May 18, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
RogerHWerner
I was born in Manhattan and lived in the metropolitan area until I was 17. I moved away from home to go to college in New Hampshire. I then lived in New Jersey and New York, and, worked in the NYC, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. areas at various interesting but ultimately unsatisfying jobs before migrating to California in late 1974. I attended graduate school in California and have been an archaeologist and historian for the the past 31 years.
I married in 1982 and have four children (and three grandchildren), and, began independent consulting work in 1979 specializing in development permitting and environmental impact analysis.
I've been a political junkie since the 1968 election. Politically, I lean to the left. I am not a "liberal" but more of a social democrat. Capitalism has treated me well but I nevertheless reject unregulated capitalism for a system that permits and encourages individual initiative while placing significant constraints on personal greed and avarice. I do not believe Americans are overtaxed but would argue that the great majority of tax payers do not receive sufficient direct benefits from the taxes we pay. Corporations are under taxed and so are the truly wealthy, and, these people receive an inordinate amount of benefit from the present economic regime. In my view, this regime is unsustainable in the long term because it is based on perpetual growth. In the not to distant future, there will come a day when growth will be impractical if not impossible. I suspect that day is not far off. Rather than wait, governments should attempt to figure out an economic system that encourages equilibrium and that thrives on a fair allocation of resources and wealth. Considering the degree of acrimony in the world today, it may ultimately prove impossible to implement such a system without a significant disruption of the present messy political and economic situation, and, without a dramatic decrease in the world's population.
I married in 1982 and have four children (and three grandchildren), and, began independent consulting work in 1979 specializing in development permitting and environmental impact analysis.
I've been a political junkie since the 1968 election. Politically, I lean to the left. I am not a "liberal" but more of a social democrat. Capitalism has treated me well but I nevertheless reject unregulated capitalism for a system that permits and encourages individual initiative while placing significant constraints on personal greed and avarice. I do not believe Americans are overtaxed but would argue that the great majority of tax payers do not receive sufficient direct benefits from the taxes we pay. Corporations are under taxed and so are the truly wealthy, and, these people receive an inordinate amount of benefit from the present economic regime. In my view, this regime is unsustainable in the long term because it is based on perpetual growth. In the not to distant future, there will come a day when growth will be impractical if not impossible. I suspect that day is not far off. Rather than wait, governments should attempt to figure out an economic system that encourages equilibrium and that thrives on a fair allocation of resources and wealth. Considering the degree of acrimony in the world today, it may ultimately prove impossible to implement such a system without a significant disruption of the present messy political and economic situation, and, without a dramatic decrease in the world's population.
Recent comments by this user
Worst. Debate. Ever.
The 100 Years Defense Makes No Sense
These questions could be asked about Clinton. Her web site indicates she'd withdraw troops within 60 days of her presidency and offers ideas nonmilitary solutions but what she doesn't state is obvious: What happens if the UN doesn't get involved and nonmilitary solutions bring no respite to violence? Her public statements mirror Obama's. She's not leaving Iraq and letting it devolve into Afghanistan. She won't turn over $100B of military bases to a government allied with Iran or leave our embassy exposed.
No candidate can walk away from 25% of the world's oil. How many Amedricans are willing to ride bicycles or experience rationed heating oil? If faced with dire circumstance, people will demand government "provide a solutions," which may involve our becoming extremely violent. Our leadership began moving us away from petrol in the1970s but the electorate didn't like it and elected Reagan who ignored oil dependence. Those born after 1980 represent the children of parents who voted for Reagan twice; they might ask how they could be so collectively blind. The world, not only America, is screwed. We are rapidly approaching the point where humanity will have to give up its consumptive based lifestyle. I wish this wasn't the case. Leave Iraq? I doubt we''ll be able to pull out. We might see changes including major redeployment but our collective leadership boxed us into a corner. The imbecilic Bush chose Iraq to redeploy US troops based in Arabia when he should have occupied Kuwait. posted 04/17/2008 at 00:32:35
No candidate can walk away from 25% of the world's oil. How many Amedricans are willing to ride bicycles or experience rationed heating oil? If faced with dire circumstance, people will demand government "provide a solutions," which may involve our becoming extremely violent. Our leadership began moving us away from petrol in the1970s but the electorate didn't like it and elected Reagan who ignored oil dependence. Those born after 1980 represent the children of parents who voted for Reagan twice; they might ask how they could be so collectively blind. The world, not only America, is screwed. We are rapidly approaching the point where humanity will have to give up its consumptive based lifestyle. I wish this wasn't the case. Leave Iraq? I doubt we''ll be able to pull out. We might see changes including major redeployment but our collective leadership boxed us into a corner. The imbecilic Bush chose Iraq to redeploy US troops based in Arabia when he should have occupied Kuwait. posted 04/17/2008 at 00:32:35
Iraq Army Unit Flees Post Despite US Soldiers' Pleas
And isn't the good general blaming the Iranians for turning the light off? posted 04/16/2008 at 20:22:05
All things considered, and as long I was searching out Neocon traitors our government was unwilling to prosecute and not just average citizens, yes I might join. posted 04/16/2008 at 20:20:11
Joe Biden Says He Doesn't Want VP, Secretary Of State Slot
It would be nice if some people bothered to consider what Biden actually said... he told both candidates he isn't interested in either VP or Secretary of State. He didn't say he wouldn't accept one of these jobs if it were offered. Further, what he has said today is not necessary how he might feel next November. A concerns for any Senator, especially one with Biden's seniority, is who replaces him. Would it be a Democrat or a Republican? And how would the loss of seniority affect his Delaware constituents. There's a lot at stake for someone like Biden regardless of what he does and being elected president is a damn sight different than being VP or a cabinet member. Biden would indeed make a great Secretary of State or VP. I suspect the Democratic VP will be Wesley Clark; at least that's the conventional wisdom. Don't count Biden out as Secretary of State. posted 04/15/2008 at 22:51:00
Obama: Hillary, McCain Using "Very Same Words" Against Me
You really have a point. When politicians talk about non-issues I start looking behind me because I know we're about to get screwed. And when politicians talk about their opponents as if anything they say in that regard might have any validity, I get doubly suspicious. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:34:24
I've always viewed Obama as a middle of the road DLC type Democrat who talked about change but who would do little to bring it about. Considering the way Clinton has tried to make McCain look good at Obama's expense, I'm starting to wonder if perhaps both McCain and Clinton, and, the entrenched status quo that supports them, might be scared to death of Obama because he might not just be talking about affecting change. It's hard to say at this point since nothing any candidate says during a campaign has meaning. Look at Bush, the so called compassionate conservative, non-nation building, reach across the aisle, different kind of conservative Republican...he's done a 180 on virtually everything that got him into the Oval Office in 2000. However Bush has followed a consistent pedigree in that just about every president has more or less done the same thing. posted 04/15/2008 at 21:31:53
Clinton Forced To Cut Speech Short Because Of Chatty Crowd
Perhaps just once a crowd clearly understood that the politician giving their speech wasn't actually talking to them but to the national media whose existence seems to hinge on every word. Stump speeches are patently stupid and for once politicians should try to actually direct their conservation to the audience. One way to ensure this happens would be to bar media from all speeches. Politicians should direct a separate dialog to the media. posted 04/15/2008 at 22:32:40
US Economy Changes Spending Patterns For Majority, But Not For The Super Rich
The way the rich spend their money makes the perfect poster for why this country and the world absolutely needs some form of income redistribution through graduated taxation. I've got no problem with someone making a decent profit and I certainly don't have a problem with someone being compensated even lucratively for a good idea or outstanding talent. That said however, there is a limit to how much people should be able to keep because there really is only so much of the cash pie to go around. When people are starving, living in the streets, losing their homes, and when these events occur for reasons that are beyond their control, the amounts made by some folks are obscene. The most difficult issues are how much should one be able to keep and where redistributed dollars should be spent. The government has seen fit to spend enormous amounts of money, often on military and so called national security issues-focused corporations in the expectation that somehow money would trickle back into the hands of those at the bottom. Only problem is that not enough has trickled down. Whatever, someone a lot wiser than I once said we can have a democracy in America or we can have a huge gap between the rich and the middle class but we can't have both. This statement is as true today as when it was said almost 100 years ago. posted 04/14/2008 at 14:36:48
Obama's Not Running For Sociologist-In-Chief
I suggest you read Obama's complete statement rather than extract a snippet out of context and complain about it. I read the full quote and no where does Obama blame the victim. In fact, he said America hasn't done enough to help the economically disadvantaged but he also made it clear that politicians have done everything possible to distract the displaced workers using guns, religion, and immigration. And guess what? A much younger Bill Clinton said virtually the exact same thing in 1991. So tell me please what's changed in 17 years? Simply stated, things have grown much worse and as long as people permit themselves to be distracted by single issues unrelated to economics nothing will change. This by the way was Obama's message and I can hardly imagine a more accurate way of stating the present American economic situation. Again, let me just say, I voted for Hillary Clinton in the California primary so I am not a died in the wool Obama supporter. posted 04/14/2008 at 00:23:28
Buchanan On McLaughlin: Fifty-Fifty Chance We Bomb Iran By Fall
If Bush attacks Iran I question whether it would indeed lead to a November GOP victory. It would lead to an immediate spike in the cost of a barrel of oil (anyone for $200/barrel oil?) and a concomitant increase in the cost of gas. Can anyone honestly suggest this would help McCain or the GOP? My guess is that an attack on Iran would also lead to immediate impeachment hearings since Bush has been warned publicly and privately not to conduct an attack without explicit approval of Congress. While Buchanan's antiwar.com article is interesting and contains much that is true, nothing Congress has done thus far represents a blank check for war with Iran. War with Iran might however, lead to a declaration of national emergency and a suspension of elections and all that would accompany such an action. Personally, I fear this morethan a possible GOP November win. posted 04/14/2008 at 00:11:16
What Will a Hillary Clinton Presidency Look Like?
Oh dear...how I wish you were correct about the American people wanting revolutionary change. I wish I knew what gave you the confidence to believe this. My sense is that Americans want no part of anything revolutionary at least not yet. Perhaps when gas exceeds $5/gal and what remains of the middle class has to choose whether to buy gas for the work commute, buy food, or pay the mortgage and when those on SSI don't get their monthly checks...until the situation becomes this dire, I don't get the sense that revolutionary change is in the air. I happen to agree with virtually everything you say but frankly what happens overseas matters far less than what happens in the typical American neighborhood. About the only revolutionary change I portend is fascist in nature. If this country is attacked again or if Congress gets in the way of a Bush/Cheney orchestrated attack on Iran, I can see a suspension of civil rights and elections (such as they may be). However, i sense this is not the kind of revolution you have in mind. posted 04/14/2008 at 01:17:33
He didn't mention it because it isn't relevant to he focus of his blog. He's talking about Hillary Clinton someone with which he is rather familiar. You know, it makes no sense saying that what the Clinton's do is fine because Obama does it. What Obama or McCain does is relatively transparent for everyone and the same may be said for the Clinton's. Obviously, all politicians disassemble and obfuscate when it suits their need but that doesn't make it right. My point is support Clinton for what she stands for not because of what Obama has done, may do, or may not do in the future. If you don't feel comfortable with Clinton's program don't attempt to justify your feelings by whining about Obama. BTW: If Obama gets to spend 8 years in the White House, he'll have a Hell of a time matching the Clinton circus and yes it was precisely that. I hated what the GOP did to them but many of their travails were of their own making. posted 04/14/2008 at 01:08:32
Bill Clinton Flashback: "All These Economically Insecure White People...Are Scared To Death"
Print out Obama's comments and Clinton's from 1991. Eight years from know, after Obama terms out, let's revisit the economic justice issue and see if any headway has been made. My gut is that nothing will change: It hasn't since 1991 so I can't imagine what it will take to affect serious change. Why? The kind of change needed to reverse 28 years of free market voodoo economics ala Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago School of Economics would require a world wide rejection of such policies and that isn't likely. The majority of the world's people however, must be made to understand that political promises associated with free markets are unrealistic. Capitalism today benefits less than 10% of the world's people and it has been sold with the belief that "someday" everyone shall benefit. The people in Midwest continue to wait for a free market miracle that will never come and they have a lot of company. Keynesian economics wasn't perfect but compared to Friedman's ideas it provided for a semblance of economic justice. It might take eight years to kill the system we have today but I doubt Obama (or Clinton) has any intention of doing that. These candidates intend to operate within the existing regime; neither is talking about a return to the ideas of Keynes, at least not as far as I can tell. Bill Clinton is sold on Friedman's economic ideas and these ideas permeate mainstream Democratic thinking. I truly hope I'm wrong.... posted 04/13/2008 at 21:50:41
Who's Really Out of Touch Here?
Your dreaming.... posted 04/13/2008 at 01:04:49
Elitist My Ass
The elites of this country, the icons of industry and their bought dogs in government, killed labor in the 1940s when they made it more difficult for unions to organize; it took 30 years for someone to drive home the stake. Without unions, blue collar life is all but finished. Corporations would just as soon work their employees to death rather than pay them a living wage with decent benefits and when these corporations were compelled to treat their workforce fairly, they concocted a system that encouraged moving entire industries overseas...we no longer have steel or textile industries but of course that was because they "couldn't compete"--against competition that received massive government subsidies. So rather than develop a sensible policy that offered our industries the same benefits offered by foreign governments, our government let them die and then crowed about how this was good for the world economy. I suspect those people who have lost not just their jobs but their industry understand what has occurred and it's time they started voting in their economic interests rather than permit themselves to be further marginalized by wedge politics. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:59:30
It Takes Real Chutzpah for a Guy Who Owns Eight Houses (McCain) to Call Barack Obama an "Elitist"
Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite, a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes, are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of the elite.
I fail to see elitism in anything Obama said regards rural people. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:21:00
I fail to see elitism in anything Obama said regards rural people. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:21:00
Here We Go Again
When was the Democratic Party ever inclusive? Historically, Democrats look inclusive because the opposition is so closed-minded. Liberals are human beings and just like conservatives we have our strong bias' and the question in 2008 isn't one of inclusivity. I'd love to see the GOP and their conservative ideology confined to the ashheap of history but I'd also be willing to accept compromise so long it didn't involve selling out core liberal/progressive values. I strongly urge you to examine the statements of GOP leadership: They espoused a take no prisoners, burn the opposition, approach to government; this wasn't started by liberals. Today we have a polarized electorate but from what I've read the only candidate who cares about seriously working with the opposition is Obama. McCain for all his reputation as a maverick is a tried and true conservative 95% of the time. Clinton votes with conservatives on most economic and military agenda items with Obama slightly to the left. As a progressive, what frustrates me is that we have no progressive candidate in this election; I see candidates that talk change but their statements closely generally support the status quo. I'd love to see radical change but I don't expect it. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:15:25
Eight years ago if you asked me how I felt about gun ownership my attitude would have been one of ambivalence. I own rifles, shotguns, and a pistol but I work outdoors far from people and I typically carry a weapon to deal with critters (rattlesnakes, mountain lions, come to mind). I bought a shotgun for home defense. I never saw gun ownership as a Second Amendment issue since I don't believe this amendment has anything to with private gun ownership. Since 2000, I have come to believe that an armed citizenry is perhaps the only thing preventing an out of control government from establishing a full blown fascist dictatorship. Perhaps this threat is more imaginary than real but I no longer view the fears of rural folk as crazy. In fact, over the past eight years, I have stocked up in ammunition and acquired a few new weapons because I have no intention of walking into a concentration camp without a fight. KBR isn't building detention camps for fun and I believe that our government is quite capable of arresting and detaining anyone it feels is a threat to its authority. posted 04/12/2008 at 23:59:35
From the tone of you post, I suspect you don't intend to vote since McCain and Clinton both adhere to the notions set forth by Reagan. In fact, if you would care to examine the record what you will find is that Bill Clinton legitimized Reagan's (and Milton Friedman's) nonsensicial free market ideas. So, by all means don't vote for Obama but if you think you will get a chance to cast a serious vote for any politician at the national level that doesn't support the present politico-economic regime you are honestly kidding yourself.
BTW: I voted for Hillary Clinton in the California primary but that doesn't mean I support many of her policies. In a stand off between Clinton and McCain, I'd be happy to hold my nose (once again) and vote for Clinton. Obama's policies are hardly any different from Clinton's but electing a black person to the presidency might go a long way to addressing the stain of institutional racism that plagues this country. Being black, I'm surprised you can't understand this. posted 04/12/2008 at 23:48:43
BTW: I voted for Hillary Clinton in the California primary but that doesn't mean I support many of her policies. In a stand off between Clinton and McCain, I'd be happy to hold my nose (once again) and vote for Clinton. Obama's policies are hardly any different from Clinton's but electing a black person to the presidency might go a long way to addressing the stain of institutional racism that plagues this country. Being black, I'm surprised you can't understand this. posted 04/12/2008 at 23:48:43
Yes, Obama is guilty of stereotyping but then he's hardly the only politicians guilty of this rather common behavior. My sense is that this is much ado about nothing and if McCain and Clinton didn't use this comment to pander than it wouldn't be news worthy. posted 04/12/2008 at 23:40:53
I guess you have a hard time accepting that we live in a society where institutional racism is so ingrained that most people can't see it and most politicians pander to these attitudes. Wright's choice of words was unfortunate but frankly he that stated the truth about racism and if you can't accept it you have sympathy. If institutional racism was the problem facing American society that our purported political leaders pandered too I might feel optimistic about the future. I have no optimism however because racism is the tip of a very large iceberg that promises to wreck American society. Smiley points to religious fundamentalism, gun craziness, and a raft of other important issues: To her list, I'd add an out of control national security-military industrial complex. My instincts tell me that these other issues will sink American society long before we accept racism as an important social issue and deal with it properly. posted 04/12/2008 at 23:38:28
Punished for the Truth
This blog sums up my sentiments perfectly. I confess having made out well over the past 30 years but I'm sufficiently observant to understand that any many people haven't done as well. All one need do is examine the economic statistics of the middle class to understand this. The economic policies of our government(s) represent a de facto attack on the majority of Americans and for 30 years we've sat on our collective butts and let one administration after another come forward with platitudes about resilience, patriotism, and the happy days that lie ahead. The fact is, the gap between rich and poor in America hasn't been as wide since the 1890s and it's growing not shrinking. Anyone who believes the icons and leaders of free market capitalism have anything good in mid for the majority of us is deluding themselves. Obama stated the facts: Our government and society has done virtually nothing for those working in industries that have moved overseas; the government has done much to encourage industry to act in a way that negatively affects American workers in the name of profits. Resilience and patriotism won't bring back jobs to Michigan or Pittsburgh, and education retraining isn't the solution since virtually every job can be out sourced of moved off shore (low paying service jobs being an exception). What we need is government that places the needs of citizens ahead of corporations but I don't expect to see that anytime soon. posted 04/13/2008 at 00:49:14
Administration Set To Use New Spy Program In U.S.
DHS is about as capability of monitoring civil liberties as the Gestapo was willing and able to guarantee the rights of German citizens in the 1930s. Congress should not simply demand proof that this surveillance program will not affect the privacy of American citizens but they should deny funding for the program in toto. Satellite collect data indiscriminately, which means it will be up to the people examining these data to destroy it if data doesn't address national security issues. Since no one has ever defined what national security actually means--it's something of a moving target--virtually any data collected can and will be stored, and, eventually used to negatively impact American civil liberties. I confess, having absolutely no faith in the Bush administration to behave in a manner consistent with the Constitution. posted 04/12/2008 at 16:22:55
Pardon Me
I spent summers 1969 to 1973 at Atlantic City, North WIldwood, and WIldwood, New Jersey. I was 18 in summer '69. I had spent a year away at college and wasn't about to spend the summer in the confines of my former home so I took to the beach and had the time of my life. I'm happy I never witnessed or heard about violence against females during that period but I'm realistic enough to understand that such things probably occurred often enough. The thought of forcing myself on a girl was so alien to my thinking I received quite a lot of teasing from the guys because I always accepted a no however slight as no (as opposed to "no really meaning yes"). Perhaps I disappointed a few girls but better that then the alternative. I am very sorry for your experience but I would point out that such a thing could just as easily have happened had you elected to stay home. Rapes, muggings, and murders can occur anywhere so I can't recommend that a young man or women remain at home out of fear for personal safety: We can lock ourselves in our homes and die when a plane cashes into our livingroom. I've taken risks all my adult life, hurt myself seriously many times, but don't regret ever taking risk. The idea of hiding from risk prevents many people from living lives to the fullest. Good luck with your book! posted 04/13/2008 at 00:35:24
McCain Said It, Before He Attacked It
It's possible to imply the same thing using different words. We may speak euphemistically and sugarcoat statements such as 'Why do I have to punch 1 for English?." Indeed, it's become larger than border enforcement because such comments bepeak an American nativism that is unpleasant to remember. 150 years ago, Americans spoke the same way about Italians, Irish, and others who had the temerity not to look northern European or speak English, and, who dared seek a better life in America. Obama stated this nation muct face its racist past/present and overcome it but we won't do that by making excuses for racist sentiments. Making excuses for Iowans and South Carolinians because they aren't used to seeing Hispanics blames racism on ignorance: racism is partly based on ignorance but it has deeper roots. Comparable sentiments to the one so indicated are expressed by whites in California/Southwest: How often have I heard the statement "they" are taking over." People need to be told by our political leadership that irrational fear of people who don't look/sound "American" is racist. Rather than pander to these fears, US leadership should reassure people "they" aren't taking over. Hispanics in the US legally have just as much right to live here as anyone American-born. As for why people have to press 1 for English, Hispanic dollars are just as desirable white dollars. It surprises me that anyone would wish to look foolish enough to ask such a simple question publicly. posted 04/11/2008 at 23:13:37
"Shocking" GE Results Prove Depth Of Financial Crisis
What I find astonishing about this piece is the somewhat understated mystery that Wall Street types, Fortune 500 CEOs (and of course much of our political leadership) express about US consumer confidence. Guess what folks: American consumers understood that the shit had hit the fan economically before the end of last year and most have been feeling financial stress for more than a year. That this is finally filtering do to the very people who are responsible for this lack of confidence is rather comical and if it weren't so serious I might even laugh about it. posted 04/11/2008 at 21:19:46
Why American Airlines' Big Public Sad Meltdown is Good
Ridley's right! Who the needs an American airline industry...we can let the Europeans and Asians carry the heavy lifting for us! Right...and they will most certainly pump our money back into our economy (who cares if this money comes in the form of loans). Along with our textile, auto, steel, and whatever industry...who needs them! All that matters to folks such as Ridley are the blessed free markets. Nope, this recent industry melt down is exactly what America needs at this time...and American passengers are sooo fortunate that the FAA decided to do their job after 8 years of sitting around doing not much of anything. Yep, Americans ought to be thankful that Reagan began the dwath of the airline industry in the US 27 years ago....Congress should name a few more airports after the man. posted 04/12/2008 at 01:08:24
Why Is AA's MD-80 Still In Use?
Honestly, as awful as the MD 80 may be I see little improvement with the 737. If one is flying for an hour or two, these planes are fine but on a haul of several hours, I would just as soon not fly than fly either of these jets. But then I felt the same way about the DC 10 (I refused to get on one and changed flights to avoid it). I really loved the L1011 Tristar; that was a wonderful jet for midrange flights. posted 04/11/2008 at 21:59:48
Richardson: Almost Backed Clinton, But Campaign "Really Ticked Me Off"
A traitor? i suggest you look up the meaning of the word before bandying it about like a ideological automaton. Richardson may have owed Bill Clinton a debt but no reasonable person accepts a favor in lieu of lifetime of fealty...that notion went out of fashion with feudalism quite a long time ago. Further, Richardson owed Bill Clinton a debt and one might reasonably ask whether such debts transfer to his wife. I agree with Richardson: They do not. Such might be the case in a system of government based on fealty but last time I looked at the Constitution, we don't have that in the US or at least we aren't suppose to. posted 04/12/2008 at 01:18:31
Soros: Credit Crunch Is "Biggest Financial Crisis Of My Lifetime"
You offer an interesting take on the differences between Neoliberal and Neoconservative ideologies: At the heart of both is a belief that America has a right to foreign intervention to establish "democratic states" and how that concept is described remains the same (a democratic government is one that supports US economic policies at the expense of their own people while an elected government opposed to American policies is "leftist" and antidemocratic). Unilateral US intervention did not begin with Iraq; it's merely the first time we conducted an armed intervention outside of the Western Hemisphere since the Philippines Campaign of the 1910s. Yes, Americans got screwed by Clinton and GWBush with the difference being that Bush gave us a collective middle finger salute while doing the screwing. posted 04/11/2008 at 21:47:02
One could only wish that the rest of Soros' economic class behaved as he does. Unfortunately, the ultrarich behave in a predictably greedy and self centered fashion. Soros isn't perfect but he's a damn sight more responsible with his wealth than anyone of Bush/Cheney's wealthy pals. posted 04/11/2008 at 21:35:30
Obama: No Surprise That Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians Turn Bitter
This is a thoughtful post!
PA is a lovely state with lovely people. I spent four years with friends from Reading, Wilkes-Barre, Johnstown, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh. Forty years later, I remain in contact with many and one is the closest I'll ever have to a brother. PA guys I knew were patriotic: Most were anti-Vietnam war but none considered leaving for Canada or Sweden and those drafted served in spite of personal sentiment. Perhaps some would call these guys something other then patriotic but I knew them well and none were oblivious to the horrors of Vietnam; they had a distinctive sense of national duty.
I've lived in California for 35 years and disagree that "Californians" suffer from a sense of smug superiority. My guess is that Fowler might know a handful of Californians, and, I'd further guess, they are southerners. There are ~33 million Californians and the ~60% living south of Bakersfield might as well live in another state for all they have in common with northerners; those who live in the San Joaquin Valley barely resemble people living in the Bay Area. Therefore, attempting to judge "Californians" by the group demonstrates ignorance. Let me add that anyone spending time in counties north of SF Bay (Napa and Sonoma particularly) has reason to feel a tad smug about their region since I doubt there are many places on the planet offering a lifestyle with a comparable quality of life and environment (no, I don't live in this area). posted 04/11/2008 at 21:14:05
PA is a lovely state with lovely people. I spent four years with friends from Reading, Wilkes-Barre, Johnstown, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh. Forty years later, I remain in contact with many and one is the closest I'll ever have to a brother. PA guys I knew were patriotic: Most were anti-Vietnam war but none considered leaving for Canada or Sweden and those drafted served in spite of personal sentiment. Perhaps some would call these guys something other then patriotic but I knew them well and none were oblivious to the horrors of Vietnam; they had a distinctive sense of national duty.
I've lived in California for 35 years and disagree that "Californians" suffer from a sense of smug superiority. My guess is that Fowler might know a handful of Californians, and, I'd further guess, they are southerners. There are ~33 million Californians and the ~60% living south of Bakersfield might as well live in another state for all they have in common with northerners; those who live in the San Joaquin Valley barely resemble people living in the Bay Area. Therefore, attempting to judge "Californians" by the group demonstrates ignorance. Let me add that anyone spending time in counties north of SF Bay (Napa and Sonoma particularly) has reason to feel a tad smug about their region since I doubt there are many places on the planet offering a lifestyle with a comparable quality of life and environment (no, I don't live in this area). posted 04/11/2008 at 21:14:05
Olympics In "Crisis," Says Olympics Committee President
The IOC is yet another example of clueless world leadership. Did they think people would simply forget China's suppression of Tibet religious freedoms let alone their autonomy? Then there are the issues of China's continued support of Sudan and long standing problems with Muslims in West China. Let's not forget the issue of deportation of poor citizens out of Peking so the games would present the "new" China. Hell, China's leadership showed their true colors in Tiananmen Square 19 years ago and little has changed since. If these facts are plain for me to see whyy did the IOC elect to ignore them? The point is the IOC didn't give a care. All that matters to them and their suppoters is money and image. So the IOC gets a besmirched imaged and that they lose their shorts financially. They were damn fools for granting China an Olympics and NBC was foolish to bid on these games. As far as I can tell, the Chinese are even more self serving and greedy than the US government if that's possible. It's high time the IOC recognized that the Olympics are political and nothing they can do will change that. I have every intention of ignoring the Olympics. posted 04/10/2008 at 21:52:40
Obama Triangulates and Won't Go Where Other Great Americans Will on Hamas
I guess Clemons hasn't read Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel Lobby." before wondering why Obama, Clinton, McCain, and, virtually every US Congress and administration since 1968 regardless of party affiliation has uniformly supported Israel even when it is contrary to US interests. I won;t bother to explain the details since Mearsheimer and Walt do a rather thorough of of it. And least anyone thing these authors are are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, I suggest checking out the H-Diplo reviews of the text at http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/#8.18. This book presents more than a fair assessment of the US-Israeli diplomatic situation and anyone, including Clemons, who thinks Obama could publicly be critical of Israel and win re-election to his Senatorial seat had better guess again. posted 04/11/2008 at 00:01:06
Research "fallacy of presumption" otherwise known as circular argument. Your comment is circular because, Hamas doesn't represent a sovereign state and sovereignty can only occur through recognition by other sovereign states, which can't occur because sovereign states won't recognize Hamas as "legitimate;" nevermind they were fairly and duly elected by the majority of Palestinians. So when does Hamas gain legitimacy? When Hell freezes over?
Tthe modern notion of sovereignty has nothing to so with what other nations think. Modern political theory defines national sovereignty simply as "ultimate political power in a state." Debates regarding sovereignty focus on the role of the sovereign and on the nature of supreme power; that is, by what rights, and by whom, is state power wielded. More narrowly focused, a sovereign state is independent of control by other states. The modern theory of sovereignty was developed by Bodin and Hobbes (1756) and is based on their study of monarchical sovereignty; their thoughts have been applied to the modern state. We might argue that Palestine cannot be sovereign because Israel exercises significant control. In reality however, nations have been negotiating with the Palestinian Authority for 20 years: Hamas is their legitimate elected successor so there is no reason not to continue negotiation beyond that fact that the West doesn't like the organization. Since might makes right, this is the justification for marginalizing Hamas. Please don't try to defend marginalization with the excuse that Hamas is illegitimate because it isn't recognized by other nation states. posted 04/10/2008 at 23:52:55
Tthe modern notion of sovereignty has nothing to so with what other nations think. Modern political theory defines national sovereignty simply as "ultimate political power in a state." Debates regarding sovereignty focus on the role of the sovereign and on the nature of supreme power; that is, by what rights, and by whom, is state power wielded. More narrowly focused, a sovereign state is independent of control by other states. The modern theory of sovereignty was developed by Bodin and Hobbes (1756) and is based on their study of monarchical sovereignty; their thoughts have been applied to the modern state. We might argue that Palestine cannot be sovereign because Israel exercises significant control. In reality however, nations have been negotiating with the Palestinian Authority for 20 years: Hamas is their legitimate elected successor so there is no reason not to continue negotiation beyond that fact that the West doesn't like the organization. Since might makes right, this is the justification for marginalizing Hamas. Please don't try to defend marginalization with the excuse that Hamas is illegitimate because it isn't recognized by other nation states. posted 04/10/2008 at 23:52:55
Katie Couric: The Anachronistic Anchor
Couric's mistake was believing that she is a journalist and I don't mean that as negatively as it sounds. Look...CBS news: Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Dan Rather...like or hate them but these guys were honest to God journalists. Add Couric's name to this list and does anyone see an incongruity? Couric is a television personality who cut her teeth doing interviews concerning human interest stories. There's a place for such people but to sell them as journalists does a disservice to journalism. posted 04/11/2008 at 00:13:14
Yes she did and guess what? You would have done the same thing and so would have I. And so would virtually everyone else. posted 04/11/2008 at 00:07:28
Jimmy Carter's Planned Hamas Meeting Criticized By Bush Administration
Carter was into the best president but guess what? he's done more the human condition since leaving the presidency than anyone who has occupied the White House since Eleanor Roosevelt. If the rest of our ex-prez types gave a shit about their country they might spend more time trying to accomplish something positive for the human condition rather than living in wealthy retirement or using their influence to line their pockets. posted 04/11/2008 at 00:24:06
He's got a better chance than any active US politician. posted 04/11/2008 at 00:18:40
Oh dear...what Carter is doesn't have a great deal to do with courage. Carter could or would not do what he's doing today when he was an active politician otherwise he'd have been retired to his peanut farm before he got to the White House. Carter can and should do what he does because he has nothing politically to lose. If more politicians thought like this, we might actually have representative government. posted 04/11/2008 at 00:17:25
McCain Does The View, Faces Behar Railing Against Bush
The unstated description of what McCain euphemistically calls "inducements" is that they are little better than bribes to children of lower income families who can't provide for their families educational needs. Forgive my cynicism and tone but I believe such a system is despicable in the extreme as it ends up passing the lion's share of the defense burden on to the economically unfortunate. Why should these people bear this burden when the rich reap most of the benefit? This situation characterizes the US military today and it's unacceptable. We either decrease our military commitments or determine that all existing commitments are essential and then figure out a way to share the burden across the social and economic spectrum of American society. If the present military situation is the best US leadership can provide then we don't deserve to survive as a society and nation. The burden of national security must be a shared one and if that much isn't obvious to US leadership then we don't have leadership at all. posted 04/10/2008 at 14:59:43
American Cancels 570 Flights Friday
Well...where to begin. I'll keep it simple. Rarely does meeting the needs of stockholders correspond with meetings the needs of society. In fact, I'd argue that the needs of society are rarely met when the need for quarterly profits take precedence. This is why we are supposed to have a government . We don;t so much as have a government today as we have a publicly funded adjunct to business whose sole function seems to be to maximize profits at the public expense. posted 04/11/2008 at 16:17:56
Take away the FAA and quite possible planes would begin to fall out of the sky unless you expect to rely on the airlines for safety. The problem isn't with this specific issue but with the fact that the FAA has been instructed like almost every other regulatory federal agency to ignore their statutory obligations. As the original post noted, had the FAA been doing their job there wouldn't be this raft of cancellations but as also noted, the FAA didn't have to ground these planes since the wiring issues were not critical and failure would not result in catastrophic failure; at least, this is my understanding of situation. As for fairs decreasing if the FAA were out of the picture I have seen no evidence this would in fact occur. With 30 years of promises that deregulation would benefit the consumer I can't think of many instances when this actually occurred. What I have seen over the past 30 years is a much lower level of service and lip service to lower prices. Anyone care to argue that the cost of living today compared to wages is comparable to what it was in 1980?
One would hope that heads will roll at FAA but like anything in the Bush administration, I suspect the heads of this agency will be retired with honors and earn a lucrative private sector job along with a fact government pension. What they should get is the boot and an unemployment insurance disqualification letter. posted 04/11/2008 at 16:14:20
One would hope that heads will roll at FAA but like anything in the Bush administration, I suspect the heads of this agency will be retired with honors and earn a lucrative private sector job along with a fact government pension. What they should get is the boot and an unemployment insurance disqualification letter. posted 04/11/2008 at 16:14:20
BushCo: An Umpteenth Evaluation
Half billion Muslims aren't too high a price to pay for the West's need for oil. If the war starts in a few weeks it won;t be by the US. If India believes radical Muslims could gain control of Pakistan's nuclear capability, they might conduct a preemptive attack since they've been looking for an excuse to blow Pakistan off the map for 40 years: This would not necessarily cause wider war...Who would care? China? Russia? West? Not likely.
I agree anyone expecting America to abandon 25% of the world's oil is dreaming. It doesn't matter who gains the White House. If one reads Clinton's/Obama's statements they are more circumspect that McCain's, and, less threatening and expansive but neither Democrat is promising to withdraw. They would draw down troop levels but keep many in Iraq in "support capacities." This means we will have thousands of troops in Iraq for decades and if Iraq's government doesn't like it they won't have a choice in the matter.
The present situation is as dangerous and in some respects more so than Cold War at its height. It I think require a major direct attack on this country for a wildly unpopular draft to gain political traction. Bush might have been able get a draft after 9/11 but he believed his wars would painless and fortunately squandered this opportunity. If conscripts were coming home in body bags the general public would be far angrier than they are today. posted 04/10/2008 at 01:11:47
I agree anyone expecting America to abandon 25% of the world's oil is dreaming. It doesn't matter who gains the White House. If one reads Clinton's/Obama's statements they are more circumspect that McCain's, and, less threatening and expansive but neither Democrat is promising to withdraw. They would draw down troop levels but keep many in Iraq in "support capacities." This means we will have thousands of troops in Iraq for decades and if Iraq's government doesn't like it they won't have a choice in the matter.
The present situation is as dangerous and in some respects more so than Cold War at its height. It I think require a major direct attack on this country for a wildly unpopular draft to gain political traction. Bush might have been able get a draft after 9/11 but he believed his wars would painless and fortunately squandered this opportunity. If conscripts were coming home in body bags the general public would be far angrier than they are today. posted 04/10/2008 at 01:11:47
Microsoft Said To Be In Talks With News Corp Over Joint Yahoo Bid
News Corps and Murdoch don't have anywhere near $45 billion dollars to bid on Yahoo. I seriously doubt Murdoch could raise that much even in a leveraged buy out since News Corps just isn't that large of a company. Compared to Microsoft in fact it's small potatoes. News Corps has a market cap of ~59 billion dollars with profits of a mere $2 billion compared to Microsoft's ~$260 billion cap and $~17 billion profits. Microsoft could damn near buy Yahoo with cash on hand but my guess they would offer a combination of stock and cash. Yahoo's entire market cap is $37 billion. Gates must want Yahoo pretty badly undoubtedly to compete against Google. Murdoch had better know that if he gets mixed up with Bill Gates he will eventually get his comeuppance. My guess is the only reason Gates would partner with a guy like Murdoch is that he sees a way to get a part of News Corps otherwise I can't imagine why he'd be bothered.. posted 04/09/2008 at 23:13:03
Colin Powell Says Obama Handled Reverend Wright Issue "Well".. Wright "Has Made Enormous Contributions"...
What you say may be true but if he was really against the war then he should have done the honorable thing and resign before letting himself get used by a duplicious bunch of liars and scoundrels. I find it hard to imagine Powell didn't understand that he was being marginalized long before his UN speech. The man's been in politics for a long time and I'm sure he understands what marginalization in politics bodes. posted 04/09/2008 at 22:50:18
Powell may have no credibility with the left but he remains rather popular with indepedents and with the right. Whether you like or hate the man, the fact is he did Obama a huge favor by sayingwhat he said about Wright. posted 04/09/2008 at 22:47:22
Bush Gets Emotional Tuesday, Talks About Drinking On Wednesday
Being impeached wouldn''t remove him from office since that's the job of the Senate and given the way things are I seriously doubt he'd be convicted and removed. I agree the SOB belongs in a jail cell but I'm not holding my breath. posted 04/09/2008 at 23:44:42
A Crocker Full Of Shiite
I suggest when you write do so with less generalization and absolutism. Not all Americans wanted war in Iraq or to attack brown people. The decision to go to war in Afghanistan was popular but not just in the US. The US went into that nation with full NATO backing and UN resolution 1386. The Iraq War never had the popular support of Afghanistan, which is why Bush and his minions cooked the intelligence books.
And do learn some history. American interventionism dates back to TRoosevelt but it was Wilson who made it part of democratic liberalism (hence the term Neoliberalism). The American government is not the American people in spite of what you may think. Nearly 80% of voters oppose extended stay in Iraq but that doesn't seem to matter to either party. This country has been a democracy in name only for a very long time; at least a generation and Neoliberalism has helped kill it . What Americans desire hardly matters but that isn't entirely the fault of voters. Yes, they bear responsibility, perhaps a lot. However, we elect people to represent us and if they chose instead to represent special interests all voters can do is vote and hope things change but even the vote has been rigged in favor of incumbents who support special interests. So yes, be critical but show some respect for Americans who understand what's happening and don't support the government and undeclared wars of choice. posted 04/10/2008 at 00:42:28
And do learn some history. American interventionism dates back to TRoosevelt but it was Wilson who made it part of democratic liberalism (hence the term Neoliberalism). The American government is not the American people in spite of what you may think. Nearly 80% of voters oppose extended stay in Iraq but that doesn't seem to matter to either party. This country has been a democracy in name only for a very long time; at least a generation and Neoliberalism has helped kill it . What Americans desire hardly matters but that isn't entirely the fault of voters. Yes, they bear responsibility, perhaps a lot. However, we elect people to represent us and if they chose instead to represent special interests all voters can do is vote and hope things change but even the vote has been rigged in favor of incumbents who support special interests. So yes, be critical but show some respect for Americans who understand what's happening and don't support the government and undeclared wars of choice. posted 04/10/2008 at 00:42:28
San Francisco's Olympic Torch Relay Draws Major Protests
Athletes at the Olympic level deserve respect but Olympics are about politics too. Hitler used the 1936 games to introduce his master race the German economic miracle. After 1945, Olympics was an EastWest confrontation and metal count became political. After the 1968 debacle (West won virtually every metal), East went on a sports binge and great "progress" until the 1992. Athlete murders marred the 1972 Munich games, US and USSR boycotted the 1980 and 1984 games. The Chinese elected to emulate Hitler and use games to showcase Communist abilities. The Chinese government is getting what they asked for. World wide, people are organized; many refuse to accept Western coddling of a ruthless regime. Tibet is one of Chinese domestic social-political problems (they have a hushed Muslim problem) and their behavior in Tibet is disgraceful. The government mass deportation of people out of Peking to "clean up the city" and make it look modern. If America hosts another Olympic games, expect the same levels of protest over our awful foreign policy. At least our government hasn't yet reached the Chinese level of depravity by driving tens of thousands of people from their homes to make a good show, and, killing monks and their supporters for protesting oppression. My point is that there are reasons for protesting these games. As for why the UN isn't protested, the answer is obvious: People pay attention to the Olympics but typically ignore the UN. posted 04/09/2008 at 11:55:59
Chris Matthews' Explosive Profile: Forced To Apologize To Clinton, Wants To Be Russert, Afraid Of Being Kidnapped
I find it astonishing that anyone would pay Mathews $5 million dollars are year for making an ass of himself...perhaps that's why they pay him (the clownish factor). posted 04/08/2008 at 23:30:19
Pelosi: Reduce Number of Superdelegates
I have a better idea...eliminate superdelegates and establish regional rather than state primaries. posted 04/08/2008 at 23:55:37
Biden Flummoxes Crocker With God Question
You probably should back that statement up with say a fact...really just one would suffice. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree (at least broadly) with you but I don't think you can offer any explanation for you comment. posted 04/08/2008 at 21:14:06
Colombia Free Trade Agreement: A Bad Deal for Everyone Involved
In the US we don't usually off trade unionists but we do make every effort to make trade unions irrelevant (I'm sure both Congressman know all about Taft-Hartley Act aimed at curbing the power of unions?) or destroy them out right (no unions, no pesky trade unionists to worry about). Taft-Hartley gutted the union movement but it took another 30 years and Ronald Reagan to drive a final stake into the heart of the beast. Repeal Taft-Hartley and give unions power to actually fight for labor and we might see a resurgence in trade unionism.
Whatever, the Columbia FTA is bad news and it should be killed. If Bush thinks it's a grand idea that is justification for reasonable oposition. posted 04/08/2008 at 23:44:22
Whatever, the Columbia FTA is bad news and it should be killed. If Bush thinks it's a grand idea that is justification for reasonable oposition. posted 04/08/2008 at 23:44:22
I agree witht his sentiment posted 04/08/2008 at 23:35:51
The Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker Hearings and What the Surge in Fact Proves
I think the problem for the American government is they believe that if the Iraqi government falls into the hands of jihadist extremists or the sway of Iran, this would be very bad...for the US and possibly the west (including Israel), which is why we aren't going to fully withdraw anytime soon. The notion of a western style liberal democracy in Iraq is a pipe dream as it flies in the face of Islamic teachings. Islam is a religion and a social system that includes a system for correct governance and it doesn't include anything liberal. Many Muslims would argue that it isn't possible to divorce government from society least you end up with a corrupt, anti-religious, western style democracy. This being true, you can be certain that when Americans withdraw a significant element of Iraqis will seek to establish Muslim governance; whether than includes a level of democracy is hard to predict but my sense is that it won't. The point of American invasion was oil and the need to remove ourselves from Saudi Arabia. Anyone who believes America will happily waltz out of Iraq and bail on a quarter of the world's petrol reserve doesn't understand the nature of 100 years of US foreign policy. i wish I were wrong but history and events suggest otherwise: We will be in Iraq for a very long time unless the price in human life becomes so precipitously high or we collapse economically. posted 04/08/2008 at 23:04:52
On the San Francisco Olympic Torch Relay
What I find disturbing is that so called democratic political leadership and their law enforcement arm seem intent on preventing or at least hindering protests. If police stayed the away from protesters and let them do their thing, I suspect there would be considerably less violent outburst. People don't like thuggery especially when it comes from those they elect/hire to protect them (hint: they aren;t hired to protect the Chinese world image). If politicians are so concerned about protestor violence there's an easy way to solve this problem...deny the Olympic Torch a route. Simple. No torch, no protests, no violence...problem solved. I think democratic politicians need to realize that an awful lot lot of peaceful and democratic people aren't amused by an Olympic Games held in a nation as disrespectful of human rights as the China. Frankly, I would hope the IOC would deny the US an Olympic Games for our disgraceful roll with respect to torture and flouting other international laws our Senate approved but if they approve such games, I would hope there would be equal levels of world protest. posted 04/08/2008 at 23:54:33
Petraeus in 2003: "Tell Me How This Ends" -- and He Still Doesn't Know
In a sense, David Petraeus is something of a tragic figure in the same way that Maxwell Taylor was tragic. I'm not defending either man since they are/were capable and intelligent men. Both men however permitted themselves to be guided by a philosophy of leadership that can perhaps be summed up by Taylors creed that a military leaders should not just support the President's decisions but also be a true believer in them (h eas referring to the Chirman of the JCS). Both men used statistics (and a degree of deception) to support their ideas and both men claimed victory was possible in an impossible situation. Taylor essentially cut the JCS out of the decision making equation and Bush has cut out anyone but Petraeus. Taylor was proven wrong and ended his life defending his Vietnam war thinking. I suspect Petraeus will end up much the same way as Taylor and will write a memoir that seeks to preserve a prior legacy of bravery and excellent service. The big difference is that Petraeus may get a call to serve on various corporate boards, right wing think tanks, or a lobbying firm while Taylor had to make due with his military retirement since those weren't common options in the 1970s. posted 04/08/2008 at 23:27:39
Petraeus Testimony: Summing Up Today's Hearing on Iraq (Update)
I don't disagree with your statements but you talk like Iraq was a unique event: Sadly, it isn't. The only differences between Iraq and Vietnam, and, Afghanistan, Somalia, Granada, Panama, Lebanon, etc are that the enormous costs, and, large numbers of casualties. American foreign policy for ~100 years (with a brief period of reclusion between 1919/1936) has been foreign intervention. If we don't like a government, we label it socialistic, anti-American, and more recently terrorist; begin economic efforts to destabilize and when these don't have the desired effect, we support domestic coups by right wing thugs, blow the shit out of anything that we don't like, or invade directly or through a client state. Thus, Iraq is a manifestation of a much broader foreign policy dilemma. We may withdraw from Iraq as we did from Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Lebanon, and Somalia but an Iraqi withdrawal would represent a respite until another "police action." Both Democrats and Republicans are vested in a Neoliberal foreign policy agenda that permits America to take whatever measures we see fit anywhere in the world to promote the ideals of democracy, which are typically defined to mean those that don't oppose our economic hegemony. posted 04/08/2008 at 22:21:41
The present testimony misses the point and answers to a most critical question are not simple and are largely a matter of perspective. We can calculate the cost of the Iraq conflict regards men, equipment, money, and our image but are benefits of this conflict worth current/future cost. Bush etc suggest benefits are worthwhile irrespective of cost but I haven''t heard a convincing argument benefits of fighting are worth anything tangible. We seem to be fighting to quell the image of America as "loser," which is reminiscent of our excuses for remaining in Vietnam. I don't believe we can continue fighting since we are using borrowed money to do it. Another critical point not raised by Congress: Do we have a right to be in Iraq and why should we have anything to say about that nation's future: The answer to the first past should be a resounding no, which makes the answer to the second part obvious.
This testimony is akin to the theater of the absurd. Petraeus and Crocker say nothing new and Congressional posturing is the norm. The policy in Iraq will not change because political leadership in both parties chose not to change it. Anyone familiar with the last 100 years of political history will understand why this is the case and short of economic catastrophe or serious American political upheaval will change our aggressive and neoimperialistic foreign policy. posted 04/08/2008 at 17:07:12
This testimony is akin to the theater of the absurd. Petraeus and Crocker say nothing new and Congressional posturing is the norm. The policy in Iraq will not change because political leadership in both parties chose not to change it. Anyone familiar with the last 100 years of political history will understand why this is the case and short of economic catastrophe or serious American political upheaval will change our aggressive and neoimperialistic foreign policy. posted 04/08/2008 at 17:07:12
John McCain Accuses Me Of "Trash Journalism" While He Engages In "Trash" Propaganda During The Petraeus Hearing
The three rules of sales: Marketing, marketing, marketing...no marketing efforts succeeds like the kind of free marketing you have received. Kind of like the Papacy black listing a naughty book...great for sales! posted 04/09/2008 at 00:13:02
State Of The Race: Superdelegates Moving To Obama
But her SuperD lead isn't enough to make a difference if she doesn't win big in PA. posted 04/09/2008 at 00:26:07
General Won't Promise More Iraq Pullouts
I think you misunderstand the nature of American foreign policy. Let me provide you with a brief education...
Bush's neoconservative foreign policy is merely an extension of a much older ideology called neoliberalism, which is based on Wilson's Fourteen Points. With the possible exception of Ford (who had no foreign policy as far as I can tell) and FDR in his first term, every president has embraced and implemented neoliberal policies and that includes "our hero" Clinton. Bush took neoliberalism to an extreme. As long as we invaded weak nations and left quickly (Panama, Granada) or shot missiles into foreign airspace but didn't commit troops (think Sudan), the American citizenry didn't give a dam; in fact such acts were lauded by many liberals. Obama and Clinton (certainly McCain) are following the tried and true neoliberalism that characterizes most Democrats and virtually all Republicans. Calling Obama Bush-lite is therefore calling the kettle black: Bush is Clinton-extreme (neoconservativism foreign policy is therefore an outgrowth of neoliberalism). Don't expect any presidential candidate to campaign on anything but a neoliberal foreign agenda--the media will never take a "peace" candidate seriously since such a person would puncture the myth of America as the beacon of hope for the oppressed and that would be badfor the status quo. posted 04/08/2008 at 13:26:38
Bush's neoconservative foreign policy is merely an extension of a much older ideology called neoliberalism, which is based on Wilson's Fourteen Points. With the possible exception of Ford (who had no foreign policy as far as I can tell) and FDR in his first term, every president has embraced and implemented neoliberal policies and that includes "our hero" Clinton. Bush took neoliberalism to an extreme. As long as we invaded weak nations and left quickly (Panama, Granada) or shot missiles into foreign airspace but didn't commit troops (think Sudan), the American citizenry didn't give a dam; in fact such acts were lauded by many liberals. Obama and Clinton (certainly McCain) are following the tried and true neoliberalism that characterizes most Democrats and virtually all Republicans. Calling Obama Bush-lite is therefore calling the kettle black: Bush is Clinton-extreme (neoconservativism foreign policy is therefore an outgrowth of neoliberalism). Don't expect any presidential candidate to campaign on anything but a neoliberal foreign agenda--the media will never take a "peace" candidate seriously since such a person would puncture the myth of America as the beacon of hope for the oppressed and that would be badfor the status quo. posted 04/08/2008 at 13:26:38
McCain Told Me 100 Years
I do hope Mr. Tiffany realizes that McCain is no more a liberal conservative than George W. Bush (this is how Bush as touted in the MSM before the 2000 election--a new kind of conservative I seem to recall). McCain's publicly available voting record indicates a consistent hard conservative slant irrespective of the few times he has crossed the aisle. That he has bothered to cross the aisle at all is what makes him seem so odd for a Republican; it doesn't make him a liberal conservative. McCain promises more of Bush in virtually every area of government. posted 04/09/2008 at 00:20:49
Hillary Clinton's Michigan/Florida Strategy: Keep The Dispute Alive
Does the word dah meaning anythign to you? You comment represents pretzel logic. Of coruse a 50/50 split favors Obama...because he has won most fo the delegates. posted 04/07/2008 at 18:23:21
Right...which is why the delegates from each state should be evenly split. posted 04/07/2008 at 18:20:53
Officials Put Out Olympic Torch 3 Times
In many respects, China reminds me of the old USSR; it's less of a nation than a cobbling together of disparate nationalities held together by threat of force. It will be interesting to see if China changes its form of government before it comes apart owing to political unrest, economic inequality between urban Yuppies and rural folk, or environmental collapse. That the IOC would award an Olympic games to a government such as that exists in China points to the abysmal state of the world. Few nations have perfect human rights records and fewer still a semblance of economic justice. If the IOC actually paid attention to human rights and economic justice, they would be hard pressed finding a host nation. Commend the French for protesting the Chinese Olympics but don't forget the French electorate chose the right wing Sarkozy as president and that last year there were massive protests by economically disenfranchised Muslims in many of France' cities. It's about time for the IOC to accept the fact that the Olympics are at least as much political as they are athletic and trying to keep them separate is patently silly. posted 04/07/2008 at 11:22:11
Andrew Sullivan: Bush Administration Officials Will Be 'Indicted For War Crimes'
What Andrew Sullivan meant when he said the Bush officials should not travel outside of the US is that a war crimes indictment would come from a foreign source not Congress. Once a war criminal leaves his country, he is essentially fair game to any country signatory to the war crimes treaty who felt bound to honor a treaty obligation. In theory, an indicated war criminal could be hauled off a refueling plane. Frankly, if the War Crimes Tribunal issued an indictment and the US failed to hand over the accused, we would be no better then other internal scofflaws refusing to abide by a treaty obligation. Would indictments from a foreign judge or the War Crimes Tribunal likely be issued against a US official? I think that's a good question and I suppose it would depend on the evidence and the potential crime. In any event, for Mathews to sit in front of a national audience and feign ignorance as to this possibility merely demonstrates the man's ignorance, blind stupidity, or possible duplicity as part of a passive, incompetent MSM. posted 04/06/2008 at 23:20:05
Who Can Beat McCain?
I'm not sure your argument has any validity and I certainly don't see that changes in the primary system would clearly favor Hillary Clinton. In fact, I fail to see how any changes in the primary system would have helped Hillary Clinton in the slightest. I suspect you are a Hillary supporter right or wrong and this perhaps biases your opinion. I voted for Clinton in the California primary but don't consider myself a supporter of either she or Obama. Clinton is where she is today for reasons associated with poor political decisions, terrible campaign strategy and tactics, and her association with the Clinton presidency. I wonder if you might explain why and how a primary election make more sense the a caucus. And the past few elections have established anything it is that polls are largely meaningless. As for which Democratic candidate can beat McCain, I believe the answer is either one of them can. McCain has huge liabilities and once the Democratic candidate is chosen, the election will be theirs to lose not McCain's to win. I suggest you examine reality with a tad more objectivity. posted 04/07/2008 at 11:41:13
Fighting Erupts In Baghdad After Week Of Relative Calm
Those fighting American led forces are labeled al Qaeda, Saddam loyalists, malcontents, criminals, terrorists and the media reports these characterizations verbatim. Mahdi Army is no more criminal and terrorist than al Malki's police/army and these labels illustrate the notion that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. To Shiites in Sadr City, American forces are terrorists. al Qaeda is a non-issue and I would venture that few fighters are criminals or terrorist. This is civil war and there's little America can do to change it short of mass destruction of cities. In spite of administration claims, opponents to al Maliki are capable of spinning Iraq into chaos on a moments notice. I've heard suggestions that America should better arm Iraq's army so we can leave but that was the plan: The goal was to indefinitely provide the heavy lifting for a client Iraqi government and since this exists in name only, the Pentagon won't provide heavy weapons to an Army that appears willing to hand weapons to a their enemies. We've built huge bases and an embassy for a reason and it's not so we can hand over these assets to a Shiite led government allied with Iran. It won't matter whose elected in November because Bush/Cheney, with the assistance of Congress, created an unsolvable problem with the only options being to continue fighting or abandon a quarter of the world's petrol reserve and letting the dice roll. Such leadership might be reasonable called criminally negligent. posted 04/06/2008 at 15:42:49
If you voting for Nader you might as well vote for McCain for all the good it will do to end this war. Nader canot win. posted 04/06/2008 at 14:57:23
I do hope you're being facetious... posted 04/06/2008 at 14:56:03
John McCain To Convene Meeting Of Doctors To Confront Health Questions
Considering the rank stupidity, gross insensitivity, inanity, and irrelevance of many of the comments I read on HuffingtonPost, I would favor more stringent guidelines for responses. People like to vent and when they do that their comments often reflect pent up anger and frustration. I can understand these emotions but honestly I am not interested in reading such drivel and suspect there are many others who feel the same way. Perhaps a less heavy handed approach to censorship would be to require everyone to use their actual names (given and surname). I suspect that if people were forced to write comments under their actual names they would be more careful about what they write. posted 04/06/2008 at 11:59:54
I suspect your young with no memories of past elections; that, or maybe you suffer from selective memory loss. Reagan's age was of considerable interest in 1980 and especially in 1984, and, I recall it being a concern with Bob Dole's presidential bid in 1996. Age and health have always been concerns in presidential elections and it has never mattered whether candidates are Republican or Democrat. Setting aside partisanship for a moment, doesn't it seems obvious why age and health would be concerns? We should be thankful that Bush I survived his 4 years since his VP replacement was the imbicilic Dan Quayle. If one examines the Constitution, we find that the primary purpose of the VP is to take over the presidency in the event the president does or becomes incapacitated. Obviously, the Founder's were sufficiently concerned with age and health to provide a process for replacing a sitting president. My point is that concerns about age and health are nothing new and they are certainly not partisan in nature. posted 04/06/2008 at 11:50:50
Colombian Government Fires Top Clinton Strategist Mark Penn
I would hardly call myself a Hillary lover but frankly, what Penn does in his capacity as a CEO for a PR firm has nothing whatsoever to do with the Clinton campaign. If Penn is guilty of anything it is poor judgment in the he seeks to have his cake and eat it too. Penn has been around politics long enough to know what will eventually bite him in the ass. Taking on the Columbia government and maintaining them as a client while working with Clinton as chief strategist was an obvious conflict of interest that Penn and Hillary Clinton should have recognized. Penn could have bowed out of his Colombian contract gracefully of better yet never have taken on this client since he knew in 2007 that he would play a major roll in Clinton's campaign, a campaign that would seek the support of labor. In any event, this is much ado about nothing. posted 04/05/2008 at 21:34:39
Clinton Under Fire Over False Story Of Health Care Horror
I agree with your sentiment. posted 04/05/2008 at 21:17:40
And this somehow forgives Hillary Clinton's prevarications? I'm sorry but I don't see what Obama has to do with this particular story. If this is the best or only defense Clinton supporters can generate than I suggest not saying anything at all. posted 04/05/2008 at 21:17:05
Clinton Charitable Contributions Went To Clinton Foundation
Another point that this article fails to not that while the Clinton's may have given $10.2 million dollars to their own foundation, if that non-profit receives the majority of its funds from a single source, then a substantial part of the contributions by the giver(s) remain taxable. Donations to one's private foundation are not 100% tax deductible. posted 04/05/2008 at 14:47:29
What I Told Bill Moyers About Iraq 5 Years Ago -- As 'Victory' Neared
California has the world's seventh largest economy so it could likely stand by itself. Once upon a time, individual states had a national guard controlled by each governor but thanks to Bush and a GOP Congress the feds now control the guard. Nevetheless, what could the federal government do if California voters overwhelmingly approved by referendum an act of succession? Considering the state of the US military and its vvarious overseas commitments, there's hardly a military force in the US that could deal with open rebellion by one or more states. posted 04/06/2008 at 01:05:43
I had precisely the same thought although I also had the advantage of actually having been to the Middle East, which is more than I can say for many of the administration hacks who haked this misbeggotten conflict. posted 04/06/2008 at 00:58:22
Great photos BTW
Imagine, Iranians asreal people...some nerve they've got to think that! posted 04/06/2008 at 00:55:39
Imagine, Iranians asreal people...some nerve they've got to think that! posted 04/06/2008 at 00:55:39
James Bond Finds 'Solace' a Bit Chile
At the risk of sounding horrifically crass and sexist...Olga Kurylenko is a walking wet dream. Maybe its the Slavic eyes...wow. I need to take a cold shower. posted 04/05/2008 at 22:14:29
What Did Bill Clinton Do To Get $15M From Ron Burkle?
Can you honestly say that the 1990s were prosperous for you? I hear lots of talk about the 1990s but truthfully, what happened is that the policies of Reagan and Bush were were not so much as reversed as legitimized. Bush II could not exist without Bill Clinton. In the 1990s, we saw the beginnings of a balanced budget based o=in part on Bush I tax increases that probably cost him a second term. I won't take away from Clinton's roll in helping balance the budget but as for uniform prosperity I challenge you or anyone else to support this notion with fact. As for peace...yes, we had peace in the US but not in the world. Peace in America came at a price abroad largely because our government refused to interfere in police actions. We only acted in the Balkans when world wide outcry reached a crescendo. Our failure to led an economic helping hand to Russia and Gorbachev and Yeltsin before 1995 led to take over of Russia by ex-Communist apparatchiks. Why we didn't help is discussed by Klein in her book on disaster capitalism for which Clinton played an important roll. I voted foir Clinton twice but I understood what I was voting for as well as what I was votign against and Clinton was merely the lesser of two evils. posted 04/05/2008 at 01:15:54
Actually, it sounds like business as usual. I cannot say it surprises me that Bill Clinton is such a big supporter of the free market. Frankly, free markets have been kind to him so why should he think otherwise. posted 04/05/2008 at 01:06:38
Starbucks To Announce "Something Big" Next Tuesday
I won't dispute the benefits of an education but anyone going to school with the expectation that it will make them money is a damn fool. i know a lot of people who went to school in the 1990s to earn degrees in programming, software engineering, and technology only to see their high paying jobs end up in South Asia in the 2000s. Kindly stop perpetrating the falsity that college=money and a job: It doesn't. And I don't care what the job, everyone deserves to be paid a respectful wage for their time. I'm not suggesting the a barista can or should earn the same wage as an accountant but the minimum wage in this country is a damned disgrace and with the price of a gallon of gas approaching $4.00, $5.75 seems insulting even to students. posted 04/05/2008 at 01:31:14
Nicolas Cage Wins Apology And Damages From Kathleen Turner
All things considered, anyone who honestly feels there isn't a lot to bitch about in this country is seriously deranged. As for doing something about what's wrong in America, I suggest you are probably a little out of touch with reality if you think the average person can do much. I mean honestly, once upon a time people could vote for change but Republicans now rig elections so as to make even voting a waste of time. Besides, it's every American's god given right to complain. The problem isn't necessarily with Democrats and their inability or unwillingness to accomplish anything for people but with corporations that have bought Democratic politicians and have owned for more than 100 years their more traditional Republican lapdogs. Since America is a two party government, and, given that both parties are bought and paid for by corporate interests and have no interest in relinquishing power, I'm not quite sure what can be done short of a radical social upheaval. Care to make any useful suggestions or do you just enjoy "bitching" about Democrats and liberals? posted 04/06/2008 at 00:27:42
Home Owners Lose, Home Builder Win In Senate Bill
This is precisely the kind of horseshit legislation one should expect from a GOP led Senate so why is it coming from one led by Democrats? Actually, the answer is fairly simple if you're as cynical about the two major parties as I am. I'm sure I'm not the only one reading this post who owns a home. Anyone care to venture a guess what a neighborhood full of rentals will do to home value? It certainly won't help maintain value and if history is any lesson, rentals substantial lower values. And wow, a $7,000. tax credit for those buying foreclosed homes...as if buying homes at fire sale prices wasn't enough incentive? Not only does this legislation help the wrong people and penalize homeowners in mortgage trouble but it screws people not currently in trouble. The fact that this legislation made it to the floor of the Senate serves testimony to who establishes policy in DC (hint: It isn't the politicians). posted 04/05/2008 at 01:45:55
Didyou here that the former CEO of Countrywide, you know the moron who ran the company into the ground, was retained by Bof for $28 million...to run their new subsidiary--Countrywide. Does the term cluster fuck fit this? posted 04/05/2008 at 01:38:48
Elizabeth Edwards Returns McCain's Fire, Demands 'Straight Talk'
McCain's talk of "competition" shows just how disinformed he is with respect to the nature of health care. Bill Clinton crowed about competition and how ti would reduce costs and health care today is significant higher then it was in 2000. This country will never have real universal health care coverage until insurance companies are removed completely from the health care equation. The only real universal health care coverage is single payer it the single payer setting prices for all services and with no opt out for anyone.. posted 04/01/2008 at 21:18:30
Love Affair (McCain and the Press) Disgusts the Liberal Blogosphere
I think what drives the blogosphere bat shit is that its has become obvious to all but the clueless that the MSM uses its power not to inform but to manufacture consent. Voters have become so fractured from each other that it's hard to find people who agree on simple things let alone something as divisive as politics. However, finding like minded people is more than possible in the blogosphere and that scares the MSM, the corporations that control it, and corporate-controlled government. I don't believe that the MSM worships McCain so much as it supports his pro-business status quo mantra. The MSM will jump ship in a heartbeat as soon as it becomes clear that McCain cannot win the November election and they will sing the praises of Obama, Clinton or any mainstream Democratic candidate so long as that candidate supports a pro-business agenda. The issue for the MSM isn't Republican or Democrat (conservative-liberal) but maintenance of the status quo and they'll use whatever they can to keep voters focused away from significant changes. posted 04/01/2008 at 21:12:35
British Sex Scandal: The Obvious Hillary Connection
Let's set a side the notion that any fascist can be liberal for a moment (I don't think this is possible)...
Oswald Mosley's flirtation with fascism in the 1930s was hardly unique and was based not on Nasism but Musolini's less extreme form. In the 1920s through the rmilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, Hilter was supported of many Wall Street corporate leaders, who lent equal supports to Communists. Once it became clear that money could not control Hitler, Wall Street withdrews its financial support but many men continued to disbelieve that Hilter was mad as a hatter. I'm not making excuses for Mosley; quite the contrary, I find his politics revolting. However, I believe that if people are going to cast aspirsions they should do so with equanimity and condemn the majority of the 1930s Wall Street investment types, which sadly consisted of many leading Democrats (the firm of W. Averell Harriman--Harriamn Brothers and its sucessor company Brown Brothers Harriman comes to mind but there were many others). It is unclear to what extent Harriman supported fascism as a political system and he may have simply been a good capitalist when his firm elected to fund Hitler's programs. Besides agreeing with Hitler's notions of corporate-government intergration, many of Britain and American's elitie/wealthy supported eugenics and applauded Hitler's goals of selective breeding to establish genetic purity. posted 04/01/2008 at 21:53:18
Oswald Mosley's flirtation with fascism in the 1930s was hardly unique and was based not on Nasism but Musolini's less extreme form. In the 1920s through the rmilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, Hilter was supported of many Wall Street corporate leaders, who lent equal supports to Communists. Once it became clear that money could not control Hitler, Wall Street withdrews its financial support but many men continued to disbelieve that Hilter was mad as a hatter. I'm not making excuses for Mosley; quite the contrary, I find his politics revolting. However, I believe that if people are going to cast aspirsions they should do so with equanimity and condemn the majority of the 1930s Wall Street investment types, which sadly consisted of many leading Democrats (the firm of W. Averell Harriman--Harriamn Brothers and its sucessor company Brown Brothers Harriman comes to mind but there were many others). It is unclear to what extent Harriman supported fascism as a political system and he may have simply been a good capitalist when his firm elected to fund Hitler's programs. Besides agreeing with Hitler's notions of corporate-government intergration, many of Britain and American's elitie/wealthy supported eugenics and applauded Hitler's goals of selective breeding to establish genetic purity. posted 04/01/2008 at 21:53:18
Poll: Clinton Pennsylvania Lead Shrinks To 5 Points
Another useless and patently stup-id poll. One would think that grown adults could find a better way to earn a living. posted 04/01/2008 at 21:22:26
Maybe you should learn how to spell or at least learn to use a spell checker. Download the google tool bar. It has a built in spell checker. posted 04/01/2008 at 21:21:21
Pelosi Suggests Bush Skip Olympic Opener
It isn't just Bush who has sucked up to the Chinese. The whole fucking world has done it. The fact that the IOC would even consider granting an Olympic games to a government ruled by what amounts to as little better then thugs is pretty incredible. That this in fact happened gives us all some idea where the world's priorities lie and it isn't with human rights. The only thing that counts in the world today is money. Now that the US owe these sons of bitches in Peking a trillion and half dollars, it might not be such a good idea if we kicked sand in their eyes unless we're prepared to accept the consequences. Since Ms. Pelosi seems to represent the pro-business wing of the Democratic party, I doubt if she'd be willing to accept fault for any financial fallout. posted 03/31/2008 at 23:07:26
AP: Iraqi Prime Minister Left Politically Battered And Humbled
Gullibility? I think you're being too kind. i think the words ignorance and stupidity are more apt. posted 03/31/2008 at 23:01:24
Sadr lost? Gee, You could sure fool the majority of the world but then I forget, conservatives get your news from FOXNews the rest of the mainstream (conservative) pro-administration/pro-business US media. In truth, Sadr didn't lose. He (and Iran) came away from this situation with enhanced prestige and power. The government was unable to quell the civil war in Basra until Sadr called off the fighting. Sadr could begin the fighting again tomorrow and the Iraqi government couldn't stop it. I'm a little unclear why this is so hard for some people to understand. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:59:42
I dare say an awful lot of right wingers may be characterized as chicken hawks (and I dare say mindless). Fighting wars and dying is gloriously American as long as it doesn't happen to them or their family (Those who support fighting wars and dying by members of their family have my pity). Personally, I find fighting wars and dying pointless in all but the most extreme circumstances that haven't existed in more than 60 years. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:53:29
Actually the figure is more like 40% but your point is well taken and the decrease in percent in no way negates what you suggest. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:49:53
Since conservatives typically view the world as it ought to be rather than as it is and because someone has to make decisions based on reality. That shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand... posted 03/31/2008 at 22:46:31
We can blame the media but does anyone honestly believe Clinton, Obama, and McCain don't know the basic pattern of questioning of these silly exercises before hand. All candidates would have to do is tell the media debate must focus only on substantive issues and questions not so focused will not be answered. Make this point public from the debate's beginning. Of course, as soon as one candidate saw "opportunity" they would seek to embarrass an opponent regardless of an agreed question pattern. So, it isn't just the media. Can anyone today imagine Lincoln and Douglas answering many of the questions asked in last night's debate? My guess is they would have taken turns questioning the questioner sanity or intelligence. The media would then likely accuse Lincoln of being "elitist." Can anyone imagine Lincoln as an elitist... posted 04/17/2008 at 12:39:01