Democrates got it right

Iraq the mess is a mess either way. The Democrates have it exactly right. If by chance or (hard to believe) plan, the emergency supplimental with time table constraints is the right bill at the right time. It answers the question: when to bring the troops home? If we succeed they come home, if the Iraq's can't get it together and there is nothing more we can do, the troops come home. The president says the "surge," is working or needs time to work. "OK. the Dems say, " here is the time we will give you, let's negotiate the exact time frame but, we'll give you that." The president says our committment is not open ended. The Dems agree.

I think the president still after six plus years doesn't realize we are begining to remember what he says and then what he ends up doing are rarley in sinc. Katrina comes to mind. Remember how he was going to make that a major part of things he needed to set right and that after all the initial bungling he was going to make it right. Never happened.

Remember how during his first national campaign he said all we need to do is enforce existing immigration laws. He didn't and doesn't and won't.

How about being a uniter and not a devider. Enough said about that.

He still allows the vice-president go out in public and say Al Qaeda and Saddam were connected and that Saddam was involed in international terrorism. The president allows this even when he has come out and stated that Saddam and Al Qaeda were not connected. How does this work? Cheney says one thing, W says the opposite and nothing comes of it?

So if the president comes out and says things are going swimmingly in Iraq or he says things are not going as well as we might have hoped. Its time to start planning to get out.

"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Imus and the outrage

Imus said some nasty things a week ago and the entire planet and half the galaxy was all over him like white on rice. What part of, "shock jock" don't these people understand? Isn't this exactly what we require from the gad flies of our world? They say outrageous and sometimes offensive things and then we weigh in and accept it or reject it. Isn't that exactly what Imus did? He acts exactly as he always had but now it is he as well as what he said that is condemned. There is no rule that it's OK for someone to do or say something depending on what culture, race, religion or ethnicity they are. Now we seem to be revising that belief with, if a white man says it and you are offended then it must be a bad thing. That's not a bad rule. I'm certain others could think of many more such rules to substitute or include.

The thing that hit home for me was how Imus' words had such an impact on the media consciousness that it had an impact on the Rutgers Woman's Basketball Team. What drove it home for me was how much not like the words Imus used these girls were. It was a wow moment. These girls were all American classy, articulate, mature, focused, disciplined role models for everything that breathes. Intension or not, isn't that called irony? A test might be, if you were any of these children's parent, could you be any prouder of them, their accomplishments and their reaction to this Imus thing?

Now we should think what made us so hot about this. In the beginning few of us knew anything about the Rutgers Woman's Basketball Team or the young woman that populated it and yet it was very disturbing. If we could stop right there and work on why we had those feelings and why those Imus words were from now on unacceptable. I think that would be a far better way of working this to make us all better people and citizens.

I only wished we could separate these two real things and address them directly. The Imus persona is a grumpy old nasty rat bastard with a heart of gold. What about writers who say offensive things in their fiction. Is this going to be out of bounds? Are we so sensitive that life becomes less free and not more open and accepting? Does maturity dictate that we think carefully about context and those times when things are, "no matter what." I fear that attention span has constricted to such a point that we can only think of things superficially and need to find the next thing. Nothing gets resolved, our focus turns elsewhere. Hey its a new week coming up lets go look for another young, blond, missing white girl...What do you say?

The Influence of Cheney

I think I should spend some time typing and thinking about how destructive and coercive Vice President Dick Cheney has been during his time in this office. His influence and advice and power have had a remarkably destructive and damaging impact that few have had, in my memory or reading.

Please take note and when this happens please be aware of it: Dick Cheney dismisses, pooh poohs or otherwise denigrates either an idea or a person for any reason whatsoever. Never have I viewed an individual who is more out of tune with the people of his country or more importantly involved in promoting the success of a relatively few powerful rich individuals and interest.

Keith Oberman has a show on MSNBC in which there is a segment called, "Worst Person In The World." Each day a new group is chosen for this distinction. I propose only one person should head this list until the end of his term and perhaps due to the residual effects of his power, well into the future.

If there is a time which we may look back and say, "this was the beginning of the decline and fall of the United States," 2001, may just be that time and if an individual can be associated with that point in time, I suggest it is Dick Cheney. I propose there is no individual who has had a more degrading influence on our future, our health, our welfare, our wealth and our standing in the world, than Dick Cheney. I can think of no positive outcome where his influence has been exercised. I can think of no good that has come of anything he has had a hand in.

As Cheney is fond of saying, "the fact of the matter is...." Dick Cheney is not always wrong, he is destructively wrong. In the coming Blogs I will concentrate on several areas which concern me most: Executive power, energy policy, the wars, pollution and the environment.

"><$BlogItemTitle$>

Surges and TIme Tables Hmm Hmm Good

Between Machiavelli and Orwell, I don't know who Rove favors more. He is like the evil spawn of these 2 philosophers. It is OK to have a surge...a temporary increase with an end date. It is unthinkable to have an end date......time table for troop withdrawal.

The evil doers will only wait us out if we have a deadline time line for leaving this country and war. The evil doers have melted into the fabric of society while we conduct the surge, giving the city time to gather itself and make some gains. Is there anyone other than this double speak administration that can discern a difference in these two approaches?
Violence is down in areas where we have surged.............a good thing. Violence will be reduced if we announce a time line for leaving this hell hole we have created, while they wait for us to leave........ a bad thing.
A surge: a temporary increase. To what end will it ultimately do any good except give a temporary respite to the violence. This of course is in and of itself is not a bad thing. Especially if you are the ones being slaughtered. Tal Afar a shining example of surge strategy. Ooops until the recent killing and massacre. They say: Things could only get worse if we left..........oh really? And this isn't already not so good?

"><$BlogItemTitle$>