It was to be expected that the new Freepers would find a way to find the virtue in the Nobel peace prize winner/anti-war candidate escalating the war.

It has come full circle

This discussion started in the comments on my previous post – thanks cj and it’s the “Bush doctrine” as made to serve Jr.jr

It goes like this: Obama ends the war, people are happy and….

Then seven months later, an attack occurs…say, on the New York Subway with a small home made bomb. The attack destroys a subway car, and kills 39 people.

snip
A trail of evidence (a car parked down the street) leads law enforcement to capture 2 “suspects”.

t These two turn out to be Fundamentalist Muslims with tenuous ties to AlQeada.(sic)

The New media start to opine and demand, how could this have happened?
Dick Cheney shows up on the television and blames Barack Obama for being the President to order home our Troops with their tails between their legs. Dick Cheney’s daughter, who has no shame, says what is on many’s mind; this happened under Pres. Obama’s watch;

Funny about the “New media”

.

Would that be the media that gushes about Obama instead of Bush & GOP?

..

Hilarious about Cheney.

I was glad to see President Obama commit additional troops to Afghanistan,” said Cheney

On several levels

Among other things Cheney accuses Obama of taking credit for their plan

“bears a striking resemblance” to the one announced by President Obama in March.

I guess he’d have good reason to get PO’d that B0bots are stealing his lines .

A November win by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would put the United States at risk of another “devastating” terrorist attack, Vice President Dick Cheney told supporters Tuesday.

The funny thing about this B0bot scenario is that it’s not even about a devastating terrorist attack. It’s not so much about loss of life (only 39 are killed, and they are from NYC to boot) as in the  horrible, horrible bad PR that may result for Teh One.

It’s not so much that the terrorists win as “the opposition would win” if we don’t kill them good in Afghanistan

And you don’t want Obama to be criticized, do ya?

…

Politicians share personality traits with serial killers

Bush, Obama and Cheney

LA Times Blog
June 15, 2009

“While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government.“- Andrew Malcolm

Here’s the latest in chain email warfare I received the other day. First, let’s get the premise out of the way.

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organization and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.

He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

When a 95 year old hero of the “the Greatest Generation” stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.

Whether or not the actual Harold Estes wrote this is not yet verified, but that’s not really the point. Some idiot obviously did write it, and although its infamy as a public screed in the form of a chain email originated in Florida rather than Hawaii; and even though the exact same out of context misquotes appeared in a Pat Boone tirade in WorldNetDaily, let’s just assume that it did originate from the source claimed in the preamble above.

The author clearly does have a political bone in his body contrary to the claim. And just because he is a member of “the greatest generation” and served in WWII, that does not give the dittoheads who pass this crap on a reason to do so. Guess who else was a WWII vet? Holocaust museum shooter and neo-NaziJames von Brunn. Thankfully, I don’t see many people passing on his rants.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

More set up, folks. I think the key point here is that the author claims only to be “pretty much” mentally alert. Good thing we have that caveat.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

That’s not really a benefit of age. Five year olds don’t have this issue either. Come to think of it, neither do I.

So here goes..

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

Uh oh, looks like this guy must have just watched 2012.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of.

That would be the United States of America. And now we know what he meant by only “pretty much” mentally alert.

Now comes the Pat Boone rehash:

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

“We’re no longer a Christian nation”

Well, Obama never exactly said this. He did say, in 2006:

“Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.“

One little word does wonders for actual meaning doesnt it? Not to mention the entire context of a quote. And demographically speaking, it’s not untrue. In fact the only thing possibly wrong with Obama’s statement is that we cannot “no longer” be what we never were.

See, it’s not like he said something like:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion“

Because, you know, that would just be a silly statement that happened to be part of a treaty begun under George Washington’s administration, signed by John Adams, and voted unanimously by the Senate after being read aloud on the floor and published in major newspapers without complaint.

Does our nation have moral roots that come partly from Christianity? Sure. But we are a nation of laws, not a theocracy. That would be what those of us with 100% mental alertness call “entirely different”.

“America is arrogant” – (Your wife even announced to the world, “America is mean-spirited.”

Again, this is not something Obama said. What he did say, during a townhall in France, was:

“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.

On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth.”

Yeah, real scathing anti-American sentiment there. If you live in an alternate reality devoid of context, history, or objectivity.

Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)

Let’s test Mr. Pretty Much Mentally Alert’s math skills. A generation is roughly 25 years. 23 generations takes us back to before Columbus. Fail.

I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

I’ve seen several occassions on which Obama has expressed gratefulness and humilty over the position he has attained. But it’s absolutely a true statement that to be without shame is dangerous for the man in the White House. Perhaps he should have written his letter to our last president, the one who couldn’t think of a single mistake he ever made.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Another fake quote. Firstly, it seems “after 9/11″ means eight years after. And still, it’s not very close to the actual quote from a speech in Cairo:

“And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.”

That’s not a condemnation of, nor an apology for America. It’s an affirmation. To think otherwise is simply ignorant.

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

Now it starts to get even more confusing. Apparently casualty numbers from selected wars (all 23 generations worth!) have some bearing on… well… some sort of argument. And interestingly, the author seems to include Confederate soldiers in his figures for the civil war. I think I can safely say that Obama was probably not talking about the ideal of seceding from the Union. Sorry. I guess you win a point there. Or something.

But since you ask, perhaps he was refering to the whole suspending habeas corpus thing, effectively slashing the bill of rights, and then torturing those we detained. Just a guess.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination.

Quite an egalitarian ideal there. Downright socialist.

You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

What does race have to do with anything? Does this guy realize that more than just white people can vote now?

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man. Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue.

And so start the veiled threats. Since there is no question this fellow wouldn’t be voting for Obama in the next election, the only conclusion is that he must be referring to something else.

You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their
people like slaves.

Oh really. Having already established that he has no understanding of what the president is elected to do (i.e preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States), the author now claims enough credibility to opine on what the president is elected not to do. I mean we all know Bush Sr didn’t apologize for barfing on the Japanese Prime Minister, and Dick Cheney didn’t apologize for dressing like he was about to shoot somebody in the face while remembering the horrors of Auschwitz. Because that’s what Americans do.

At least he has precedence on his side. Here is Eisenhower not bowing to Pope John XXIII:


He’s just checking out his wrinkle free skin and admiring his mental alertness. Pretty much.

And here’s W after Pope Benedict XVI apparently advised him to XYZPDQ:


Decidedly not bowing.

Oh, here’s Nixon admiring Hirohito’s kicks. He can’t possibly be bowing to the Japanese leader who bombed Pearl Harbor, can he? Of course not.

Here’s Eisenhower again, after Charles de Gaulle just disappeared a quarter from his hand!! Not photographed is when he reproduced it from behind Ike’s ear.


I tell you, that Eisenhower was a man who loved not to bow. A real American he was.

Then of course, there’s W again, playing kissy face and holding hands with Saudi King Abdulluh. They make a cute couple:

And though only a presidential special envoy for Reagan, here’s Donald Rumsfeld either giving Saddam Hussein a stink palm or shaking his hand in the course of making a deal to supply him with weapons of mass destruction for use against Iran.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more.

He probably thinks he’s the President of the United States. That could be because he is, or it could be for some other reason. And since when is jumping to conclusions a good thing?

You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that
black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight?

Yeah, that’s the same thing. And as a matter of fact, yes, that’s exactly what he wants you to not do. By the way, you forgot the ‘in his own house’ part. Funny how there are people on Harold Estes’ side of the political spectrum who claim to stockpile ammunition in the event of just such a scenario.

You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

Firstly, saying a department acted stupidly is not the same as calling police stupid. And I believe that issue was resolved quite amicably. Secondly, the definition of terrorist is not “Muslim fanatic”. No really. Look it up.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job.

You mean like Dick Cheney and W? Oh, I guess you don’t. And, wow, why don’t you just call him ‘boy’? Haven’t we already covered the job part?

When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him.

Unlike the troops Bush-Cheney dithered about until Obama was finally about to grant them. And as the author should know, completing the mission requires a strategy, not just a number. War is not magic, and 40,000 women can’t have a baby in ten minutes anymore than the presence of 40,000 troops can automatically complete a mission that isn’t effectively defined. And that is what has been missing the past eight years. Furthermore, didn’t you just admit that Obama was Commander-in-Chief (of the country you can’t identify)? Then, that is where the decision rests, unless I missed a military coup somewhere.

But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

See Iraq, invasion of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

Finally, the first reasonable thing said throughout that entire rant. Hmm, I wonder what challenge(s) he refers to? Oh, it must be all the ones the last guy completely screwed up and left for the rest of us. Thanks for the reminder

You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy.

Sooo, you want the economy to fail?

That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

Sooo, we aren’t living up to our ideals or something. But didn’t you just… yeah, nevermind

And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

And it’s back to the subtle violent rhetoric. As if there is any question this guy doesn’t already see the President as “the enemy”. The corollary of course, is that this guy is an enemy of the President and an enemy of America. See, most people get the benefit of the doubt for simply being misinformed, wrong, or stupid; but this guy has intentionally phrased his rhetoric as part of “the final battle”. Maybe, like Sarah Palin or Roland Emmerich, he believes the rapture or the Mayans are upon us one way or the other. But the fact is it’s dangerous to talk of the President as an enemy using war imagery in a country with a long history of political violence and civil unrest. And passing it along will make you culpable when one of the idiots out there does decide to act.

As you sneak away from your realtives to drink in the corner and check Facebook while no one is looking today, check out what I am thankful for in the world around me.  And in case you get busted now and have to go pretend to enjoy your second cousin’s creepy new boyfriend, mostly, I’m thankful for the things that make me laugh:

Whitney Houston, thank you for coming back out of your drug-induced social coma, or as your PR person likes to call it…retirement.  And thank you for your heart-felt pseudo-interview/therapy session with Oprah.  I will always be grateful for your lesson on how to say nothing for an hour.  And of course, I thank you for being able to hit most of your notes without sweating.

The Real Housewives of Wherever, thank you for clearing up any misconceptions or stereotypes we may have had about women in your nether regions.  We now know that Jersey does not equal mafia, housewives in Orange County are not made of plastic and, in New York no one is motivated by title or money.  Right countess?  Right.

I still miss George Bush.  I was thankful for his dippy demeanor that made you ask whether he was drunk or high on helium for 8 years.  And whenever I thought I had done a bad job at work, I only had to look to my nation’s leader to know that I could be much worse.  Thank you George for the self-esteem boost.

Thanks to Mariah Carey for reminding women everywhere that no matter how batshit crazy, old or big we get, a tube top and daisy duke shorts can still be worn in public.  Not worn well, but at least they are out there.

Thank you to Sarah Palin for her street smarts.  Before you, I knew as much about the Alaskan drilling mandates as you do about running a country.  And as you are finishing up your fourth glass of 80-proof Thanksgiving Survival juice, take a look at the other most smartest people who are really thankful for Sarah Palin.

In conclusion, and in almost all seriousness, thank you to the friends and family who have been so supportive of my blog and endeavors.  Without your feedback, thoughts and daily visits, this would just be me squawking to myself in cyberspace.    I would thank you all individually right here, but I don’t want Dick Cheney’s Internet scoping device to pick up your names more than it already has.  Happy Thanksgiving!

I predicted here after Obama’s inauguration that the rabid right-wing losers would call for his impeachment within a year. If I were a gambling man, I’d be collecting my winnings. Today I received this in my inbox from GOP comedy site, Townhall.com:

Enough is enough. We’re calling for the Impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama. And if you agree, you can join us right now.

Right here and right now, you can add your voice to ours… and add your name to the Articles of Impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama.

Why are we calling for the Impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama?

Radio-personality Tammy Bruce may have said it best:
“… ultimately, it comes down to… the fact that he seems to have, it seems to me, some malevolence toward this country, which is unabated.”

I’ve been hearing a lot of Obama-bashing lately. I’ve also been seeing a lot of Sarah Palin in the news. I am a registered Independent (I), which means my loyalty lies not with the Democrats (see: Liberals), or the Republicans (see: Conservatives.) I am free to vote in any primary election I see fit, and I consider myself a political centrist. I am neither “left” nor “right.” I believe in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. My political motto is simple: Less Taxes, Smaller Government, More Freedom. I believe the United States Constitution should be literally interpreted, and I believe that any changes to this document should come in the form of amendments, not executive or judicial interpretation (which, coincidentally, is how the “Founding Fathers” designed it.)

With all that being said, allow me to share with you what I feel to be the three (3) most important qualities in a President. I will also compare these qualities to those of Obama and Palin and see who would be more fit to run (or ruin) this nation.

I. Education.

Barack Obama: Attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA for two years before transferring to Columbia University and receiving a B.A. in Political Science and a minor in International Relations. He then graduated Magna Cum Laude (the top 1% of his class) with a J.D. (law degree) from Harvard. (Daaaaaaaaamn homie!)

Sarah Palin: Attended Hawaii Pacific University(?) for one semester. Then attended North Idaho University(?) for two semesters. However, she did win the “Miss Wasilla” (pop. 5,469) beauty pageant at this time. She then attended the University of Idaho for two semesters, transferred to Matanuska-Susitna College(?) in Wasilla, AK for one semester, before transferring back to the University of Idaho and earning a Bachelor’s degree in Communications with an emphasis in Journalism.

EDGE: Obama. While Palin was busy taking her “hard” courses (note: Are there any difficult courses in Communications? From what I understand there’s not) at various community colleges before transferring to the University of Idaho to earn her patchwork degree, Obama was nonchalantly becoming the first ever black man to become the President of the Harvard Law Review. Although I do contend it would be interesting to see what someone with a Community College education would do with the power of the Presidency, I feel a bit more at ease knowing that a man with a vast and extensive knowledge of American Law, the U.S. Constitution and a Harvard fucking education is running this nation.

II. Experience.

Obama: Member of the Illinois State Senate 13th District (Chicago), January 8, 1997 – November 4, 2004. United States Senator from Illinois, January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008.

Palin: Member of the Wasilla City Council, 1992-1996. Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, 1996-2002. Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2003-2004. Governor of Alaska, December 4, 2006 – July 26, 2009.

EDGE: Obama. Until abruptly resigning from the office of Governor of Alaska in July of 2009 without explanation, Sarah Palin had been involved in politics at some level for the better part of 17 years. Unfortunately, her experience was tantamount to that of Leslie Knope, the Deputy Director of the Pawnee City Department of Parks and Recreation on NBC’s hit comedy Parks and Recreation. Meanwhile, Obama was serving as community activist, state legislator and U.S. Senator in America’s third-largest city. Let’s compare:

Palin's Constituency

Obama's Constituency

Hmm.

Now don’t get me wrong, it’s an incredible feat to be elected Governor of a State (just ask my Governor – Arnold Swartzennager.) However, Alaska is home to just 686,293 citizens, whereas Chicago alone is home to 2,853,114 citizens. Plus Illinois is America’s fifth (5th) largest State with a population of 12,901,563.  So, while as Mayor of Wasilla, Mrs. Palin had the duty of taking care of the concerns of 5,000 people, Mr. Obama had his hands full in Chicago dealing with millions of citizens and the rampant corruption that comes along with Illinois and its government. I think I’ll go with the Senator from the big state. There’s just this uneasy feeling I get about trusting the Governor of an obscure quasi-Russian/Canadian territory that isn’t even a part of the continental United States.

III. Pragmatism, Prudence and Foresight:

Allow me to first define what I mean by “Pragmatism”:

1. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.

And “Prudence”:

1. Wise in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment or common sense.
2. Careful in regard to one’s own interests; provident.
3. Careful about one’s conduct; circumspect.

And of course by “Foresight”, I simply mean I enjoy a President who doesn’t suffer from myopia. I’ll go ahead and define “Myopia” for you as well:

1. A visual defect in which distant objects appear blurred because their images are focused in front of the retina rather than on it; nearsightedness. Also called short sight. (For the purpose of this essay, definition 1 is intended to be used metaphorically.)
2. Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning.

Let me begin by explaining why I believe these three qualities are so important: When a President fails to learn from the mistakes of others (Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon – Vietnam), he is doomed to repeat these mistakes (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld – Iraq.) Another fine example are our nation’s bankers who, apparently not very well versed in the history of the U.S. stock market, essentially substituted the inadequately-financed stocks of the 1920’s with the inadequately-financed real estate of the aughts. Same principles, same great wealth accumulation, same devastating crash.

Prudence is important in a President because, in order to run the world’s largest Capitalist economy, you had better know what the fuck you are doing. Without going too far in depth economically, I’ll just say that it’s important to lend aid to citizens who have a legitimate need for said aid (if the financial impact of this aid outweighs the converse impact of inaction), but the funding should come from a reasonable (and ideally perpetual) source. Blah… you can just ignore this paragraph.

Obligatory Photograph of Rome

Foresight is important for the same reasons. I live by the philosophy that every generation’s children should be better off than the generation that preceded it. Simple, right? Same goes for American citizens in general.

Oh yeah, these traits of intelligence are also very important to me, because they lay the delicate balance between what is considered progressive, or “liberal”, and what is the traditional status quo, or “conservative.” These two philosophies must work hand-in-hand in order for a society to prosper. (See: Rome, Ancient Greece, Modern Day Western Europe.) When traditional values are held onto for too long, you get the Middle-East (see: post-1979 Iran, Hussein’s Iraq and the Talibani Afghanistan.) Conversely, when a society attempts to accelerate progressive movements at a pace that is not in tow with the thoughts, ideals, resources or support of its citizens, you see great failure and revolt (See: the USSR, Nazi Germany, Modern-Day Cuba.)

Anyway, let’s continue:

Obama: Since he is the acting POTUS, it’s pretty easy to grade his performance thus far. I give him a “C” for effort. One thing people need to understand is that whoever won the 2008 Presidential election (be it Palin by way of McCain, or Barack Obama, they would likely serve but one term.) Why? Well, because the FUBAR they inherited from the Executive Branch Davidians (see: Dick Cheney, et al) was so severe that it would likely crush the soul, spirit and resolve of not only the person elected, but that of the entire county as well. Thanks, Dubya! So far, Obama’s stimulus has not been something I particularly admire (neither were any of Bush’s fiscal policies, either.) One thing I do enjoy is the closing of Guantanamo (say what you will about these prisoners, but a semantic game should not be played here. Either try them in the Hague as war criminals, or on U.S. soil as terrorists. Just stop violating the Geneva Convention [or rather, exploiting its loopholes], and fucking do something!) Also, his views on how to close the American chapter in Iraq is questionably in my estimation. Doing away with the PATRIOT Act was excellent, and as far as his Health Care proposal is concerned – it needs major work.

Obama: "At Least I'm Not Bush"

Palin: What do we know about Palin? Not much. She’s a small town girl with a small-town mind and a small-town education. She lacks the basic fundamental understanding of global politics and domestic social programs and their taxation to be an effective leader at anything higher than, well, the Alaskan level. Additionally, she has bizarre religious views (Pentacostal, anyone?), apparently opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest (what does that tell you?) and famously has no fucking idea where one of America’s most volatile “allies” is on a map. Palin is very outspoken and this makes her popular with individuals suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome and Alcholism (the two most likely crowds outside of Tourettes to speak their mind.) Political entertainers such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush “Oxycontin” Limbaugh seem to support her fervently. Palin recently released a book that was heavily criticized for its inaccuracies, with the AP stating, “Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer’s dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.” Additionally, she has taken several insane stances she resigning from office, including supporting creationism in the classroom (she believes that dinosaurs and humans once interacted) as well as inventing the term “Death Panel”to criticize Obama’s proposed healthcare plan (a term that has been slammed as grossly erroneous and completely fictional and without merit.)

Sarah Palin: An Insane Reptillian Alien Disguised in the Body of a Beautiful Woman

EDGE: Draw.

That’s right. Despite the fact that Sarah Palin is a small-town hick from the meth capitol of Alaska with little-to-no education and an incredibly loose grasp on how American politics, society, taxation and the electoral system work, Obama has proven to be so incredibly liberal and reckless with the American taxpayer’s dime that I really cannot support anything he’s done. Now, does this mean I would prefer Sarah Palin as an alternative ? Absolutely fucking not. Under no circumstances whatsoever. I would move to Canada if she were ever elected (although I cannot see the American people doing something so unprecedented and appalling, though they did once elect Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter consecutively, so who knows.)

You may be wondering who I would tap as an alternative to these two. Well, Ron Paul of course.

Democracy FTW!

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Murder Inc, and the New World Disorder

At first blush, one would think that the Republican Party is making much ado about nothing with their staged outrage over the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his 9/11 conspirators in the U.S. Federal court. With the macho stance that they generally take against Al Qaeda, one would think that they’d be saying “bring it on”, and be anxious to drag the conspirators back to the scene of the crime to face the consequences of their horrific act. Having to answer for their crimes before the people of New York represents the epitome of poetic justice.

But all of a sudden these swaggering chicken hawks seem to be trembling in their boots at the mere thought of bringing these terrorists on American soil to face justice. That’s quite a curious reaction from this group – not just that they’re afraid, but that they’d be so freely willing to admit it. Ordinarily they’d die before they’d admit being afraid of terrorists. So something is definitely afoot. Something has to be terribly important to these conservatives for them to risk being seen as cowards – especially since there’s actually nothing to fear. But as usual, whenever one is uncertain about Republican thinking, you simply follow the money.

These people aren’t afraid that trying the 9/11 conspirators on American soil is going to place the United States in jeopardy. After all, if terrorists are going to attack us in retaliation for putting their cohorts on trial, it doesn’t matter where the trial is held. Even if the trial is held at Gitmo, they’re not going to attack Cuba, they’re going to attack the United States. So what’s the real deal?

The Republicans are actually concerned about perception. They want to prevent these terrorists from looking like the common criminals that they are at any cost. They’re afraid that will cause the American people to wake up and recognize that we could save billions of dollars a year by letting law enforcement go after these people.

Thus, by insisting on a military tribunal, the Republican Party is protecting the perception that these people are military combatants. That will both protect the war industry, that continues to feed from America’s trough to the tune of billions of dollars a year, and keep the American people from recognizing what a wild goose chase they had us on for seven years.

If Osama Bin Laden didn’t exist they would have had to invent him in order to sustain America’s most thriving industry – the war machine. The most clear evidence of that is the fact that if the Bush administration had continued its efforts in Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, they would have had Bin Laden by now. But instead, while on the very threshold of victory over the Taliban, they did an about face to engage in the much more lucrative Iraqi campaign – and to this day, they’re still trying to find reasons to justify that action.

The fact is, they knew they couldn’t justify the expenditures they were seeking by engaging a gang of criminals. They needed a government to fight to justify their greed. In addition, since the Bush administration was made up of oil men, Iraq’s oil fields were irresistibly seductive. The fact is, as any thinking person should know by now, Bush wasn’t engaged in a war on terror. His war was on the United States treasury. Bush even admitted at one point that,”I don’t think about Osama - he is irrelevant.” Oh, really? Then what is relevant?

With all of the treasure and manpower that we spent in Iraq, we could have surrounded Bin Laden, cut off his escape routes, and simply closed in on him. If Bush had done that Bin Laden would have been dead by now. It simply strains credulity to believe that the entire United States military can’t run down and capture a group of thugs – especially since they knew where they were hiding. But Bush couldn’t do that, because that would have destroyed the war machine’s cash cow. They needed Bin Laden out there to scare the American people into giving up their rights, keeping Republicans in power, and emptying their piggy bank.

Thus, this so called “war on terror” has been a farce from the very beginning. Nations go to war against other nations, not criminals. By declaring war on individuals who don’t like us, they’re guaranteeing that we’re going to be at war forever, since every time we kill an innocent “non-combatant,” we create more enemies. But that’s exactly what the Republicans and their war machine want. They have just as much of a vested interest in waging war as General Motors has in selling cars.

As one of his final acts of office President Eisenhower warned us about these people. He said, in part:

“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”President Obama should take counsel from his Republican predecessor and bring this nonsense to an end. No one was more of an authority on the war machine than President Eisenhower. After all, as the commanding general of the allied effort during WWII, he created the war machine, and he had an intimate understanding of the thinking and character of the men who ran it. Thus, his warning to the American people.

Using the United States military to go after a few terrorists is like trying to swat flies with a sledge hammer. We’re wasting both lives and treasure, and the carnage that we’re leaving behind is creating more terrorists than we’re killing. So President Obama should allow the CIA to go after the top people in Al Qaeda and simply cut off its head. We should then pull our troops out of Afghanistan, then deploy enough troops in Pakistan to assure the security of their nuclear arsenal.

Finally, and just as important as going after Al Qaeda, the president should remember his oath of office and allow the rule of law to take its course with regard to Bush, Cheney, and the rest of their cronies. Al Qaeda can only do peripheral damage to this nation, while Bush and Cheney have struck at the very pillars of America’s soul.

We cannot protect America by sacrificing our values. If we allow that to happen, Bin Laden has won. So let us not allow the collapse of the twin towers to become a metaphor for the destruction of American ideals.

I just posted a story to the Eastern Republic Web site about a proposed bullying policy that will be presented to EWU’s board of trustees this Friday, Nov. 20, at 3:30 p.m. in Tawanka 215.

The policy has come under some criticism as a possible infringement of free speech. I first learned of the policy in a story in the Inlander’s 2009 College Guide called “Oh, Say, Can You Say?” evaluating speech codes on local college campuses. In the story, Daniel Walters writes:

What’s worrisome is the draft of Eastern’s anti-bullying policy, which may be implemented in September. The general definition of bullying is repeated, targeted “hostile or offensive” actions that create “an intimidating and/or threatening environment which produces a risk of psychological and/or physical harm.”

Yeah, a risk of psychological harm.

“The bullying definition … is patently unconstitutional and I have strong doubts it would hold up in court,” [William] Creeley says. “It’s overbroad and vague.”

The definition of “offensive” and “hostile” includes comments that are “sarcastic” “condescending” “humiliating” or “mocking.”

Prosecute sarcasm? That’s a winning idea you got right there, Mr. Brilliant Pants.

William Creeley, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), is also quoted in my article, but I also interviewed members of the committee that drafted the policy and none of them feel that the policy would infringe on people’s free speech–it does stipulate that the bullying behavior must be repeated and create a threatening environment. Even Creeley conceded that including that language was a step in the right direction, but he had concerns that it was still worded too vaguely. Check out the story if you’re interested in reading more about it.

Once again, I’m not just disappointed, I’m disgusted. 

No, it’s not the Sexiest Man Alive thing; I didn’t really expect to win that.

I’m disgusted with the “true conservatives” and “Tea Party” Republicans who apparently have no idea what it is they want; and who obviously have money, time and energy to burn on the altar of their “War On Terror.”

It’s hard enough to figure out what it is that you attack.  But what do you defend?  What do you want?

O ye idolaters!  No amount of flag-waving, no Democrat Demonizing will save you from your hypocrisy, immorality and failure.

After the 911 attacks when the war drums announced our intentions to the world, only Ron Paul of Texas wanted to legitimize/legalize our violence with a constitutional, congressional declaration of war against Iraq.

As Republicans bared their teeth at Dr. Paul, then-Chairman Henry Hyde hissed (imagine the serpent in the Garden of Eden):

“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time.  Declaration of war is one of them. …There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. …Why declare war if you don’t have to? …We are saying to the President, use your judgment.  So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death.  You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore…”

Now these Palin-worshipping, Cheney sycophants are whining about the legal consequences they created?

Y’all claim to support the constitutions, but you don’t when it matters.  Y’all claim to oppose the “big government policies” of “the left,” but you never have.

I admire the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan as much as anybody.  But even FDR ran a tighter ship.

No Republican Governor or President in the past 60 years has cut the size, cost, intrusiveness or unconstitutionality of government.  The last USA President to actually sign a reduction of spending and debt was JFK.  Nixon created the EPA, fired up the War on Drugs, pushed socialist wage and price controls, and in general, delivered what Democrats had only promised.

I don’t think Republicans believe what they say they believe now.

I do understand, to a point.  Nobody alive remembers how free markets build schools, roads and hospitals; or how they dole out charity.  Nobody alive can extricate the politics of today from the technology to which we truly owe our present comforts.  We can’t exactly calculate the opportunity costs of government or factually claim how life would be if we hadn’t gone authoritarian.

But are you blind to the failure all around us?

Every day there’s a new “conservative” organization claiming to be the true torch-bearers for the Founding Fathers.  They’re continually crying out for more money, more organization and more fresh blood.  But what, exactly, do they propose doing?

Hmmm?

Yes, they’d like to replace some politicians here and there.  But to what end?  We’ve swapped parties and people many times to ever-worse effect.

The people and parties are not the issue.  Republicans vote against those who promise to cut government down to its constitutional size, and instead vote for candidates who don’t even promise to cut anything.

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul set fundraising records and energized young people like no other Republican.   Republicans had a candidate that, at long, long last, truly and fully represented the “conservative” rhetoric spoken in Kiwanis halls and churches and JBS meetings for the past several decades.  But instead of supporting a champion of Liberty and Justice, the GOP did its worst to hamstring his chances and proved that for all their patriotic talk, they’re more problem than solution.

I’ve experienced this personally.  As GOP candidate for Indiana’s 7^th US CD I’d personally experienced Republican leadership from national level down to individual voters.  I know their sick game.

What do they actually propose to do about our failed authoritarian monetary, political and social policies?  Well, I know they’re upset about some perceived epidemic of gay marriages.  I know that many go apoplectic over Obama’s citizenship.  A few will say some things about foreign invaders pouring across our southern border…but only when it’s clear that they can do nothing about it. 

They complain about anti-Christs and crosses in the desert.  They complain about foreign nations, greenhouse gas and pot smokers.   They still complain about flag burning. 

But what do they really want to do?  Has anything changed since they had all the power in the nation and set us up for disaster?  Has there been some constitutional epiphany that I’ve missed?

I’m asking.

I’m listening…

Here is part two of the Bi-Pixel reviews. If you missed part one, click here.

Before we begin, I have tried my utmost to avoid spoilers. What appear as vague, sporadic statements are actually beautifully surmised acumen to help you, the eager reader. That and poor writing.

“Hello narrative, how are you today?”
“I’m good thanks, how you been keeping?”
“Sorry, I can’t answer that.”
“Okay, how’s plot doing these days? The one I keep hearing about?”
“Sparta!”

This year’s summer blockbuster has been repackaged in the form of a video game. Modern Warfare 2 arrived last week under some heavy scrutiny brought on by its Arnie credentials and children’s attire. So what does one make of this spectacle? Let us begin.

The game is not trying to portray a docudrama so I will forgive the ludicrousness; we are in it for the thrill, not the accuracy. The problem is when it you are able to fully comprehend it, it’s fully preposterous. The characters are just too flat and often indistinguishable. As a narrative, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 does not measure up to the best video games, including its predecessor. That is not to say that the original Modern Warfare was in any way realistic, rather, a plausible logical progression of real world military events that we have seen, read, heard or even actively participated in.

Modern Warfare 2 seems to revel in its multiple protagonists to the point of self-parody – switching between the characters quicker than a Kyle moral stance. Four different characters get at least one full level a piece and for me that became a problem. Due to the small amount of time I had to spend in each character’s shoes, it diminished the impact of the events that take place around each character. When John Smith takes that inevitable bullet, John Smythe steps in to fill those unassuming shoes.

Remember the ‘holy shit’ moments from the original? Well, the good guys at Infinity Ward have taken that set piece and ran with it for 5 or so hours; one jaw dropping moment follows the next. The problem with the Schwarzeneggisms is that they lose their bite after a while, the game tries so hard to flummox the player that at times it feels like you are in an episode of 24 (season six, I would be okay with the Bauer 1.0). For a game that tries to stir such a vitriolic response through these set pieces it me left wondering why the game tries to place the character so specifically within their environment. Why was it that Soap in Durkastan feels more believable than Roach Sanderson in Afghanistan?

That ambiguity of the previous instalment left the player to fill in the blanks. Unfortunately, this time round we haven’t developed the capacity for analogy. The script seems as if it were written by a 9/11 conspirator. The game over screens that recite ambiguous smuggery from Voltaire and Gandhi are now coupled with quotes from progressive forward thinkers like Rumsfeld and Cheney. The morality of conflict underpins the narrative of the franchise, I accept this, but what is more concerning is how Modern Warfare 2 revels in sheer delight at the despicable atrocities on screen. The game’s power lies in its perverse achievement – you actually feel bad for playing it. Take for example that controversial incident. The game slows down to absolute zero, while you walk through taking in the ‘scenery’. Infinity Ward should have put signs up around the terminals at this point.

“Look what you are doing!”
“Yes we designed it, but you are playing it, yes you……David!”

I know i’ve defended the right for this particular scene, having not experienced it within a narrative context. Having now digested the scene within its context, I can safely say that it offered nothing to the flow of the game. It occurs far too early to hold any weight, we don’t know the character at this point and have only just dipped our toes into the plot when the onslaught proceeds. If it had come at a later stage of the game, when some emotional attachment (okay a bit far stretched) had been cemented, I would be the first celebrate. After all, the industry has had its fair share of critics since the first pixels blipped. A scene like this only supplies ample resources to the snobs who sneer, while divulging in subtitled, silent snuff films. I guess my main gripe with the single player campaign is that it feels like it has something to say about our political climate, it tries to shock and heckle, but it essentially hands you firecrackers for 5 hours then highlights what a bastard you are for using them. I must admit though, when done right those bangs are mighty impressive.

Dré

President Obama meets with Japanese Emperor Akihito

While I wasn’t that surprised by conservatives freaking out over Obama’s bow to the Japanese emperor, I have to admit that it was kind of shocking when I saw the poll (from MSNBC, no less) that said 49.3% of the people questioned believed the bow “made him look weak.”  Really? Weak? Where do I even begin…

People are criticizing him for “abandoning presidential dignity” because the emperor didn’t bow first- truthfully, the Emperor probably didn’t bow because because he’s been used to the firm, straight-backed handshakes of Dick Cheney and every American diplomat he’s met for as long back as he can remember. Dick Cheney told POLITICO, “There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don’t expect it, and our enemies see it as a sign of weakness.” While I certainly don’t want to question foreign policy virtuoso Dick Cheney, couldn’t it be possible that we could gain a little respect on the international level by showing some respect to other people’s cultures?Respect leads to respect in return. Bill Clinton caught crap for a less dramatic “bow” back in ‘94. What is it about showing tolerance for other people’s cultures that stirs fire in the hearts of so many American people?

Again, it comes back to our Americanized view of things. Bowing is reserved for just about one person only over here- and that’s Big Guns Upstairs. While bowing is meant to show worship to a god or other deity to us, in Japan and many other Eastern cultures, bowing is like the American handshake. Minus the germs, of course. Obama’s not displaying how weak he is at all. He’s showing Japan and the rest of the world the shift he plans to make in foreign policy- away from blind American dogmatism and towards a respectful, level playing field. It’s really time we showed some respect to the people of this earth who AREN’T from America- because as the global stage continues to grow, we walk a mighty fine line on the edge of being perceived as a bigoted old country stuck in our ways. We have to realize that we are but a part of this rapidly growing  and industrializing world and other people’s cultures deserve just as much respect as ours.

Oh and P.S. if you’re REALLY going to freak out about Obama taking a bow, maybe you should make sure you know ALL the facts first…

I got an e-mail today about the “College Consolidation Task Force.” Apparently, the task force is deciding how to consolidate the six colleges that make up Eastern Washington University into four colleges.

There was already an open forum held on Nov. 17 in Showalter 109 (which I didn’t go to), but there will be another forum held this Thursday, Nov. 19, from 4 – 5 p.m. in room SCLS 122 of the PHASE 1 building at the Riverpoint campus in Spokane. There’s more information about the task force here.

*UPDATE* The Easterner ran a story today that explains a lot more about this, so check it out if you’re interested.

On a completely unrelated note, I was thinking in the shower today (that’s where all my best philosophizing takes place) about “open-mindedness.” It occurred to me that to be truly open-minded, one has to be willing to concede the possibility that everything they believe is completely wrong. Not to believe that everything they believe is wrong, just to concede the possibility, however slight they may believe that possibility to be true. Only by considering the possibility that one’s beliefs are wrong can one hope to ever entertain the possibility of changing their beliefs. And if their mind is truly open, once they’ve changed their mind, they’d have to consider that their new beliefs may be wrong and be open to changing their beliefs back.

I’m all for open-mindedness, but sometimes it seems a little like wishy-washyness. Which isn’t a word.

Yet.