I won't mince words. I'm pro-health care. Furthermore, I'm pro-health care for everyone. I also have a strong socialist streak.
I'm sure that there are some folks out there who feel different than me, perhaps even for some legitimate and sane reasons, but I'm seeing lots of opposition to the health care bill for completely batshit insane stuff.
Let me get right to the point again: If you are getting your information about the health care bill from Glenn Beck and the folks at Fox news, then you may as well be consulting the neighborhood four year old about it. Here's a challenge for you, if you're a Fox news follower. Tell me three things that the health care bill will do. And if one of those is "Give viagra to sex offenders", then I really can't help you. Try this - look up the bill on the internet. Read about it - no, not on the fox news forum - go look it up on the rest of the internet.
I know that politics gets mighty polarized, and dems and repubs sit on opposite sides of the fence on some issues, but are you really going to let Glenn Beck convince you that "The Democrats" are trying to destroy the country? Are you that gullible?
I suppose the other side of that coin is that I'm flabbergasted by the Republican Congressional effort to stop the health care bill. A bill that is aimed at HELPING PEOPLE.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Health Care, analogized as Pizza
sane people: "Since we're hungry lets get some pizza."
the far right: "Oh, no way, I refuse to eat raw fish."
sane people: "There's no raw fish on pizza..."
the far right: "raw fish carries bacteria you know, and can easily kill people."
sane people: "But, there's no raw fish on pizza."
the far right: "If you get pizza, it will fundamentally change everything."
sane people: "pizza doesn't have raw.. wait, what?"
the far right: "Yeah, you ordering that raw fish pizza will fundamentally change this country."
sane people: "Well, there's no raw fish on the pizza, but-"
the far right: "Raw fish kills tons of people."
sane people: "- if you want to suggest something different..?"
the far right: "How about not raw fish pizza? it will destroy america."
sane people: "How will it destroy america?"
the far right: "You must want to kill people, that must be why you're ordering raw fish pizza."
sane people: "Look, I just saw that everyone was hungry and am trying to feed us."
the far right: "Communist."
Friday, June 12, 2009
Freedom of Speech
In your opinion, should Freedom of Speech in the US be uncompromising and absolute, much as it is today? Or should there be fast, hard limits on it?
In the same way that you cannot go into a crowded theater and yell "fire", isn't hate speech similarly endangering to the safety and health of others?
I'm aware that putting limits on Freedom of Speech can be said to be a slippery slope, and I'm certainly all for protecting my civil liberties. But I'm not happy with Freedom of Speech encompassing Freedom of Hate.
In the same way that you cannot go into a crowded theater and yell "fire", isn't hate speech similarly endangering to the safety and health of others?
I'm aware that putting limits on Freedom of Speech can be said to be a slippery slope, and I'm certainly all for protecting my civil liberties. But I'm not happy with Freedom of Speech encompassing Freedom of Hate.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Born OK the first time
The other day, while out running an errand, I saw a truck in the Lowe's parking lot with a couple of bumper stickers on it. I don't spend much time reading bumper stickers, but I noticed an Obama sticker on the truck, and slowed down enough to read the other two. One said "I vote Constitutionally", and had the ACLU web address on it. Cool. The other said "Born OK the first time." HAH! I then realized that I'd left my phone in the car, went and grabbed it, passed by the truck again, and stopped to take a pic of the Born OK sticker with my camera phone. As I clicked, I heard a cart rolling toward me, and saw an older - maybe 60 years - white lady pushing a cart right toward me.
"You like that sticker?" she asked.
"I do. Is that yours?" I asked, indicating the truck.
"It is."
"Well I agree with you!" I declared, and smiled at her, and headed into the store to do my errands.
Afterward, I wished that I'd stopped longer and at least exchanged more pleasantries. Helped her with whatever she was carrying maybe. Told her that I appreciated the stickers on her truck, and that it was always nice to randomly bump into someone of a similar philosophical/political bent, especially as Red as our state is.
So... next time you get a chance, hug a liberal atheist! Or at least smile and say hi. We don't bite!
"You like that sticker?" she asked.
"I do. Is that yours?" I asked, indicating the truck.
"It is."
"Well I agree with you!" I declared, and smiled at her, and headed into the store to do my errands.
Afterward, I wished that I'd stopped longer and at least exchanged more pleasantries. Helped her with whatever she was carrying maybe. Told her that I appreciated the stickers on her truck, and that it was always nice to randomly bump into someone of a similar philosophical/political bent, especially as Red as our state is.
So... next time you get a chance, hug a liberal atheist! Or at least smile and say hi. We don't bite!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
You Betcha?
I've tried to resist gloating, or joyous celebration because the other guys didn't win, but I have to come clean.
I am just as glad about Obama/Biden getting elected as I am that Palin did not get elected. (and I specifically mean Palin. I'm not talking about McCain here)
She scares the crap out of me.
If you believe the news that is trickling out now, apparently she spent way more than $150,000 of donated RNC money on expensive clothes for her and her family, and this was hidden from McCain for fear that he would flip the fuck out. Which seems like a completely reasonable assumption to me. Apparently she did not know that Africa was a continent. Apparently she did not know which countries made up NAFTA. Apparently she threw temper tantrums over news articles that were unkind to her. Apparently she refused to allow people to prep her for interviews (hence we have the gem of her Couric interview). We have questions about her ethics in Troopergate. Her husband was part of a political party that wanted to secede from the US. She claims that abortion clinic bombers are not terrorists. She is a young earth creationist. Oh I could keep going...
I challenge you to find me a more terrible choice for VP on a big party ticket. Cheney is rotten to the core, but I can't really accuse him of being an idiot. Evil is different than stupid.
I am just as glad about Obama/Biden getting elected as I am that Palin did not get elected. (and I specifically mean Palin. I'm not talking about McCain here)
She scares the crap out of me.
If you believe the news that is trickling out now, apparently she spent way more than $150,000 of donated RNC money on expensive clothes for her and her family, and this was hidden from McCain for fear that he would flip the fuck out. Which seems like a completely reasonable assumption to me. Apparently she did not know that Africa was a continent. Apparently she did not know which countries made up NAFTA. Apparently she threw temper tantrums over news articles that were unkind to her. Apparently she refused to allow people to prep her for interviews (hence we have the gem of her Couric interview). We have questions about her ethics in Troopergate. Her husband was part of a political party that wanted to secede from the US. She claims that abortion clinic bombers are not terrorists. She is a young earth creationist. Oh I could keep going...
I challenge you to find me a more terrible choice for VP on a big party ticket. Cheney is rotten to the core, but I can't really accuse him of being an idiot. Evil is different than stupid.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
These Times
Wow.
I'm very pleased with the results of the election. I'm also still anxious about the future.
I think that McCain gave a powerful and courageous concession speech. I cannot help but feel like *that* was the real McCain - not the fake, mud-slinging, religious-right-embracing guy that we've seen on the campaign trail. I applaud him.
I'm anxious about the future because I think that Obama has his work cut out for him. I believe in his message of hope and change, but I have no doubts about the next four years being easy for him, or any of the rest of us. You don't need me to tell you that we are in a tough place economically, and in a tough place with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. I am hopeful that Obama will be able to surround himself with smart people who will be able to create a plan to lead us out of this financial mess, and out of the mess overseas. These problems do not have quick fixes, even for Obama. With that said though, I am hopeful that we will be able to see progress being made.
I'm anxious about the political division in this country. I'm sick of non-facts, and blind hate. I understand if Obama was not your candidate of choice, but please don't gripe to me about how you think that a Muslim Homosexual who aborts babies in his spare time has no right to be president. If you want to have a conversation grounded in reality, that's cool.
On another note, we found out that Krissi's work is cutting her hours back by 40%. This is rather terrible news, made more frightening by having a baby on the way. We're okay though. We live mostly within our means. It delays our timeline for paying off all of our bills, and it means that we're looking for ways to save money. It is a setback for us, but not a disaster, and I'm thankful for that.
I'm very pleased with the results of the election. I'm also still anxious about the future.
I think that McCain gave a powerful and courageous concession speech. I cannot help but feel like *that* was the real McCain - not the fake, mud-slinging, religious-right-embracing guy that we've seen on the campaign trail. I applaud him.
I'm anxious about the future because I think that Obama has his work cut out for him. I believe in his message of hope and change, but I have no doubts about the next four years being easy for him, or any of the rest of us. You don't need me to tell you that we are in a tough place economically, and in a tough place with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. I am hopeful that Obama will be able to surround himself with smart people who will be able to create a plan to lead us out of this financial mess, and out of the mess overseas. These problems do not have quick fixes, even for Obama. With that said though, I am hopeful that we will be able to see progress being made.
I'm anxious about the political division in this country. I'm sick of non-facts, and blind hate. I understand if Obama was not your candidate of choice, but please don't gripe to me about how you think that a Muslim Homosexual who aborts babies in his spare time has no right to be president. If you want to have a conversation grounded in reality, that's cool.
On another note, we found out that Krissi's work is cutting her hours back by 40%. This is rather terrible news, made more frightening by having a baby on the way. We're okay though. We live mostly within our means. It delays our timeline for paying off all of our bills, and it means that we're looking for ways to save money. It is a setback for us, but not a disaster, and I'm thankful for that.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Joys of Other People's Perspectives
So I got to have lunch with someone who will not vote for Obama because his middle name is Hussien, and apparently he's secretly still Muslim.
And you can't trust muslims, just look at the problems going on in the middle east! A muslim in the white house would probably change the constitution and our money and stuff, and take "God" out of it. Read the constitution! God is IN THERE! This nation was founded on God and Christianity. Its surprising muslims even live here, with all the problems that they cause. To elect a person who is secretly muslim would be a slap in the face to our troops who are over there fighting against the muslims!
And you can't trust muslims, just look at the problems going on in the middle east! A muslim in the white house would probably change the constitution and our money and stuff, and take "God" out of it. Read the constitution! God is IN THERE! This nation was founded on God and Christianity. Its surprising muslims even live here, with all the problems that they cause. To elect a person who is secretly muslim would be a slap in the face to our troops who are over there fighting against the muslims!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Y'know, I was thinking the same thing
So, blogging is slow going for me lately. I'll have some content again soon I'm sure.
Meanwhile, here's more fuel for my "The Media and Politics are mind numbingly stupid" thing.
(Image from Todd Alcott's livejournal)
So.... McCain is totally right. It is wrong for one nation to invade another. Wait - why does this sound somehow familiar?
(Image from Frostfirezoo)
This is dumb, but not altogether shocking. I'll call it "We Are Winning The Olympics!" spin.
Meanwhile, here's more fuel for my "The Media and Politics are mind numbingly stupid" thing.
(Image from Todd Alcott's livejournal)
So.... McCain is totally right. It is wrong for one nation to invade another. Wait - why does this sound somehow familiar?
(Image from Frostfirezoo)
This is dumb, but not altogether shocking. I'll call it "We Are Winning The Olympics!" spin.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
What is freedom without civil liberties?
The erosion of our civil liberties and privacy frightens and concerns me.
The other side claims that these measures are necessary to "ensure our safety" and so forth, but I call bullshit. Prove to me that this makes me safer. Prove to me that this does not slide us further down the slippery slope.
Senate approves increased domestic surveillance and retroactively gives immunity to companies that previously, perhaps illegally, turned over our private information to the government.
The other side claims that these measures are necessary to "ensure our safety" and so forth, but I call bullshit. Prove to me that this makes me safer. Prove to me that this does not slide us further down the slippery slope.
Senate approves increased domestic surveillance and retroactively gives immunity to companies that previously, perhaps illegally, turned over our private information to the government.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Politics
Huzzah Obama!
I'm very pleased that he has clinched the Democratic nomination. I find him to be a captivating candidate, and believe that he will be an amazing leader for this country. I'm MIGHTY disappointed to see that some Clinton backers are so mad, that they're declaring for McCain. I feel that, were the situation reversed, and Clinton had clinched the nomination, that I'd be disappointed, but certainly would throw the baby out with the bath water. C'mon people, get a grip.
On the other hand, if Obama fails to win in November, I can live. I am against many things that McCain stands for, but I think that he is capable of being a good leader of the country, as opposed to the asshats that have been running things for the last 8 years.
I'm afire with speculation now about the VP nom for Obama. The big question of course is to Clinton or not to Clinton. While I think that she has a fairly strong case to make for being the VP nominee, I think that he'll choose someone else. I think that he'll choose someone else and that Clinton will still stump for him, because, as I heard on NPR, she wants to get the Democratic nomination in 2012 if Obama fails to beat McCain, and unless she toes the lines, she won't be able to. I wish we could see Obama/Edwards, but Edwards has already shot that down :(
Anyway, that's it. Congrats, Obama. I look forward to voting for you in November! Good luck, man. It may be a tough fight.
I'm very pleased that he has clinched the Democratic nomination. I find him to be a captivating candidate, and believe that he will be an amazing leader for this country. I'm MIGHTY disappointed to see that some Clinton backers are so mad, that they're declaring for McCain. I feel that, were the situation reversed, and Clinton had clinched the nomination, that I'd be disappointed, but certainly would throw the baby out with the bath water. C'mon people, get a grip.
On the other hand, if Obama fails to win in November, I can live. I am against many things that McCain stands for, but I think that he is capable of being a good leader of the country, as opposed to the asshats that have been running things for the last 8 years.
I'm afire with speculation now about the VP nom for Obama. The big question of course is to Clinton or not to Clinton. While I think that she has a fairly strong case to make for being the VP nominee, I think that he'll choose someone else. I think that he'll choose someone else and that Clinton will still stump for him, because, as I heard on NPR, she wants to get the Democratic nomination in 2012 if Obama fails to beat McCain, and unless she toes the lines, she won't be able to. I wish we could see Obama/Edwards, but Edwards has already shot that down :(
Anyway, that's it. Congrats, Obama. I look forward to voting for you in November! Good luck, man. It may be a tough fight.
Monday, May 19, 2008
What Gives You The Right?
(Post title stolen from last week's episode of The Office, which was hilarious. Why did I steal it for this post? I don't know.)
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain accused Democratic front-runner Barack Obama on Monday of underestimating the threat posed by Iran and ridiculed his pledge to meet Iran's leader if elected.
Since when has dialogue with other national leaders been something so heinous that one candidate "ridicules" another for his pledge to do it? Especially the leader of a nation that is such a potential powderkeg. I get that we're not interested in chatting with bin Laden, but what's with the policy of isolation for Iran? I'm no political scientist, but I seem to recall how isolation on the global politics scale only makes problems worse.
I'll buy that Ahmadinejad is no saint, but I fail to see what we stand to gain by not talking with him.
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain accused Democratic front-runner Barack Obama on Monday of underestimating the threat posed by Iran and ridiculed his pledge to meet Iran's leader if elected.
Since when has dialogue with other national leaders been something so heinous that one candidate "ridicules" another for his pledge to do it? Especially the leader of a nation that is such a potential powderkeg. I get that we're not interested in chatting with bin Laden, but what's with the policy of isolation for Iran? I'm no political scientist, but I seem to recall how isolation on the global politics scale only makes problems worse.
I'll buy that Ahmadinejad is no saint, but I fail to see what we stand to gain by not talking with him.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
So. Frustrating.
So I posted recently, angry about some email forward I'd gotten from someone.
That was annoying... annoying enough for me to post on here about it, and argue the point.
Today, I got an email in my work email, from a coworker, addressed to all users in the organization, that contained a brief message expressing concern about what would happen if Obama was elected president, and a link to a video. The video is a thirteen minute vid that explores Obama's "three islamic names", his link with that nutcase pastor, his refusal to wear an american flag button, accuses him of anti-christianity, antisemitism, and marxism, etc etc etc.
I'm so fucking pissed.
Not only does the content of the video make me froth at the mouth a little, but someone sent it to everyone in the org. I've casually dismissed previous junk org-wide mailings, cause they're infrequent. But this?
I work in a place that leans pretty hard to the right. The company owner is hard core republican.
I don't feel like I can/should reply to everyone and dispute - both because I don't think its good form - and she shouldnt have done it in the first place, but also because I'm pretty sure that I'm solidly in the minority here, and don't welcome any politically-based discrimination or so forth. I don't even feel like I can email her and suggest that she not use org-wide mailings for political stuff, because I'm almost certain to come off as hating on her message.
I'm not trying to be nazi here - I'm down with everyone's right to their opinion - political opinion included. It pisses me off though when its incorrect, or when biased information is shoved down my throat. I try to avoid politics generally. John is right-leaning, and while we banter about politics from time to time, I try to keep it low-key, and am not into shoving anyone's face into anything.
And what's with the hating? I have yet to see video or email forwards about how McCain is the white devil who steals people souls and wants to invade a bajillion countries and hates black people.... So what gives? I'm not saying that we lefty folks are without bile or spite, but I am continuously astounded and horrified at the volume and tone of politico-spin-bullshit that comes out of the far right machine.
If you don't like Obama, and want to vote for McCain, that's fine, it is completely your right to do so, and you won't catch me badmouthing you for it. I can respect someone for not agreeing with the positions and policies that a candidate stands for. Its called reason. I have less respect when your position is "Well he has three islamic names."
Let me sum up:
Don't use your work email to send political messages to people who have not already asked you to do so. Company Use Policy, people.
If you want to send me a note, asking me to consider your candidate instead of mine, that's fine. Please do not spam me with it, insult me, or try to tell me that he is in fact Hitler in a bunny suit. I respect your opinion, please try to respect mine.
That was annoying... annoying enough for me to post on here about it, and argue the point.
Today, I got an email in my work email, from a coworker, addressed to all users in the organization, that contained a brief message expressing concern about what would happen if Obama was elected president, and a link to a video. The video is a thirteen minute vid that explores Obama's "three islamic names", his link with that nutcase pastor, his refusal to wear an american flag button, accuses him of anti-christianity, antisemitism, and marxism, etc etc etc.
I'm so fucking pissed.
Not only does the content of the video make me froth at the mouth a little, but someone sent it to everyone in the org. I've casually dismissed previous junk org-wide mailings, cause they're infrequent. But this?
I work in a place that leans pretty hard to the right. The company owner is hard core republican.
I don't feel like I can/should reply to everyone and dispute - both because I don't think its good form - and she shouldnt have done it in the first place, but also because I'm pretty sure that I'm solidly in the minority here, and don't welcome any politically-based discrimination or so forth. I don't even feel like I can email her and suggest that she not use org-wide mailings for political stuff, because I'm almost certain to come off as hating on her message.
I'm not trying to be nazi here - I'm down with everyone's right to their opinion - political opinion included. It pisses me off though when its incorrect, or when biased information is shoved down my throat. I try to avoid politics generally. John is right-leaning, and while we banter about politics from time to time, I try to keep it low-key, and am not into shoving anyone's face into anything.
And what's with the hating? I have yet to see video or email forwards about how McCain is the white devil who steals people souls and wants to invade a bajillion countries and hates black people.... So what gives? I'm not saying that we lefty folks are without bile or spite, but I am continuously astounded and horrified at the volume and tone of politico-spin-bullshit that comes out of the far right machine.
If you don't like Obama, and want to vote for McCain, that's fine, it is completely your right to do so, and you won't catch me badmouthing you for it. I can respect someone for not agreeing with the positions and policies that a candidate stands for. Its called reason. I have less respect when your position is "Well he has three islamic names."
Let me sum up:
Don't use your work email to send political messages to people who have not already asked you to do so. Company Use Policy, people.
If you want to send me a note, asking me to consider your candidate instead of mine, that's fine. Please do not spam me with it, insult me, or try to tell me that he is in fact Hitler in a bunny suit. I respect your opinion, please try to respect mine.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Our Government
I am continuously incensed and infuriated at the actions of our government.
That's right, incensed AND infuriated.
Today, Bushie signed into law a bill that undermines the Constitution that was part of the foundation of our nation.
In it, things like rape are outlawed, but the President is given liberty to define "torture".
In addition, and thanks to for bringing this to my attention, apparently Tennessee is working on state legislation to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. Why are we so fucking concerned with whether two consenting adults might want to bring some formality to their commitment to each other? Oh, because they're THE GAYS? Please. A threat to family values in America? How about divorce, people? Want to know what is a threat to family values in America? How about single mothers who, despite working perhaps two minimum wage jobs (note that the government recently voted to keep the minimum wage pretty fucking minimum) are barely able to support their families? How about our failing schools or any one of a hundred other things that I'm sure you could find that are wrong and fucked up in this country, and that maybe we could fix if we spent just half the time on it that we spend worrying about the god damn gays.
Oh - Foley - right, cybersex with underage pages Foley - is about to name the priest who molested him.
I have to apologize right now. I rarely wish terrible things on people. I'm pretty damned opinionated, but I try to see things in a positive light.
This guy can go fuck himself. I hope that he fades immediately into obscurity and that along the way something moderately terrible happens to him. Quit begging for pity, asshole. Fuck off.
Oh, and remember Ken Lay? From Enron? The guy who was responsible for fucking a ton of people out of their pensions? Well, he didn't do it. Not according to a appelate judge who, since Lay died this past summer, has abated the conviction. I bet that asshole is laughing in his grave, at all the people he fucked.
That's right, incensed AND infuriated.
Today, Bushie signed into law a bill that undermines the Constitution that was part of the foundation of our nation.
In it, things like rape are outlawed, but the President is given liberty to define "torture".
In addition, and thanks to
Oh - Foley - right, cybersex with underage pages Foley - is about to name the priest who molested him.
I have to apologize right now. I rarely wish terrible things on people. I'm pretty damned opinionated, but I try to see things in a positive light.
This guy can go fuck himself. I hope that he fades immediately into obscurity and that along the way something moderately terrible happens to him. Quit begging for pity, asshole. Fuck off.
Oh, and remember Ken Lay? From Enron? The guy who was responsible for fucking a ton of people out of their pensions? Well, he didn't do it. Not according to a appelate judge who, since Lay died this past summer, has abated the conviction. I bet that asshole is laughing in his grave, at all the people he fucked.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
"At least no one died."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/shays.kennedy.ap/index.html
From the article linked above:
Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like during the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident involving Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.
"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," the embattled Connecticut congressman told The Hartford Courant in remarks published Wednesday.
"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added.
What the fuck? Talk about some fucked up logic. "Yeah, I'm sorry, I really shouldn't have done that. But remember when Saddam Hussien gassed those Kurdish villages? Boy, I didn't do that, you know."
I just don't think that "I didn't kill anybody." is a valid defense. Unless we're talking about a murder trial. And we're not. Let me remind you, since the Republicans are trying really hard to generate a smoke screen, that we're talking about a Congressman who engaged in some pretty goddamn questionable behavior, and a party that apparently had at least some information about this problem going back to 2001.
Give me a fucking break.
From the article linked above:
Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like during the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident involving Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.
"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," the embattled Connecticut congressman told The Hartford Courant in remarks published Wednesday.
"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added.
What the fuck? Talk about some fucked up logic. "Yeah, I'm sorry, I really shouldn't have done that. But remember when Saddam Hussien gassed those Kurdish villages? Boy, I didn't do that, you know."
I just don't think that "I didn't kill anybody." is a valid defense. Unless we're talking about a murder trial. And we're not. Let me remind you, since the Republicans are trying really hard to generate a smoke screen, that we're talking about a Congressman who engaged in some pretty goddamn questionable behavior, and a party that apparently had at least some information about this problem going back to 2001.
Give me a fucking break.
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Dear Congressman Foley,
Dear Congressman Foley,
Being gay, having been molested, and having a drinking problem are not excuses, or shields to hide behind. You're a sick dude. Sure, you need some help. Possibly some jail time.
You and your lawyer seem to be desperately flailing about looking for some sympathy. You're certainly not going to get any here. In fact, this flailing about just makes me more angry about this whole mess you've created. See, you're helping to foster the idea that that "the gays" are a bunch of savages who molest boys like, as a matter of course.
It's unfortunate that you were molested. But that certainly doesn't let you off easy.
For shame, sir.
Being gay, having been molested, and having a drinking problem are not excuses, or shields to hide behind. You're a sick dude. Sure, you need some help. Possibly some jail time.
You and your lawyer seem to be desperately flailing about looking for some sympathy. You're certainly not going to get any here. In fact, this flailing about just makes me more angry about this whole mess you've created. See, you're helping to foster the idea that that "the gays" are a bunch of savages who molest boys like, as a matter of course.
It's unfortunate that you were molested. But that certainly doesn't let you off easy.
For shame, sir.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Apparently my elected officials are bored
I've never been elected to serve in congress. I've never been an intern or employee at our legislative branch. Heck, I've only *been* to washington DC three or four times. But I don't need to be a veteran of the Beltway to feel like congress is twiddling their thumbs.
But you know what? There are lots of things I would rather my elected officials be doing than voting on whether or not to congratulate Spelman College on the occasion of its 125th anniversary or whether or not to ship horses to places that people might eat them.
I'm serious, aren't there issues going on that need to be addressed? Horses are very nice, yes, but so are cows I suppose, so fuck them. Why are our elected representatives wasting my time and money trying to make sure that people don't eat horse meat?
/rant
But you know what? There are lots of things I would rather my elected officials be doing than voting on whether or not to congratulate Spelman College on the occasion of its 125th anniversary or whether or not to ship horses to places that people might eat them.
I'm serious, aren't there issues going on that need to be addressed? Horses are very nice, yes, but so are cows I suppose, so fuck them. Why are our elected representatives wasting my time and money trying to make sure that people don't eat horse meat?
/rant
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
No troops for you!
So the other day was the 5th anniversary of 9/11.
I observed it by going to work, watching an episode of COPS, and playing computer games.
I'm not sure that I can clearly state my thoughts on the anniversary. I didnt lose anyone that I knew in the attacks. That's not to say I'm untouched by them, but to me the anniversary is more a time that I look back and see how badly our government has fucked this whole thing up. I see that, sadly, more than I see the loss of all of those people in the attacks.
But now, the point of my post today. No Troops For You! (or, how we're still fucking up this supposed "war on terror")
Remember back almost 5 years ago, how after the attacks everyone around the world was horrified. We had the world behind us. We all looked to bushie to lead us.. and he sure has led us. Right into a bog. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The world mourned with us. We looked for the perpetrators of the terrible attacks and we were told that Osama bin Ladin was behind them. He was in Afghanistan, being sheltered by the Taliban. The Taliban were not a nice bunch of folks. Now, that's sorta easy for me to say perhaps.. they were hardcore islamic fundamentalists. I'm not. They were harboring bin Ladin and hosting training camps apparently for terrorists. Bad stuff. But I feel compelled to mention that in the greater scheme of things, they were no worse than at least a half a dozen governments that I can think of. But.. they were providing a home for bin Ladin, and that's who we were after. We asked them to give him up, they refused, and we went in. It was good stuff! We were fighting the good fight.
Now fast forward. About four and a half years.
Remember how during that time we kicked the Taliban out, chased bin Ladin into hiding, and then moved on to Iraq? I'll skip all of the pages and pages of discussion on Iraq for now, because I'm still talking about Afghanistan, I'm afraid. Within the last few months, the reigns were handed over from the US to NATO in Afghanistan. Guess what they're doing over there. Any guesses? That's right. They're fighting the Taliban. The Taliban were the guys who were harboring... oh wait, I just talked about this.. Where we kicked them out of Afghanistan and then moved on to Iraq. Well, it seems that we forgot to mention to the Taliban that they were defeated. Cause they're back, and back with a vengeance it seems. Suicide bombings have been rare or non-existent in Afghanistan. Until recently. Earlier this very month a suicide bomber in southern Afghanistan killed a provincial governor. And then another suicide bomber attacked the funeral of said governor. And... the commander of NATO forces on the ground in Afghanistan has called for member nations to send more troops to help out with the fight on the ground. He's calling for reinforcements, people. But uh, he's getting no help. Wait, Canada is sending in another 120 troops I think, to compliment their 2,300 on the ground.
Now, here's what I'm driving at. We did the right thing by going into Afghanistan and chasing bin Ladin and ousting the Taliban. Then *before the smoke had even cleared* we went charging off into Iraq. And now guess what? Apparently we didn't do the job right the first time. So now, not only are we (well, NATO) still fighting over there, but we're also not willing/able to give the commanders on the ground what they need to be able to fight this thing! Which, you know, is the same problem our commanders faced going into Iraq.. Some people think it is part of the reason we're having so much trouble over there now.
So there you go. That's what I did with my September 11th.
P.S.
Linkage! Because I don't want you to just take my word for it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/10/afghanistan.fighting/
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-1-0&fp=4508a21cd856d030&ei=BXwIRe-4GNDyaM2erOYN&url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/68f79698-41ed-11db-b4ab-0000779e2340.html&cid=1109486822
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5341654.stm
I observed it by going to work, watching an episode of COPS, and playing computer games.
I'm not sure that I can clearly state my thoughts on the anniversary. I didnt lose anyone that I knew in the attacks. That's not to say I'm untouched by them, but to me the anniversary is more a time that I look back and see how badly our government has fucked this whole thing up. I see that, sadly, more than I see the loss of all of those people in the attacks.
But now, the point of my post today. No Troops For You! (or, how we're still fucking up this supposed "war on terror")
Remember back almost 5 years ago, how after the attacks everyone around the world was horrified. We had the world behind us. We all looked to bushie to lead us.. and he sure has led us. Right into a bog. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The world mourned with us. We looked for the perpetrators of the terrible attacks and we were told that Osama bin Ladin was behind them. He was in Afghanistan, being sheltered by the Taliban. The Taliban were not a nice bunch of folks. Now, that's sorta easy for me to say perhaps.. they were hardcore islamic fundamentalists. I'm not. They were harboring bin Ladin and hosting training camps apparently for terrorists. Bad stuff. But I feel compelled to mention that in the greater scheme of things, they were no worse than at least a half a dozen governments that I can think of. But.. they were providing a home for bin Ladin, and that's who we were after. We asked them to give him up, they refused, and we went in. It was good stuff! We were fighting the good fight.
Now fast forward. About four and a half years.
Remember how during that time we kicked the Taliban out, chased bin Ladin into hiding, and then moved on to Iraq? I'll skip all of the pages and pages of discussion on Iraq for now, because I'm still talking about Afghanistan, I'm afraid. Within the last few months, the reigns were handed over from the US to NATO in Afghanistan. Guess what they're doing over there. Any guesses? That's right. They're fighting the Taliban. The Taliban were the guys who were harboring... oh wait, I just talked about this.. Where we kicked them out of Afghanistan and then moved on to Iraq. Well, it seems that we forgot to mention to the Taliban that they were defeated. Cause they're back, and back with a vengeance it seems. Suicide bombings have been rare or non-existent in Afghanistan. Until recently. Earlier this very month a suicide bomber in southern Afghanistan killed a provincial governor. And then another suicide bomber attacked the funeral of said governor. And... the commander of NATO forces on the ground in Afghanistan has called for member nations to send more troops to help out with the fight on the ground. He's calling for reinforcements, people. But uh, he's getting no help. Wait, Canada is sending in another 120 troops I think, to compliment their 2,300 on the ground.
Now, here's what I'm driving at. We did the right thing by going into Afghanistan and chasing bin Ladin and ousting the Taliban. Then *before the smoke had even cleared* we went charging off into Iraq. And now guess what? Apparently we didn't do the job right the first time. So now, not only are we (well, NATO) still fighting over there, but we're also not willing/able to give the commanders on the ground what they need to be able to fight this thing! Which, you know, is the same problem our commanders faced going into Iraq.. Some people think it is part of the reason we're having so much trouble over there now.
So there you go. That's what I did with my September 11th.
P.S.
Linkage! Because I don't want you to just take my word for it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/10/afghanistan.fighting/
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/1-1-0&fp=4508a21cd856d030&ei=BXwIRe-4GNDyaM2erOYN&url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/68f79698-41ed-11db-b4ab-0000779e2340.html&cid=1109486822
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5341654.stm
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Our Administration
Ok, so I feel that America needs me to weigh in on two topics, both pertaining to our leader, George W.
Note: in researching this blog entry.. which I do for every blog entry, extensive research! I found that the following google search produces a number of interesting links: bush shit
The other day, not knowing that he was was being recorded, Bush said "We got to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit." Ha! I'm sure others have thought of it, but the title for this section of my blog entry just came to me. "THE 'SHIT' HEARD ROUND THE WORLD" I am a genius.
I really have only one thing to say on this. Get the fuck over it. I know that we Americans are extremely prudish, and despite that, I'd wager, a solid majority of our taxpayers use this word and others on a daily basis, we dont see it on TV or radio. Its like we're somehow ignoring a big elephant in the living room. An elephant with the word "shit" tattoo'd across its side. I think there are tons of bigger things to worry about than whether someone used a four letter word. Be offended about starvation in africa, or US soldiers raping girls in Iraq, or the plight of women in Guatemala, and please! use swear words!
The other Bush thing I wanted to mention is the weird sortof massage that Bush tried to give to German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently. [link] What the fuck was that? Why did Bush decide to give the German Chancellor a neckrub? It'd have been funnier if she'd have punched him.
Note: in researching this blog entry.. which I do for every blog entry, extensive research! I found that the following google search produces a number of interesting links: bush shit
The other day, not knowing that he was was being recorded, Bush said "We got to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit." Ha! I'm sure others have thought of it, but the title for this section of my blog entry just came to me. "THE 'SHIT' HEARD ROUND THE WORLD" I am a genius.
I really have only one thing to say on this. Get the fuck over it. I know that we Americans are extremely prudish, and despite that, I'd wager, a solid majority of our taxpayers use this word and others on a daily basis, we dont see it on TV or radio. Its like we're somehow ignoring a big elephant in the living room. An elephant with the word "shit" tattoo'd across its side. I think there are tons of bigger things to worry about than whether someone used a four letter word. Be offended about starvation in africa, or US soldiers raping girls in Iraq, or the plight of women in Guatemala, and please! use swear words!
The other Bush thing I wanted to mention is the weird sortof massage that Bush tried to give to German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently. [link] What the fuck was that? Why did Bush decide to give the German Chancellor a neckrub? It'd have been funnier if she'd have punched him.
Thursday, July 6, 2006
The Terrorism Index
According to 100 experts on terrorism, we're not winning.
Now, I won't start in on how that means that the current administration is lying to us, even though they are.
I will mirror the entire text here, but this is the link to the original text: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1763813
The Terrorism Index
June 14, 2006
Is the United States winning the war on terror? Not according to more than 100 of America's top foreign-policy hands. They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack.
Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans understandably rallied around the flag. Having just suffered the deadliest attack ever on U.S. soil, huge percentages believed another attack was imminent. But Americans also had enormous faith that the Global War on Terror would help keep them safe. Just one month after 9/11, for instance, 94 percent of Americans told an abc News/Washington Post poll that they approved of how the fight against terrorism was being handled. The United States then quickly went to war in Afghanistan, closing down a terrorist sanctuary and capturing or killing a number of high-level al Qaeda operatives in the process.
Since 2001, terrorists have found their targets on almost every continent, with bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, and elsewhere. Five years on, however, America has yet to experience another attack. But Americans appear less convinced that their country is winning the war on terror. In the face of persisting threats, including a growing number of terrorist attacks around the world, numerous reports show that Americans are losing faith in their government's ability to wage the war successfully and to protect them from the terrorists' next volley. Barely half of Americans today approve of the way in which the war on terror is being handled, and more than one third believe the United States is less safe today than it was before 9/11.
These pessimistic public perceptions could easily be attributed to the high cost, in both treasure and lives, of counterterrorism efforts. After all, Americans are constantly being told by their elected leaders that their pessimism is wrong, that the war is being won. But they're also told that another attack is inevitable. Which is it? To find out, Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress teamed up to survey more than 100 of America's top foreign-policy experts--Republicans and Democrats alike. The Foreign Policy/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index is the first comprehensive effort to mine the highest echelons of America's foreign-policy establishment for their assessment of how the United States is fighting the Global War on Terror. Our aim was to draw some definitive conclusions about the war's priorities, policies, and progress from the very people who have run America's national security apparatus over the past half century. Participants include people who have served as secretary of state, national security advisor, retired top commanders from the U.S. military, seasoned members of the intelligence community, and distinguished academics and journalists. Nearly 80 percent of the index participants have worked in the U.S. government--of these more than half were in the executive branch, one third in the military, and 17 percent in the intelligence community.
Despite today's highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index's experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index's experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts' belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair. "Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration's performance abroad," says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. "The reason is that it's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."
Respondents sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence, and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks. The experts also said that recent reforms of the national security apparatus have done little to make Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform America's intelligence community, for instance, more than half of the index's experts said that creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror. "Intelligence reform so far has been largely limited to structural reorganization that in most cases produced new levels of bureaucracy in an already overly bureaucratic system," says index participant Bill Gertz, a journalist who has covered the intelligence community for more than 20 years.
The index's experts were similarly critical of most of the policy initiatives put forward by the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush since September 11. Eighty-one percent, for instance, believe the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, negatively affects the war on terror. The index's experts also disapprove of how America is handling its relations with European allies, how it is confronting threatening regimes in North Korea and Iran, how it is controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and its dealings with failing states, to name just a few. "We are losing the war on terror because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause," says index participant Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. "[O]ur insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of our time … feeds al Qaeda's vision of the world."
These conclusions about the United States' performance in the war thus far are all the more troubling considering that, although Americans appear to be growing tired of the war on terror, the index's experts appear to believe that the battle has just begun. Accordingly, a majority agrees that the war requires more emphasis on a victory of ideas, not just guns. That is hardly surprising, considering that nearly 80 percent believe a widespread rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world is a critical element to victory. To win the battle of ideas, the experts say, America must place a much higher emphasis on its nonmilitary tools. More than two thirds say that U.S. policymakers must strengthen the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. At the same time, the experts indicate that the U.S. government must think more creatively about threats. Asked what presents the single greatest danger to U.S. national security, nearly half said loose nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, while just one third said al Qaeda and terrorism, and a mere 4 percent said Iran. Five years after the attacks of September 11, it's a reminder that the greatest challenges may still lie ahead.
With Friends Like These
Wars have a way of making unlikely bedfellows, and the Global War on Terror is apparently no different.
Asked to name the country that has produced the largest number of global terrorists, the index's foreign-policy experts pointed to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan--three of America's marquee allies in the Muslim world. Nearly two thirds (62 percent) identified Saudi Arabia as the leading culprit. Thirteen percent pointed to Egypt, and 11 percent said Pakistan produces the most terrorists. "The jihadist movement," says index participant and Sarah Lawrence College Professor Fawaz Gerges, "was born in Egypt in the late 1960s. After September 11, however, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the leading theater of jihadist-Salafist thought and action."
Although these three states may be widely believed to be incubating terrorists, the cooperation they have offered the United States in fighting terrorism presents a more mixed picture. Approximately two thirds of the experts say that U.S. cooperation with Egypt and Pakistan has been effective. The experts are more divided as to whether Saudi Arabia is doing what it can to counter the terrorist threat.
These perceptions cut to the heart of some of the dilemmas facing the United States. Egypt, for instance, has received more than $50 billion in U.S. military and economic assistance since 1979, yet it resisted recent U.S. efforts to promote political reform. America designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally in 2004, despite allegations that it has not done enough to capture bin Laden. Saudi Arabia has helped crack down on financial support flowing to terrorist groups, but Saudi leaders have been slow to move against radical elements within their own population. Is the United States doing a poor job of choosing its friends? Maybe. Then again, it may just be keeping its friends close, and its enemies closer.
The Next Attack
Americans are consistently told that the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil is a question of when, not if. The index's results overwhelmingly agree that the next attack is just a matter of time.
Eighty-four percent of the experts said they believe a terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001, is likely or certain to happen in the next five years. More than a quarter said a 9/11-scale attack is certain to occur in America within the next decade. Asked about the likelihood of a smaller strike akin to the July 2005 London bombings, 91 percent agreed that such an attack is likely or certain by 2016; more than half said that such an attack could happen this year.
But how will the terrorists strike? Roughly two thirds of the experts said that some part of America's infrastructure--a port, train station, or major landmark--will be targeted. That is no surprise, given that terrorists have repeatedly struck these locales in the past. But it may be more alarming that almost the same percentage predict that the next attack will come in the form of a suicide bombing. These results, says index participant Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corp., "reflect a recognition of how easy terrorism has become." Such attacks, he says, "are cheap, unpredictable, and difficult to prevent. All that is required is the will to kill and the will to die, neither of which seems in short supply today."
Americans have never feared a suicide bombing the way the people of Amman or Jerusalem have. But there may be reason to think that will soon change. A recent study by Rand found that 81 percent of all suicide attacks in the past 30 or so years have occurred since Sept. 11, 2001, and the primary motivation for each of these attacks was a military intervention or occupation such as the ongoing operations in Iraq. The odds that America can continue to elude the world's most popular form of terrorism may be fading fast.
Energy's Highest Price
If you could make something a higher priority in fighting the war on terror, what would it be? A little more than one third of the index's experts said killing or capturing terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Laden. About the same number favored promoting democracy in the Muslim world. More than two thirds said stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue states. But devising a more aggressive energy policy?
It may surprise, but the index's experts said that ending America's dependence on foreign oil may be the U.S. government's single most pressing priority in winning the war on terror. Eighty-two percent of the experts said that policymakers should make ending America's dependence on foreign oil a higher priority. And nearly two thirds said that current U.S. energy policies are actually making matters worse, not better. "We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East," says index participant and former cia director James Woolsey. "[F]or example in Saudi Arabia, billions are transferred to the Wahhabis and like-minded groups who then indoctrinate young people to hate Shiites, Sufis, Jews, Christians, and democracy, and to oppress women horribly."
If U.S. policymakers don't take this vulnerability seriously, terrorists do. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, has labeled the global energy infrastructure a key strategic target for terrorists. In February, Saudi Arabia's government foiled an al Qaeda plot to attack the Abqaiq oil facility, the country's largest. Some 30,000 security forces are now guarding the country's oil fields. Global oil markets are so tight that even the threat of a supply disruption can cause a spike in price. These tight markets are partially responsible for the higher prices Americans will pay at the pump this summer. But the index suggests that there may be a greater price for our energy policy: losing the war on terror.
Grading the Government
A room full of foreign-policy experts can be a tough crowd. So it's hardly surprising that the index experts were highly critical of how the various branches of the U.S. government are fighting the war on terror. Only the National Security Agency received an above-average score of 5.2, on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 represents the worst possible job of guarding the United States. Every other agency received below-average marks.
Experts gave the Department of Homeland Security (dhs) the worst grade. Its average score was just 2.9. In fact, 36 percent of the experts indicated that the newly created dhs has had a negative impact on America's national security, and nearly 1 in 5 thought the department's funding should be slashed. The U.S. State Department received relatively high marks. Surprisingly, this opinion was not limited to the liberal internationalist wing of foreign-policy elites. Even conservative experts, who have sometimes taken a dimmer view of the State Department's diplomatic efforts, believed that the department's budget is a good investment and that it should be moderately or substantially increased. Overall, 87 percent of the index's experts believe that Foggy Bottom requires more funding, including 72 percent of conservatives.
The index's experts also have a strong opinion of how that money should be spent. Nearly 80 percent agree that a widespread rejection of extremist ideologies around the globe is critical to "winning" the war on terror. Yet the experts simultaneously rated America's public diplomacy efforts the lowest of any policy initiative, with a median score of just 1.8. Clearly, few believe that the United States is doing its best to win friends and influence people.
Now, I won't start in on how that means that the current administration is lying to us, even though they are.
I will mirror the entire text here, but this is the link to the original text: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1763813
The Terrorism Index
June 14, 2006
Is the United States winning the war on terror? Not according to more than 100 of America's top foreign-policy hands. They see a national security apparatus in disrepair and a government that is failing to protect the public from the next attack.
Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans understandably rallied around the flag. Having just suffered the deadliest attack ever on U.S. soil, huge percentages believed another attack was imminent. But Americans also had enormous faith that the Global War on Terror would help keep them safe. Just one month after 9/11, for instance, 94 percent of Americans told an abc News/Washington Post poll that they approved of how the fight against terrorism was being handled. The United States then quickly went to war in Afghanistan, closing down a terrorist sanctuary and capturing or killing a number of high-level al Qaeda operatives in the process.
Since 2001, terrorists have found their targets on almost every continent, with bombings in Bali, London, Madrid, and elsewhere. Five years on, however, America has yet to experience another attack. But Americans appear less convinced that their country is winning the war on terror. In the face of persisting threats, including a growing number of terrorist attacks around the world, numerous reports show that Americans are losing faith in their government's ability to wage the war successfully and to protect them from the terrorists' next volley. Barely half of Americans today approve of the way in which the war on terror is being handled, and more than one third believe the United States is less safe today than it was before 9/11.
These pessimistic public perceptions could easily be attributed to the high cost, in both treasure and lives, of counterterrorism efforts. After all, Americans are constantly being told by their elected leaders that their pessimism is wrong, that the war is being won. But they're also told that another attack is inevitable. Which is it? To find out, Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress teamed up to survey more than 100 of America's top foreign-policy experts--Republicans and Democrats alike. The Foreign Policy/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index is the first comprehensive effort to mine the highest echelons of America's foreign-policy establishment for their assessment of how the United States is fighting the Global War on Terror. Our aim was to draw some definitive conclusions about the war's priorities, policies, and progress from the very people who have run America's national security apparatus over the past half century. Participants include people who have served as secretary of state, national security advisor, retired top commanders from the U.S. military, seasoned members of the intelligence community, and distinguished academics and journalists. Nearly 80 percent of the index participants have worked in the U.S. government--of these more than half were in the executive branch, one third in the military, and 17 percent in the intelligence community.
Despite today's highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index's experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index's experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts' belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair. "Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration's performance abroad," says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. "The reason is that it's clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force."
Respondents sharply criticized U.S. efforts in a number of key areas of national security, including public diplomacy, intelligence, and homeland security. Nearly all of the departments and agencies responsible for fighting the war on terror received poor marks. The experts also said that recent reforms of the national security apparatus have done little to make Americans safer. Asked about recent efforts to reform America's intelligence community, for instance, more than half of the index's experts said that creating the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has had no positive impact in the war against terror. "Intelligence reform so far has been largely limited to structural reorganization that in most cases produced new levels of bureaucracy in an already overly bureaucratic system," says index participant Bill Gertz, a journalist who has covered the intelligence community for more than 20 years.
The index's experts were similarly critical of most of the policy initiatives put forward by the U.S. Congress and President George W. Bush since September 11. Eighty-one percent, for instance, believe the detention of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, negatively affects the war on terror. The index's experts also disapprove of how America is handling its relations with European allies, how it is confronting threatening regimes in North Korea and Iran, how it is controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and its dealings with failing states, to name just a few. "We are losing the war on terror because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause," says index participant Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. "[O]ur insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of our time … feeds al Qaeda's vision of the world."
These conclusions about the United States' performance in the war thus far are all the more troubling considering that, although Americans appear to be growing tired of the war on terror, the index's experts appear to believe that the battle has just begun. Accordingly, a majority agrees that the war requires more emphasis on a victory of ideas, not just guns. That is hardly surprising, considering that nearly 80 percent believe a widespread rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world is a critical element to victory. To win the battle of ideas, the experts say, America must place a much higher emphasis on its nonmilitary tools. More than two thirds say that U.S. policymakers must strengthen the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. At the same time, the experts indicate that the U.S. government must think more creatively about threats. Asked what presents the single greatest danger to U.S. national security, nearly half said loose nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, while just one third said al Qaeda and terrorism, and a mere 4 percent said Iran. Five years after the attacks of September 11, it's a reminder that the greatest challenges may still lie ahead.
With Friends Like These
Wars have a way of making unlikely bedfellows, and the Global War on Terror is apparently no different.
Asked to name the country that has produced the largest number of global terrorists, the index's foreign-policy experts pointed to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan--three of America's marquee allies in the Muslim world. Nearly two thirds (62 percent) identified Saudi Arabia as the leading culprit. Thirteen percent pointed to Egypt, and 11 percent said Pakistan produces the most terrorists. "The jihadist movement," says index participant and Sarah Lawrence College Professor Fawaz Gerges, "was born in Egypt in the late 1960s. After September 11, however, Saudi Arabia has emerged as the leading theater of jihadist-Salafist thought and action."
Although these three states may be widely believed to be incubating terrorists, the cooperation they have offered the United States in fighting terrorism presents a more mixed picture. Approximately two thirds of the experts say that U.S. cooperation with Egypt and Pakistan has been effective. The experts are more divided as to whether Saudi Arabia is doing what it can to counter the terrorist threat.
These perceptions cut to the heart of some of the dilemmas facing the United States. Egypt, for instance, has received more than $50 billion in U.S. military and economic assistance since 1979, yet it resisted recent U.S. efforts to promote political reform. America designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally in 2004, despite allegations that it has not done enough to capture bin Laden. Saudi Arabia has helped crack down on financial support flowing to terrorist groups, but Saudi leaders have been slow to move against radical elements within their own population. Is the United States doing a poor job of choosing its friends? Maybe. Then again, it may just be keeping its friends close, and its enemies closer.
The Next Attack
Americans are consistently told that the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil is a question of when, not if. The index's results overwhelmingly agree that the next attack is just a matter of time.
Eighty-four percent of the experts said they believe a terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001, is likely or certain to happen in the next five years. More than a quarter said a 9/11-scale attack is certain to occur in America within the next decade. Asked about the likelihood of a smaller strike akin to the July 2005 London bombings, 91 percent agreed that such an attack is likely or certain by 2016; more than half said that such an attack could happen this year.
But how will the terrorists strike? Roughly two thirds of the experts said that some part of America's infrastructure--a port, train station, or major landmark--will be targeted. That is no surprise, given that terrorists have repeatedly struck these locales in the past. But it may be more alarming that almost the same percentage predict that the next attack will come in the form of a suicide bombing. These results, says index participant Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at the Rand Corp., "reflect a recognition of how easy terrorism has become." Such attacks, he says, "are cheap, unpredictable, and difficult to prevent. All that is required is the will to kill and the will to die, neither of which seems in short supply today."
Americans have never feared a suicide bombing the way the people of Amman or Jerusalem have. But there may be reason to think that will soon change. A recent study by Rand found that 81 percent of all suicide attacks in the past 30 or so years have occurred since Sept. 11, 2001, and the primary motivation for each of these attacks was a military intervention or occupation such as the ongoing operations in Iraq. The odds that America can continue to elude the world's most popular form of terrorism may be fading fast.
Energy's Highest Price
If you could make something a higher priority in fighting the war on terror, what would it be? A little more than one third of the index's experts said killing or capturing terrorist leaders such as Osama bin Laden. About the same number favored promoting democracy in the Muslim world. More than two thirds said stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue states. But devising a more aggressive energy policy?
It may surprise, but the index's experts said that ending America's dependence on foreign oil may be the U.S. government's single most pressing priority in winning the war on terror. Eighty-two percent of the experts said that policymakers should make ending America's dependence on foreign oil a higher priority. And nearly two thirds said that current U.S. energy policies are actually making matters worse, not better. "We borrow a billion dollars every working day to import oil, an increasing share of it coming from the Middle East," says index participant and former cia director James Woolsey. "[F]or example in Saudi Arabia, billions are transferred to the Wahhabis and like-minded groups who then indoctrinate young people to hate Shiites, Sufis, Jews, Christians, and democracy, and to oppress women horribly."
If U.S. policymakers don't take this vulnerability seriously, terrorists do. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, has labeled the global energy infrastructure a key strategic target for terrorists. In February, Saudi Arabia's government foiled an al Qaeda plot to attack the Abqaiq oil facility, the country's largest. Some 30,000 security forces are now guarding the country's oil fields. Global oil markets are so tight that even the threat of a supply disruption can cause a spike in price. These tight markets are partially responsible for the higher prices Americans will pay at the pump this summer. But the index suggests that there may be a greater price for our energy policy: losing the war on terror.
Grading the Government
A room full of foreign-policy experts can be a tough crowd. So it's hardly surprising that the index experts were highly critical of how the various branches of the U.S. government are fighting the war on terror. Only the National Security Agency received an above-average score of 5.2, on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 represents the worst possible job of guarding the United States. Every other agency received below-average marks.
Experts gave the Department of Homeland Security (dhs) the worst grade. Its average score was just 2.9. In fact, 36 percent of the experts indicated that the newly created dhs has had a negative impact on America's national security, and nearly 1 in 5 thought the department's funding should be slashed. The U.S. State Department received relatively high marks. Surprisingly, this opinion was not limited to the liberal internationalist wing of foreign-policy elites. Even conservative experts, who have sometimes taken a dimmer view of the State Department's diplomatic efforts, believed that the department's budget is a good investment and that it should be moderately or substantially increased. Overall, 87 percent of the index's experts believe that Foggy Bottom requires more funding, including 72 percent of conservatives.
The index's experts also have a strong opinion of how that money should be spent. Nearly 80 percent agree that a widespread rejection of extremist ideologies around the globe is critical to "winning" the war on terror. Yet the experts simultaneously rated America's public diplomacy efforts the lowest of any policy initiative, with a median score of just 1.8. Clearly, few believe that the United States is doing its best to win friends and influence people.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
bullshit politics
I'm not a political blogger. However interested in the state of the nation, the world, and heck even my city and state. No secret that I think Bush Co. are a bunch of liars and thieves and I'd love nothing more than to see the public wise up and them get some recognition for all the shit they've pulled this country through.
Now for more focused ranting:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/NEWS0201/602140332/1009/NEWS
This article talks about how the Tennessee House Speaker Pro Tem took cash from an undercover FBI agent, but the rest of the committe didnt think it needed to be investigated.
And meanwhile, I'm pissed off that Bush Co was willing to secretly use wiretaps on americans on the phone with international callers. I think he ought to be impeached. And now some folks in congress are talking about passing legislation to "officially" make it legal. We've already got a FISA court that allows the government to get a secret wiretap on anyone and tell NO ONE for 72 hours, before bringing it before FISA. That's practically blank check. Don't get me wrong, I'm down for some fighting terrorism, but this is ridiculous. This is not supposed to be 1984 or Soviet Russia.
And I'll write my congress-people and tell them I think so.
Oh, and the other thing that gets to me... read this email:
-----------------------
FW: FW: GANG INITIATION WARNING
KEEP YOUR DOORS LOCKED!!
On Monday, Feb 6 @ approximately 1:45 pm the brother-in-law of my friend Donna was attacked on Hwy 70 (Summer Ave) between STAGE RD and KIRBY WHITTEN RD. This was in broad daylight in the middle of the afternoon! 3 black guys all dressed alike, had 2 cars parked sideways across Hwy 70 near Kirby Whitten, Gene went around them in the turn lane-they jumped in the cars and followed him to the red light-got out of the cars and started attacking his truck and telling him to unlock the doors they were going to kill him. He hit the accelerator and thinks he ran over the foot of one of them. He turned on Reese Rd and they were following him, but luckily he knew the neighborhood and lost them. When he reported this to the police they told him that gangs are hanging around the Bartlett/Memphis City limit lines and this is a type of initiation to belong to a gang.
Be extra careful around Yale/ Old Brownsville--Summer/Kirby-Whitten and the Wolfchase Mall areas. Always keep your doors locked and be aware of your surroundings.
Please tell your friends and family and especially your children that drive to be extra cautious.
----------------------
Now what do you think, just on reading this?
Well when I got this email from my dad, my first thought on reading the subject was that this was the "OH DONT FLASH YOUR LIGHTS AT CARS WITH THEIR HIGHBEAMS ON CAUSE THEY'LL KILL YOU" email. My second thought was "Wow, this seems increadibly implausable." Wouldn't something like this make.. um.. the news? I'm not in a gang, and never have been. Still, it seems to me that running around town killing people would not be particularly profitable or fruitful for a gang. When people get bullets in them, the cops start looking into it. Now I'm far from saying that street gangs dont involve themselves in violent behavior, but they're criminal enterprises. Busting people up on their way to work seems like it'd be more trouble than it'd be worth. Anyway, matters of street gang social economics aside, this screamed hoax. Sure enough, Krissi found this article for me (requires registration, but text reproduced below).
In the news: Police say e-mail on gangs not true
February 10, 2006
Greater Memphis - Bartlett
Police say e-mail on gangs not true
An e-mail being circulated that there was a gang initiation attack in
Bartlett has not been substantiated, according to Bartlett police.
The e-mail said a man was harassed by three men at about 1:45 p.m. on Monday
on Summer Avenue between Kirby-Whitten and Stage roads. The man came into
the Bartlett police station and reported the incident after he got off work,
which was about 12 hours after it happened, according to the e-mail.
Bartlett police, Memphis police and the Metro Gang Unit said there's no
evidence of gang activity, said Bartlett Police Chief Mark Hopper.
The police began receiving phone calls Thursday after the e-mail began to
circulate.
A police report on the incident wasn't completed Thursday so no details were
available.
---------------
So... This is ridiculous. What moron writes this stuff up so that we can just keep the good ole "black people sure are scary" flame alive. As a friend pointed out, we white folks are so worried about black people somehow doing something terrible do us, when the folks who must fuck us over are old white men in comfortable leather chairs who smoke cigars and drink expensive scotch. That's what I think anyway.
(Dad, if you stumble upon this, gimme a call, we'll chat)
Now for more focused ranting:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/NEWS0201/602140332/1009/NEWS
This article talks about how the Tennessee House Speaker Pro Tem took cash from an undercover FBI agent, but the rest of the committe didnt think it needed to be investigated.
And meanwhile, I'm pissed off that Bush Co was willing to secretly use wiretaps on americans on the phone with international callers. I think he ought to be impeached. And now some folks in congress are talking about passing legislation to "officially" make it legal. We've already got a FISA court that allows the government to get a secret wiretap on anyone and tell NO ONE for 72 hours, before bringing it before FISA. That's practically blank check. Don't get me wrong, I'm down for some fighting terrorism, but this is ridiculous. This is not supposed to be 1984 or Soviet Russia.
And I'll write my congress-people and tell them I think so.
Oh, and the other thing that gets to me... read this email:
-----------------------
FW: FW: GANG INITIATION WARNING
KEEP YOUR DOORS LOCKED!!
On Monday, Feb 6 @ approximately 1:45 pm the brother-in-law of my friend Donna was attacked on Hwy 70 (Summer Ave) between STAGE RD and KIRBY WHITTEN RD. This was in broad daylight in the middle of the afternoon! 3 black guys all dressed alike, had 2 cars parked sideways across Hwy 70 near Kirby Whitten, Gene went around them in the turn lane-they jumped in the cars and followed him to the red light-got out of the cars and started attacking his truck and telling him to unlock the doors they were going to kill him. He hit the accelerator and thinks he ran over the foot of one of them. He turned on Reese Rd and they were following him, but luckily he knew the neighborhood and lost them. When he reported this to the police they told him that gangs are hanging around the Bartlett/Memphis City limit lines and this is a type of initiation to belong to a gang.
Be extra careful around Yale/ Old Brownsville--Summer/Kirby-Whitten and the Wolfchase Mall areas. Always keep your doors locked and be aware of your surroundings.
Please tell your friends and family and especially your children that drive to be extra cautious.
----------------------
Now what do you think, just on reading this?
Well when I got this email from my dad, my first thought on reading the subject was that this was the "OH DONT FLASH YOUR LIGHTS AT CARS WITH THEIR HIGHBEAMS ON CAUSE THEY'LL KILL YOU" email. My second thought was "Wow, this seems increadibly implausable." Wouldn't something like this make.. um.. the news? I'm not in a gang, and never have been. Still, it seems to me that running around town killing people would not be particularly profitable or fruitful for a gang. When people get bullets in them, the cops start looking into it. Now I'm far from saying that street gangs dont involve themselves in violent behavior, but they're criminal enterprises. Busting people up on their way to work seems like it'd be more trouble than it'd be worth. Anyway, matters of street gang social economics aside, this screamed hoax. Sure enough, Krissi found this article for me (requires registration, but text reproduced below).
In the news: Police say e-mail on gangs not true
February 10, 2006
Greater Memphis - Bartlett
Police say e-mail on gangs not true
An e-mail being circulated that there was a gang initiation attack in
Bartlett has not been substantiated, according to Bartlett police.
The e-mail said a man was harassed by three men at about 1:45 p.m. on Monday
on Summer Avenue between Kirby-Whitten and Stage roads. The man came into
the Bartlett police station and reported the incident after he got off work,
which was about 12 hours after it happened, according to the e-mail.
Bartlett police, Memphis police and the Metro Gang Unit said there's no
evidence of gang activity, said Bartlett Police Chief Mark Hopper.
The police began receiving phone calls Thursday after the e-mail began to
circulate.
A police report on the incident wasn't completed Thursday so no details were
available.
---------------
So... This is ridiculous. What moron writes this stuff up so that we can just keep the good ole "black people sure are scary" flame alive. As a friend pointed out, we white folks are so worried about black people somehow doing something terrible do us, when the folks who must fuck us over are old white men in comfortable leather chairs who smoke cigars and drink expensive scotch. That's what I think anyway.
(Dad, if you stumble upon this, gimme a call, we'll chat)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)