War II, that the "civilized" nations of the world would abide by some minimum rules so everyone would understand that war is a kind of game -- a deadly game, to be sure, but a game nonetheless.

Oh, sure, the President keeps saying this is a different kind of war, and there are no rules when you're fighting against terrorists. But come on, all war is about acts of terrorism -- killing innocents (collateral damage), holding people hostage (siege), torture to get information from the enemy (Abu Grahib).

Now, we have pictures of Americans shooting the wounded. Fox News has been showing the entire video (minus the "too graphic" part of the actual act of shooting a wounded man in the head) of an incident that took place in a mosque in Fallujah. But another incident was shown earlier in the week in an alleyway next to a building, when one GI said, "There's a wounded guy down here," and another GI went down the alley, shots heard, and came back saying, "Not any more."

Commentators can say "the fog of war" all they want, but that doesn't change the fact that war makes just plain killers out of everyone on both sides. Just because our cause is "just" and our motives sound good to us, that doesn't change what is happening, or that the other side thinks the same of their justifications for horrific acts.

I hope the VA is setting aside plenty of money to pay for all the shrinks that will be required to help those lucky enough to return. They're going to need it.

WHAT IF...?

2004-11-11T13:17:00.000-08:00

Maybe the ABC affiliates who are refusing to risk ridiculous FCC penalties, and not showing "Saving Private Ryan," are actually courageously banding together to show how stupid this policy is. Give appropriate warnings to parents whose sensibilities are too fragile, and let the rest of us enjoy the freedom our President says that God wants so badly for us all.

Enough Already!

2004-11-11T11:05:00.000-08:00

Recriminations. Accusations. Personalities. Political jockeying. Farther left or more toward the center. New affiliations. Think tanks.

Enough already!

Where is the leadership? John Kerry is speaking out as if he wants to lead (is he a loser?), Howard Dean is mentioned (is he too left?), what about The South (is it lost forever?), and are Democrats going to be obstructionists, compromisers, healers, loyal opposition, or spend forty years in the desert trying to figure out who they are?

The press is already on a "honeymoon" with the administration, generally parroting whatever they're told by a White House that is in a permanent secretive campaign mode. Will no one actually press for answers on how much new initiatives will cost, how many troops are really necessary to bring some measure of security to Iraq, to what extent the most extreme views of the religious right will be infused into policy considerations, and why we still haven't had any articulation of what the damn "plan" is. Whatever happened to investigative journalism?

Kerry was faulted for not being specific enough, while Bush continues to spout memorized phrases as if they had any substance, and is not pushed for any details. Meanwhie, the situations on the ground (Iraq, Iran, Korea, Russia, Israel/Palestinians, Darfur) continue to worsen.

Rending one's garments or finding someone to blame for a loss are not leadership. Nor is splintering into separate groups, each with its own agenda but with no common vision.

Enough already!

What's Next?

2004-11-03T13:36:00.000-08:00

It's time for healing -- or is it?

Senator Kerry made a gracious concession speech, but was smart enough to make sure we all know that the issues on which he ran will not go away merely because President Bush was re-elected. If anything, a "loyal opposition" is needed now more than ever.

Among the issues clear coming out of this rancorous campaign:

We need to clean up campaigning, especially the use of private money to influence elections. And we need an effective way to make sure the media is critical without being accused of being partisan.
Democrats need to figure out what they stand for in today's world, and how to effectively communicate that to people who currently do not see Democrats standing for the issues that affect their daily lives in any meaningful way.
We need to figure out what "values" means in the context of a Constitution whose intent is to separate the functions of government from the sphere of the personal.
We must find a way to restore the social conscience of America -- to regain our soul as a nation -- so that we can truly set the example for others that our way is worth pursuing, without use of force. We must live our values.

How much damage can one small group, that believes it is on a mission from God, do in the next four years? Enough so that it could take decades to undo. That is why we must find a way to align ourselves as one nation.

One can only hope that President Bush will realize the importance to history of not trying to take advantage of our polarization on divisive issues, but instead trying to find a way to fulfill the promise of our nation's commitment to ALL its people, and thus to all the world as well.

Without that social conscience being restored, we will surely squander the opportunity we have to lead the world to a more peaceful, healthy, restorative future. I am not yet despondent and have not given up hope we can come through this period relatively unscathed -- but I'm close.

The Real Deal

2004-11-02T14:19:00.000-08:00

The Real Deal

The way you know how the election is going is to listen to conservative talk radio (is there any other kind?).

Before Election Day: The Hannitys and Limbaughs and the rest of their ilk are high-energy, loud, in-your-face, confrontational, disparaging, haughty, self-righteous.

On Election Day: The Hannitys and Ralph Reeds are cautiously morose, low-key, explaining, complaining, whiny, self-justifying.

John Kerry's message in the last week of the campaign was finally the right one (and he should have found it much sooner): We have to restore our place in the world as the world's leader based on our ethics and values and morality and integrity to those characteristics. The world will be safer and stronger when America leads based on what is best about us beyond our ability to fund and build and train and use a strong military. Our role is to set the example for what is possible. When we have seen ourselves in that role, we have always risen to our best.

What the will day after Election Day bring? Oy, there's the rub...

Bad rice! Bad rice!

Is it over yet???

2004-10-21T17:53:00.000-07:00

I admit it - I'm sick of it all! Can a campaign be imagined ever that would be this long, ugly, full of distortion and untruths, soaked with money, and less edifying?

Polls: Give me a break! There are so many polls, with such differing results, and then there are all those "experts" to explain them, and then they're averaged which skews the results in the end anyway. Hello?

Social Security: You have to learn to listen REALLY carefully. George W. Bush says repeatedly, "We will keep the promise of Social Security for our seniors..." That means he is making NO promises whatsoever about Social Security for anyone else. Hello?

Drug Reimportation: So we can't negotiate domestically with the drug companies for lower bulk purchase rates, and we can't reimport drugs from Canada. REimport means we sent them there in the first place. Bush says they might not be safe. Are American drug companies sending bad drugs to Canadians? Hello?

Iraq: Excuse me, but I've forgotten -- Who is the enemy? We went over there supposedly (one of the belated explanations, but one I've always personally favored) to "free" the Iraqis. Then why are we killing them? Hello?

Mary Cheney: John Kerry should have apologized quickly and completely, by merely saying that he was only presuming that since the Vice President had mentioned his grown daughter's sexuality, it was therefore okay for Kerry to personalize an issue that is not merely an academic argument. He certainly didn't intend to cause discomfort to anyone -- quite the opposite, he was acknowledging what he is sure the Cheney's themselves acknowledge -- that Mary's sexuality is not a "choice" (which was, if you'll recall, in response to a directly asked question from the moderator). And while we're at it, what does Bush's answer ("I don't know...") add to the discussion? What does he believe about Mary Cheney? Hello?

Flu vaccine: When the Bush administration has to reach back and try to blame the Clinton administration for a lack of flu vaccine, and then throws in trial lawyers (in spite of legislation on the books that protects drug companies that make vaccines), then you know someone is feeling at least threatened, if not desperate, about the outcome of this election. Hello?

When an election becomes about nothing more than getting elected, what is the point of democracy? Hello, is anybody there???

Woe is us!

2004-10-11T07:28:00.000-07:00

The final debate is coming up, and I still haven't decided how to assess what has been going on. I do have some observations, but they seem so trivial compared to the emormity of what the election results can mean for our country and the world:

George Bush should wear boxing gloves if he wants to strut around like a fighter.
John Kerry should be able to explain his position on any issue sure to come up - like abortion - in 10 cogent words or less.
Bush should stop that stupid little "laugh" that is supposed to indicate he's making a joke. He's not funny.
Supposedly "undecided" voters should make a choice or just shut up!
Kerry should never again use the word "aggrandizement."

Finally, we should all recognize that we are suffering from collective amnesia. Am I the only one left who remembers that we rushed to war in Iraq because of the weather?

No Shame...

2004-09-14T14:34:00.000-07:00

Finally, it is clear: They have no shame.

The President characterizes Senator Kerry's health care plan as a "big government takeover" and says it will cost too much. The plan, in reality, is not a government takeover, and the total cost of Kerry's ambitious plans -- altogether -- is LESS than the cost of Bush's proposals (which were conveniently not given a price tag at the GOP convention).

But if the Kerry camp won't respond strongly enough to put Bush on the defensive about all this, why shouldn't the Republicans say whatever they want that will get them re-elected? It works, doesn't it, and they truly have no shame if that is the result.

So where is Kerry? Explaining in tiresome detail, as if on the Senate floor (with charts, yet), how much Bush's plans and past lack of attention have raised health care premiums for seniors, as well as for everyone else.

Is there no one in that campaign who understands what a sound bite is??? It is unfortunate, but true, that the American voting public is schooled to pay attention in snippets of time, particularly noticing repetition of phrases in the background as the soundtrack of their lives.

WAKE UP DEMS! People are just waiting for a reason to oppose Bush's re-election. But they won't throw the bums out unless they hear something that makes them feel secure with the alternative.

The Republicans have no shame. They just want to win -- at any price. At this rate, they will.

Vote for Bush or Die!

2004-09-09T08:41:00.000-07:00

V.P. Dick Cheney finally says explicitly what the Republicans have been trying to say for so long -- vote for Bush or end up a dead victim of terrorism! Aside from being obnoxiously self-righteous, what nonsense.

I keep forgetting -- who are we at war with? I thought it was Al Queda and Osama, but obviously I'm behind the times. Oh, that's right, it's Iraq and its WMD and its potential to transfer its potential ability to make WMD to bad people who will potentially want to use them against us (or was it to bring democracy to the Middle East -- I keep forgetting).

Oh, that's right -- we're at war with terrorists, however we may happen to define them from day to day. And we have the right to pre-emptively go after them, as we happen to define them, just in case they don't like us enough to potentially hurt us in the future. But, of course, we're not going after the ones who already could fight back in a way that might be devastating (Iran, North Korea, etc.) -- yet. At least not until after we re-elect the only guys who can keep us alive.

But I keep forgetting -- 9/11 changed everything! Well, just from this one voice, let me remind you that 9/11 did NOT change everything. It did not change who we are, our principles, values, freedoms, guarantees of individual rights, our Constitution.

Who are we at war with? It should be the fearmongers, the hateful power-hungry do-anything-to-stay-in-office neo-conservative colonialists, it's those who are willing to divide us against each other -- that's who we should be at war with right now. How dare they try to scare us into keeping them in power after they've made such a mess of things, both here and abroad.

Is it hyperbole to say that this election is about our soul as a country? I keep forgetting.

Memo to Kerry

2004-09-01T12:52:00.000-07:00

The best defense is a good offense!

Nice speech today to the vets -- keep it up. Only thing you missed was acknowledging that recently there has been much controversy over the past, but it's time we focused on the present mess this administration has gotten us into and on the need for a change in policies so there will be a future. Let those others, still mired in their memories and their anger and their disputes, fight the old war. You are running for President, and there is a new war being fought, and it requires new leadership and new ideas and the kind of real vision that is sorely lacking in the bunch that got us into this mess!

Bush brags that over 10 million have registered to vote in Afghan elections, and that is a good thing to brag about. But he forgets to mention how many millions are still living under the warlords and even the Taliban, whose votes will be dictated by others and whose lives are not free, especially the women. And he omits mention of the billions the drug trade is bringing in, and how that occurred on OUR watch and is OUR responsibility. He never even mentions Osama, the true source of all that happened on 9/11, while he and his cohorts continue to conflate 9/11 and Iraq and the war on terrorism.

These guys in power have a lot to answer for, and you're supposed to be asking the questions and confronting them for the answers. They say you're good in the stretch, when you start to believe you're about to lose it all. Well, it's time.

Take Off The Gloves

2004-08-29T06:51:00.000-07:00

It's time for Democrats to take off the gloves and start fighting to win!

We can't be the nice guys, worrying about what's "true" or about being "balanced." Those other guys are fighting to the death, and we're arguing about the rules. Get real!

Republicans are about to present a face to the public that is so phony -- almost as bad as that minstrel show they presented four years ago. All of their "moderate" voices will be showcased, along with an aging deep-South unreconstructed so-called Democrat whose politics don't even reflect the people he represents.

It's time to redefine what "conservative" really means: unyielding to change; unwilling to compromise; unable to comprehend the true inclusion of diversity and separation of religion under the Constitution; uninterested in advances in science or philosophy, let alone awareness of the impact of the arts; and, perhaps most frightening, incapable of admitting that America can make wrong decisions that negatively impact the whole world.

I just returned from Canada -- a friendly neighbor nation -- and the reality of what is printed about America in the foreign press is a real wake-up call. We are not in this world alone, and so-called "conservative" policies, and the methods by which their supporters are willing to implement them (have you ever looked up "fascism" in the dictionary?), are destroying not only our status as the world's leading power but our credibility as a nation that lives its values as a beacon of hope to others.

This election is not just about who becomes President for the next four years. It's not even about whether we want health care for all or the continuation of pre-emptive wars. If we don't act to restore the social conscience of America in the world, policy decisions will be nothing more than academic exercises. This election is about our soul as a nation.

Loony Liberal Laments

2004-08-19T11:24:00.000-07:00

Republicans want to argue about how many committee meetings Senator Kerry may have either attended or missed, rather than addressing the depth of knowledge each candidate has about the underlying issues. At least Kerry reads and understands the background materials; Bush has them read and digested for him and then reads only summaries. What's important to me is which candidate both knows and can argue for effective national policy.
The Bush campaign's obsession with Kerry's use of the word "sensitive" regarding handling of our allies, and their attempt to somehow "feminize" Kerry because he used that word (although Bush has also used that same word, and that is exactly what our military is currently doing in Najaf - being "sensitive"), is just plain silly. Bush's own case for re-election is obviously so weak that he can't point to his own record, but rather is trying to "masculinize" himself in the face of an ever-escalating loss of control in Iraq. Whatever goals may have once existed for that war are long gone, and now we are playing for time to be able to leave with any dignity at all left in the world.
Finally, the ridiculous notion that resurrecting "star wars" (more formally known as the Space Defense Initiative - SDI) is about future warfare, as the President has said, is beyond any rational discourse. The notion was originally proposed by President Reagan, lo those many years ago, and was based on a 1930's motion picture he had seen. Bush says we need it to eliminate future threats, but the enemy we are fighting in the war against terror is not sending missiles to hit us from other countries - it is using our own vulnerabilities on our own soil. Bush says he wants to change the military to reflect new enemies (even if it means completely abandoning our "word" to old allies), and then proposes spending billions more on a weapons system that has not yet had a successful test and that is based on old enemies and old weapons systems.

A Worthy Discussion

2004-08-02T12:09:00.000-07:00

Finally, a policy discussion worth having in a Presidential election:

Kerry says we will only commit troops to combat when we "have" to, not just when we "choose" to. Bush says we must anticipate threats and not wait until after the fact to respond militarily. They are both right.

Now, it's time to define our terms, and that's what debates during a Presidential election ought to be about.

First, let's acknowledge that both men understand the power of the Presidency - the Commander in Chief is responsible for making the ultimate decision to commit America's military power to action.

Second, let's understand that committing troops is not always only in response to military threat. If that were the case, most of the wars we have fought since our founding would not have been justified.

Therefore, the issue is on what basis do we "have" to respond to threats. Are those threats always directed against us, or are those threats sometimes against others and then justified based on our stated national policies? We agree to defend allies from third-party attack, and we sometimes decide to intervene in civil wars that result in genocide. It is the definition of what those standards are that is the policy discussion we need to have during this election campaign.

Of course we all agree that when we are directly militarily threatened, we respond militarily if no other course is possible to avoid the threat. But what about when our "values" are at stake? Do we believe in human rights as a value that must be protected? Do we believe genocide of any peoples violates our national values and requires a response? Do we see our responsibility as the world's leading power to ensure that the world responds appropriately to the threat of mass deaths?

Bush seems to agree that because Iraq's dictator was willing to kill his own people, and by extension threaten the world, that our values required pre-emptive action to eliminate that threat. How would he extend that to the Sudan? To North Korea? At what point would he justify using military threat as opposed to sanctions, economic leverage, or international pressure?

And what does Kerry believe is implicated when he says we must never go to war unless we "have" to? What are our national values that require military action even when our own shores are not being threatened? How are those choices to be made and by whom?

At least one of the debates prior to this election ought to be based on these issues, because our survival as a nation and as the world's leader depends on it. And we should not elect a man who cannot adequately answer these questions. This is a discussion worth having.

Random Observations

2004-07-23T07:47:00.000-07:00

As we head into the week of hoop-la that is the Democratic convention, just a few random observations:

** John Kerry needs to find a way to say whatever he means in 25 words or less - someone ought to give him that as an assignment.

** People are just waiting to find a good reason to vote against Bush - the Democrats better give them one.

** John Edwards may be the best thing to happen to Democrats since John Kennedy.

** Even if people are not sure about Kerry, it's worth voting for him just to get the kind of people he will appoint around him - especially compared to those around George W. Bush.

** It is NOT "flip-flopping" to actually consider issues, weigh all alternatives, and then come to a judicious decision about what to do - it's called "reasoning" and it is a good thing to be able to do.

** I still believe in the basic self-interest of the American people - in spite of much evidence to the contrary (like poor Southern voters who vote Republican...) - and I am eternally optimistic when it comes to things working out the way they're supposed to.

Right and good will prevail. Keep the faith. Peace is better than war. The good guys always win. Blah, blah, blah...

See you at the convention.

Even I get a vacation...

2004-07-16T08:56:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I took some time off. Big deal!
Meanwhile, Kerry needs to find a way to say things in one cogent sentence and stick to it ("I voted against the Iraq funding as a protest vote against a blank check without a plan," or "We are dangerously close to abandoning the Iraqi people to security without freedom and religious rule just so the President can say he won the war").

I'll be back...

How Kerry Can Win

2004-06-29T16:19:00.000-07:00

Here's the idea of the day: John Kerry needs to acknowledge that the Middle East problem (Israelis/Palestinians)is the key to lots of other problems faced in the region. The U.S. needs to be the peace broker, because it can, and because we need to show the world we don't subscribe to the Orwellian Newspeak that "War is peace."

Kerry should broker a deal with Bill Clinton to have the ex-President agree to be Kerry's "Peace Envoy" with the first agenda item being a resolution of the conflict in the Middle East. (Jimmy Carter is getting too old for the shuttle diplomacy necessary, and Clinton needs a legacy.)

In addition to announcing his pick for Vice President, Kerry can also announce this priority agenda. He will capture the Democratic base, because they love (and miss) Clinton. He will play to Clinton's strength (ever the policty wonk in search of immortality). And he will trump the Republicans and the President, since they don't have an agenda that includes peace.

But of course, that's just my opinion.

The Decency Standard

2004-06-25T17:30:00.000-07:00

Vice President Cheney says he was just getting some things off his chest, and laughingly says he's not at all sorry he publicly told Senator Pat Leahy to "f... yourself." Conservative commentators are saying, "Well, you know, when people are under pressure...besides, the Senate rules say one can't use words like that when the Senate is 'in session' and it wasn't, and besides Cheney isn't a Senator."

Yet when Senator John Kerrey used a simlar word, not as a pejorative directed at an individual, but rather as a descriptive word for the "f...ing mess they've gotten us into," the radical right-wing went ballistic, calling for a public apology.

That same political persuasion has pushed through the "decency standard" for broadcasters, with very stiff penalties for breaching the public airwaves with what a few might find objectionable. (To be fair, Democrats voted for it as well -- who would want to run for re-election and have a "no" vote thrown at them?)

Now we have the ridiculous spectacle of John Stewart on "The Daily Show," clearly one of the funniest political commentaries ever, having to bleep out words -- on cable -- that are used all the time by students on elementary school playgrounds. "God" and "damn" are NOT indecent!

We are a puritanical sex-obsessed culture. That's just what's true. And we have as one of our highest protected rights the right to say whatever we want (with VERY limited exceptions related to public safety, not public morals).

So, as far as I'm concerned, we should all stand up for the right for the Bush campaign to intermix pictures of Hitler with prominent Democrats criticizing President Bush. We should be publicly clamoring for John Stewart and all broadcasters to be able to say what they want, and let the free market decide (conservative radio hosts already let loose the most virulent personal attacks 24/7). We should be proud to live in a country where Michael Moore's movie is released in theaters for all to see and make up their own minds whether it is good entertainment.

And we should tell all hypocrites to go "f... yourself!" If it's good enough for the Vice President, it's certainly good enough for us.

I miss Bill...

2004-06-21T18:18:00.000-07:00

I admit it -- I miss Bill Clinton.

No, not the sleazy stuff. I miss the engaged, high-energy, intelligent "policy wonk" who understood the system and how to work it.

I miss the genuinely engaged mind, the glib explainer (even his lies were done with more panache, and didn't kill people), the truly compassionate individual who knew what it meant to come from hard times and have the chance to make it (as opposed to the "compassionate" we have now, who believes he should make it as easy for the wealthy as possible).

I miss the sense of optimism, of the future, of the possibility that everyone would have a shot at the American dream.

What do we have now? Bush is a belligerent, finger-in-your-eye, towel-snapping, "big man on campus" privileged attitude, coupled with an obvious psychological need to both salvage and surpass his father so his mother will love him more. (My women friends will recognize this guy...)

I want to return to those happy days of yesteryear (not so long ago, really), when we felt positive, believed peace was worth pursuing, and saw the rising tide truly lift all boats.

The world has changed since 9/11, but we are not using that opportunity to make the world a better place, only a more polarized and hostile one.

Besides, Bill Clinton is really great looking. Be serious, if you had the choice of a dinner partner, which one would you rather spend time talking to and arguing with?

Contacts Shmontacts

2004-06-20T09:28:00.000-07:00

I just want to make sure I've got the argument straight:

I have had numerous "contacts" with a particular telemarketer who will not respect my requests to not be called any more. I have engaged in some "dialogue" with that firm. I presume that means that if someday that company is found to be nefarious, I will be somehow "connected."

I have a "relationship" with someone who lives in my building, who I see almost every day in the elevator and with whom I exchange in polite social conversation. In case that person is someday found to be a terrorist, I presume I will be implicated as someone with whom that terrorist had "ties."

I have a "relationship" with my butcher (Bush's word re Iraq & Al Queda). It is "collaborative" - we negotiate occasional sales and transfer of goods (9-11 Commission says this did NOT exist between Iraq & Al Queda). You find out the butcher is a terrorist, he kills your family, and you invade my house (God bless the Patriot Act). Then you quibble about the rationale for your invasion (whatever it was...). Am I missing something?

"Links," "ties," "contacts," "cooperation," and "relationship" are being thrown around as if they all mean the same thing. Words have meanings, and however similar they may be, each word has its own special nuance that differentiates it from another.

To split hairs about the conclusions of the 9-11 Commission, and try to parse the deliberate impressions fostered by the Bush administration to justify war in Iraq, is a pointless exercise. The Bushies have left themselves with "plausible deniability" ("We never said Saddam was responsible for 9-11..."), and left the rest of us with the problem of trying to figure out what anyone means anymore. For heaven's sake, they're still claiming that weapons of mass destruction are surely out there somewhere, if we just knew where to look.

Cheney, this week, when asked directly if Saddam was in any involved in the 9-11 attack on America, had the gall to say, "We don't know." What do they know? And when did they figure out what they know? And, per Rumsfield, will they ever figure out what they don't know? And will WE ever know?

Just notice how often Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, or Rice blur the lines, and use the "war on terror" in the same context as the "war in Iraq." That is a deliberate attempt to confuse and conflate different things into the same thing. Each thing is its own thing and not something else. That's the argument we should be having.

The meaning of "is"

2004-06-18T17:32:00.000-07:00

In light of the unthinkable barbarism of those who wish us harm, we have a "leader" who is unwavering in his belligerence and lack of awareness of his impact on the world and the harm he does to America's image and ability to inspire others to our system of governance.

He says, we know there was a "relationship between Iraq & Saddam & Al Queda because there was a relationship between Iraq & Al Queda." Note the omission of "Saddam" in the last part of the sentence. Note as well how close this comes to the absurdity of trying to explain what the meaning of "is" is. Bush is in essence saying, "Trust me," but without any justification to do so and with a disdain for the intelligence of the American people.

"The terrorists have chose [sic] the wrong enemy." No wonder the American people have given the President so much leeway -- their expectations were obviously so low to begin with, when they have someone in such a high position who can't even speak proper [sic].

"There are no training camps in Afghanistan...and if there are...." What? Either there are or there aren't. Once again our great leader is incapable of a coherent thought. It is painful watching his brain synapses trying to connect.

Why did we decide to make Iraq the model for democracy in the region. We were already in Afghanistan, the country from which the 9/11 attacks were launched. Why did we leave that country struggling to pull together some semblance of a stable government, with meager resources and few troops on the ground? In spite of our original goal there, we have not prevented the return of the Taliban and despotic control by regional "war lords."

Oh, I forgot, no oil in Afghanistan. And let's not forget that America paid the Taliban to get rid of the poppy fields, which they had done. Now we can't overlook the possibility that worldwide drug empires have much to gain from America leaving Afghanistan to struggle. They will have their largest drug crop ever this year.

Afghanistan "is" the subjugation of Afghan women. Terrorism "is" flourishing in Iraq, where it was not a problem before our invasion. What is the meaning of "is" anyway?

Tired of feeling embarrassed

2004-06-15T11:47:00.000-07:00

Aren't you tired of feeling embarrassed by this President? Okay, so he can't speak a clear, coherent sentence without notes, but that's no excuse for him not having more ready knowledge of what is going on both in his administration and the world.

You would think his political gurus would at least stop letting him hold any impromptu press conferences. His "jokes" about the serious working press there to help inform the American people are embarrassing (and not funny!). His nicknames for journalists trivialize them (not accidentally). His obvious annoyance with being questioned, let alone challenged, comes through loud and clear. His disdain for any follow-up questions - when his answers are pat, repetitive, scripted, and non-responsive - is painful to watch.

This is supposedly the leader of the free world (although much of what is defined as that world is not supportive of his policies), the head of the most powerful nation on earth. How embarrassing is it, then, to have this inarticulate, uninformed, self-righteous, imperialistic, and dogmatic man representing us to the rest of the world.

This administration is still adhering to the notion of "Don't confuse me with the facts - my mind is made up." How embarrassing is that?

Mourning in America

2004-06-10T07:41:00.000-07:00

Okay, a former President has died. That is always the occasion for public mourning. But let's at least keep some perspective and at least separate our feelings about the man personally from his political record.

Reagan was an actor, and his best role was acting as President at a time when we needed someone to pull us together and "act" as a President. It was his best performance in a long acting career.

Reagan put forth a positive vision of America, one we sorely needed. It was based on his own underlying beliefs, and his ability to communicate in a way that made us all feel better about ourselvees and our country. That was good.

However, Reagan also presided over one of the most corrupt administrations in our history -- just look at the number of his top officials who were indicted and convicted of transgressions that go well beyond dallying with an intern. These people subverted the law of the country to accomplish nefarious goals that went well outside the boundaries of our laws.

Reagan's administration presided over the run up of the largest deficits we had ever seen, and deliberately gutted any available money for the social programs that were designed to level the playing field. He ignored AIDS even when it was killing tens of thousands of Americans. His legacy includes ketchup as a vegetable, to minimize spending on nutrition for schoolchildren, and the incredible notion that trees cause pollution, consistent with a hands-off view of government's role in protecting the environment.

Those under Reagan, perhaps without his knowledge (which may be even more damning of his leadership style), were responsible for our government supporting some of the worst dictators and most repressive regimes around the world in the name of defeating Communism. All any nation's leaders had to say was that they were fighting Communism and we didn't seem to care that they were also mindlessly killing their own people, often in ways that make Abu Ghraib look like kindergarten.

The fact that the American people want to canonize Reagan is less a function of his actual divinity and more a response to the need right now to believe in someone who made us feel good about our country. This is in direct contrast to the boob currently occupying the oval office.

Let's mourn the passing of a singular human being who once was President, but let's not overlook the realities of what his policies brought about. We are big enough to do both.

Lowest common denominator

2004-05-30T16:03:00.000-07:00

Those who normally decry all things liberal as poisoning of our society better take a look in their conservative mirrors.

"Too much focus on the prison scandal!" "Those who are criticizing the President's (lack of) policies are aiding and abetting the enemy!" "We're not seeing enough of the good things being done by the American military in Iraq!" "The liberal media is trying to overthrow the President's re-election!"

Give me a break! The belligerant attitude of this administration, and its disdain for all things international -- as opposed to those things that will yield short-term benefits for dogged neoconservatives, has led to an overall escalation of harsh rhetoric around the world.

If the "leading nation of the free world" cannot "lead," but rather sets the example of anger, fear, and retaliation, then why are we surprised when those who oppose our policies react with similar escalation?

Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them endlessly. Since the President claims no mistakes by his administration, obviously he feels he has nothing to learn. Perhaps the American people will send him a message in November that he still has much to learn, and he should do it without jeopardizing our freedoms and our position in the world.

Conservatives love to find easy scapegoats for the failings of their own world views -- television, the 60's culture, the Clintons (eternally), Hollywood -- but it's time they look in the mirror and realize that what is perhaps the greatest threat to our position in the world is their own self-righteous sense of infallability. Lord help us all!

Orwell lives!

2004-05-28T12:47:00.000-07:00

This administration is shameless! The use of language to mean something other than the literal meaning of words is unbelievable. War is peace, chaos is progress, secrecy is transparency,financial irresponsibility is fiscal stability. Orwell lives!

Until the American people make their voices heard -- loud and clear -- saying they want a return to fiscal discipline, accountability, and social conscience as the guiding principle of our domestic and foreign policy, we will continue to lose standing at home and abroad.

There is nothing weak about admitting mistakes and learning from errors. And it is not strength to adhere to mistaken assumptions and "stay the course." We have blundered our way into a potentially disastrous breakdown of the world order. We have a responsibility to clean up our mess, and we better be humble enough to ask for some help.

I am a proud American, and I want my country to live its values, not just voice them and try to impose them on others. We're better than that.

Finally, someone tells the truth!

2004-05-27T11:28:00.000-07:00

Instead of trashing Al Gore and constantly replaying his emotional listing of those in the administration who should resign, it's too bad the media didn't replay the more substantive commentary Gore had about the failures of this administration.

Our status and stature around the world has been seriously damaged, perhaps for generations to come. This can't be fixed by a hollow apology, or by the ambiguous transfer of a leading military officer.

Incompetence such as that shown by this administration cannot be covered up for long. Cheers to Gore for telling the truth. But let's face it, resignations of even the top architects of this failed plan are not going to fix the problems. We don't need their resignations -- we need a new administration, new policies, and a new vision of our role in the world.