... And I'll Tell you Why

'06 or Bust

2006-04-27T15:20:00.000-07:00

Let me be the first to say it: if the Democrats do not take back at least one house of Congress in November, either the entire leadership of the Democratic Party should be fired and replaced, or a new, independent party must rise out of the ashes of a dead Democratic Party.

There are so many problems facing this nation right now. If the Democrats cannot capitalize on the Republicans' incompetence now, I dare say it is hopeless for them as a party. Think about all the ammunition the Democrats have:

1. Hurricane Katrina, and the lack of any response (Even today little has been done),
2. The (civil) war in Iraq (body bags are piling up and where are those WMD's?),
3. Gas prices and our reliance on big oil (2 big oil men in the white house = coincidence?),
4. Jack Abramoff/Tom Delay lobbying scandals,
5. Failure to find and capture Bin Laden & Al-Zarqawi,
6. An enormous federal budget deficit that is growing exponentially,
7. Repeated attempts to privatize social security,
8. Passage of a confusing prescription drug benefits bill that primarily benefits the drug companies,
9. Leaking the name of a covert CIA agent,
10. Torture at Abu Ghraib

I realize that gerrymandering hampers the Democrats ability to take back the congress, but the Republicans have failed so miserably that Democrats should compete in '06.

For more Bush Administration scandals, see http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905D.shtml

Little Known Facts

2006-03-30T08:19:00.000-08:00

I thought it might be interesting to take a quick break from the usual political post. Instead, I am posting a list of little known facts that you may find interesting.

1. State with the highest percentage of people who walk to work: Alaska
2. Percentage of Africa that is wilderness: 28%. Percentage of North America that is wilderness: 38%
3. Average life span of a major league baseball: 7 pitches
4. The world's youngest parents were 8 and 9 and lived in China in 1910.
5. The youngest pope was 11 years old.
6. If a statue in the park of a person on a horse has both front legs in the air, the person died in battle; if the horse has one front leg in the air, the person died as a result of wounds received in battle; if the horse has all four legs on the ground, the person died of natural causes.
7. The first couple to be shown in bed together on prime time TV were Fredand Wilma Flintstone.
8. Every day more money is printed for Monopoly than the US Treasury
9. Al Capone's business card said he was a used furniture dealer.
10. All of the clocks in the movie "Pulp Fiction" are stuck on 4:20.
11. Chances that an American lives within 50 miles of where they grew up: 1 in 2.
12. China has more English speakers than the United States.
13. Conception occurs more often in December than any other month.
14. In Indiana it is illegal to ride public transportation for at least 30 minutes after eating garlic
15. Marilyn Monroe had six toes.
16. Shakespeare invented the word "assassination" and "bump."
17. The male praying mantis cannot copulate while its head is attached to its body. The female initiates sex by ripping the males head off.
18. The shortest war in history was between Zanzibar and England in 1896. Zanzibar surrendered after 38 minutes
19. Two-thirds of the world's eggplant is grown in New Jersey.
20. The phrase "sleep tight" derives from the fact that early mattresses were filled with straw and held up with rope stretched across the bedframe. A tight sleep was a comfortable sleep.
21. The phrase "rule of thumb" is derived from an old English law which stated that you couldn't beat your wife with anything wider than your thumb.
22. The word "Checkmate" in chess comes from the Persian phrase "Shah Mat," which means, "the king is dead".
23. You burn more calories sleeping than you do watching television.
24. Adolf Hitler's mother seriously considered having an abortion but was talked out of it by her doctor.
25. In medieval England, beer was often served with breakfast
26. Clans of long ago that wanted to get rid of their unwanted people without killing them used to burn their houses down - hence the expression "to get fired

Sources:
http://www.avolites.org.uk/jokes/didyouknow.htm
http://www.gambino.com/funstuff/facts.htm
http://www.commonplacebook.com/humor/aphorisms/facts.shtm
http://www.qub.ac.uk/assoc/msf/little_known_facts.htm

Which Party is Better for Homeland Defense Issues?

2006-03-29T13:30:00.000-08:00

Many believe that Republicans are strong on national defense and that Democrats are weak. I have previously written that this is a myth being perpetrated by Karl Rove and other Republican talking heads. Here is an excellent description of where the Democrats stand on homeland security issues, and also a terrific break down of the facts, comparing the Democrats to the Republicans:

http://democrats.senate.gov/agenda/real_security/

We Should All Be So Lucky

2006-03-13T14:10:00.000-08:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060313/ap_on_fe_st/beer_on_tap

Counterattack against South Dakota

2006-03-09T10:40:00.000-08:00

If you are like me, you felt a sense of bewilderment and helplessness when news of South Dakota's abortion ban became public. The religious right is hell-bent on overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal in all 50 states. Unlike most of us, these pro-life supporters are one issue voters and are relentless in advocating their position. Most of the pro-choice supporters, in contrast, are quite passive. We need to become active. The question is what should we do?

Here is a superb article written by a pro-choice activist. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/8/234141/0518 The article is very informative and suggests several things we can do right away to counter the pro-life activists.

Houston Soccer Team Update

2006-03-06T10:41:00.000-08:00

Many of you may recall my rampage against the name of Houston's new major league soccer team. Originally, the team was to be called "1836" after the year Houston was founded. Today, the team announced that instead of "1836", the team will be called The Dynamo. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=360856&cc=5901 Not great, but much better.

Katrina

2006-03-06T08:27:00.000-08:00

If you have not seen the video that just came out about Bush's briefing on hurricane Katrina, please stop what you are doing and at least read about it. The video clearly shows that the President knew that Katrina would likely breach the levees. After the briefing, the President asked ZERO questions. Not one. He even told reporters that the government was fully prepared to respond to the hurricane. Here is a link to the video: http://video.ap.org/v/en-ap/v.htm?g=c52e838f-66ce-47df-a229-8127e2c6f17e

Moreover, "Bush declared four days after the storm, 'I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees' that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans." What a liar! http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002114558

This whole thing disgusts me. There are two issues in particular that strike me as important. First, Bush did not ask any questions after the briefing. He lacks any intellectual curiosity and by remaining silent, was not doing his job. His first job is to protect the American people. He failed. Second, he blatantly lied. The video proves that he was warned about the possibility of the levees being breached. In addition, the video shows that all the experts were taking the hurricane very seriously. The only one who did not take it seriously was the President. The Democrats should pummel the President and republicans on this issue from now until November.

For a more detailed account, read http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002114558

Republican Hardball Politics

2006-02-27T12:52:00.000-08:00

Republicans are well known for their dirty tricks (see President Nixon for exhibit A) and behind the scenes arm twisting. Tom Delay is the master of such political subterfuge. An article came out in today's Washington Post detailing the latest Delay plot. Check out http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601227.html. The article explains that the IRS was asked to investigate a Texas non-profit organization that was critical of Tom Delay's campaign spending. The IRS investigated the organization at the behest of Tom Delay's good friend, congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX). Thankfully, the organization was cleared of any wrongdoing, but it is disgusting that the Delay and his cronies are trying to get revenge in this way. Watchdog organizations should not have to worry about costly investigations and/or vengeful political tricks for engaging in an important public service.

Tom Delay has a long history of playing political hardball. Take, for example, the medicare bill that passed Congress in 2003. The bill was designed to help pharmaceutical companies and screw over your average American. The Act specifically prohibited Medicare from bargaining with pharmaceutical companies. It is unbelieveable that Congress would make such a prohibition. After all, the such bargaining power explains why the Veteran's Health Administration has been able to demand prices 49 percent lower than Medicare's and why every other country with nationalized health insurance buys pharmaceuticals at around half our price.

Tom Delay, as majority leader, did everything he could to ensure passage of the act. The vote was held open "an unprecedented three hours to ensure passage (by contrast, when Democratic leaders held a vote open for 15 extra minutes in 1987, then-congressman Dick Cheney called it 'the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I've ever seen in the 10 years that I've been here.')" and lasted until the wee hours of the morning. Moreover, Delay bribed another member of Congress to vote for the bill and threatened not to donate money to the son of a congressman who was running for office. Check out this link for a detailed account of the vote http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/111605/news2.html. Also check out http://www.johnmccrory.com/wrote.asp?this=434 for more detail about the bribe.

Support Nick Lampson, the Democrat running against Delay in 2006. Delay's job approval is at an all-time low, so Lampson has a chance of defeating him. http://www.lampson.com/

A Clarification, etc

2006-02-24T12:31:00.000-08:00

Thank you for the comment copying/pasting The Home News Tribune article. I appreciate the feedback.

Here is my response. I understand how the United Arab Emirates/Harbor controversy might be considered discrimination against Arabs. I think it is a shame that, since 9/11, many Arabs have had to suffer for the actions of a select few. Nonetheless, my opinion is that we should discriminate against every non-American when it comes to this issue. Our major ports should be owned and operated by the American government or American companies, not by foreigners. I do not care if they are Arabs, Brits, Israelis or anyone else. We should not export control of the gateways into our country. As for all the advantages of UAE control, let me refer you to the first article in this link: http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/02/index.html#009254 . This writer has a slightly different take on the controversy than me, but he makes a few good points.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have any of you been following the recent actions of the South Dakota legislature? They just passed a law, that the governor is expected to sign, making it a criminal offense for doctors to perform an abortion, even in cases of rape. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-23-sd-abortions_x.htm

It is obvious that the sole reason the Republican led SD legislature passed this law is to provoke a court challenge. In fact, South Dakota even received an anonymous $1 million donation to help fund their anticipated legal fees. The Republicans surmise that a Supreme Court with Chief Justice Roberts and Samule Alito, rather than Sandra Day O'Connor (the swing vote on abortion rulings), might overturn Roe v. Wade.

The SD law illustrates how everything is connected to the 2004 election. The American people elect a Republican Congress and George W. Bush as President. Bush appoints two conservative justices to the Supreme Court. The Democrats do not have enough votes to filibuster the nominees, so they both get confirmed. Now, states like South Dakota pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional under current law, hoping to set up a challenge to Roe v. Wade. The next step will be for the case to be heard and appealed up the system until it gets to the Supreme Court, at which time the conservative court can potentially overrule Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case on partial birth abortion, so we will learn a lot more about the Court's intentions after that case is adjudicated. It is a frightening time.

Homeland Insecurity

2006-02-23T13:02:00.000-08:00

I need to weigh in on the whole United Arab Emirates/Harbor controversy. For those of you unfamiliar with this issue, the Bush Administration recently struck a deal with a company based in the United Arab Emirates permitting the company to control operations at major American ports.

The Governors of NY and NJ, along with Democrats and Republicans in Congress, think this is a terrible idea. President Bush is threatening to use his veto power, for the first time in his administration, to veto any bill that prevents the transfer to the UAE company. See this NY Times article on how this is an odd choice for Bush: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/opinion/22wed1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

This deal illustrates two important facts about the Bush Administration: (1) Bush's excellent homeland security reputation is bogus, and (2) Bush is willing to curtail individual liberties in the name of the war on terror, but not corporate profits.

Lets start with the homeland security implications regarding UAE control of our harbors. Who knows if this will really make us less secure, but my gut says this is a dumb idea. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE and UAE banks financed them. I think our harbors should be controlled by Americans. Not the UAE. Not the British. Not any foreign country. Since 9/11 Bush has not done little to make our ports more secure, and this certainly does not help any.

The other alarming problem with the UAE deal is the secret agreement the company entered into with the Bush Administration. The administration did not require the UAE companyto keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. In addition, it did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. This means it will be much easier for the UAE company to break US law because all the evidence will be located overseas! See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007733.php. Bottom line: I do not think it is good for our nation's security to have a company from a country with terrorist ties, with little legal ramifications, control our largest and most important ports.

Point 2 is also troublesome. Bush is a puppet for corporate interests. Despite the obvious security risks associated with a UAE company controlling our ports, Bush adamantly supports them. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has a long history of favoring corporations and their executives at the expense of the American people. Lets take a look at Bush's record with regard to Corporations:

1. Bush has pushed trade agreements that result in jobs being outsourced overseas. Nearly 3 million manufacturing and high tech jobs have left for countries where labor is cheaper,
2. The Bush administration gave a massive $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, skewed dramatically to favor the wealthiest,
3.Monopolies, particularly in the media, have flourished,
4. Insider deals have become prevalent (secret, undisclosed meetings and strategy sessions with Energy company CEO's, Halliburton getting contracts in Iraq without having to bid on them, etc),
5. Last year's prescription drug bill "protects the profits of the massive pharmaceutical industry and prohibits Medicare from negotiating a better price for prescription drugs and bars importing cheaper drugs which help needy elderly. The result will be higher prices for older Americans and greater profits for pharmaceutical companies. "http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=124,
6. 40% of people who raised over $100,000 for Bush received jobs in the administration or ambassadorships,
7. Bush is trying to pass class action reform legislation that will restrict consumers ability to sue corporations for negligence or products liability,
8. The Bush administration has injected itself into labor disputes on the side of corporations against unions,
9. Bush has refused to increase the minimum wage,
10. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Treaty on Climate Change, which was signed by over 160 nations. Moreover, Bush reneged on campaign pledge in 2000 to reduce emissions from four pollutants including carbon dioxide,
11. More than $40 billion was designated by the Bush administration to restore wetlands, protect habitats, conserve water, and improve water near farms, yet only $9 billion addresses conservation -- the rest will actually subsidize corporate factory farms which pollute the environment.

To see more detail about Bush's corporate policies, see: http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=124

Holy Shit!

2006-02-22T12:32:00.000-08:00

Apparently, San Francisco is starting a pilot program whereby they will turn dog feces into usable energy. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/22/dog.waste.power.ap/index.html

I applaud their creativity and efforts to find alternative sources of energy, but can you imagine being the guy in the pitch meeting for that idea?

Al Gore: Stepping Out of His Lockbox

2006-02-22T11:57:00.000-08:00

Recently, there has been an influx of articles about Al Gore running for President in 2008. Despite Gore's denials, pundits point out that lately Gore has been more visible on the national stage and would be a welcome alternative to Hillary Clinton. To see what Gore has been up to lately, check out this amazing speech he gave on Martin Luther King, Jr. day this year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779.html

I was against a second Gore run in 2004. At the time, I believed that American would be unwilling to elect Gore so soon after 9/11. In my opinion, the powers of incumbency and post 9/11 attitudes toward foreign policy cemented President Bush's hold on the presidency.

2008 is a different story. 9/11 took place 7 years prior, and if trends continue, there is large majority of Americans against the war in Iraq. Plus, Americans are fed up with the incompetent and failed Bush administration and Republican Congress, as evidenced by their inadequate response to Katrina, their attempts to privatize social security, give tax cuts to the richest Americans during war time, failure to provide troops with body armor, high gas prices, stagnant wages, corporate cronyism, outsourcing of jobs, skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs, and animosity among the world populace (just to name a few off the top of my head).

I hope Mr. Gore does enter the 2008 primary. He is an intelligent, strong protector of progressive values. He spoke and wrote about the environmental impact of global warming long before we saw the devestation of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Gore advocated finding alternative energy sources long before 9/11 and the current war in Iraq. Mr. Gore cautioned us to protect social security (insert lockbox joke here) long before Bush and his Republican cronies attempted to privatize it. I am not sure yet whether I would support Al Gore in the primary, but in a democracy, the more options the better. He embodies much that was good about the Clinton administration, without any of the scandals.

Here are two recent articles about Gore re-emergence written by Republican:
- http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/022206.html and
- http://www.observer.com/printpage.asp?iid=12404&ic=Wise+Guys

A Perfect Metaphor

2006-02-21T11:36:00.000-08:00

Dick Cheney's accidental shooting is a perfect metaphor for the Bush administration's incompetence. Many people have pointed out this connection, most notably The Daily Show and www.dailykos.com. The following is a few days old from dailykos:

"[The shooting] says everything you need to know about Dick Cheney personally, and the way this entire administration operates. . .

In this case, we have Cheney and the entire Bush Administration foreign and domestic policy in a nutshell. Especially in Iraq and Katrina. In this case, Cheney and friends were killing innocent creatures who were trapped in a pen with no hope of escape. Overeager, Cheney hunted with a shoot first, ask questions later mentality, and managed to strike his own partner, and send his friend to intensive care. It later appears that Bush and his situation room (or so they said) had no idea what was going on on the ground there. They waited an entire day to even report the story, even though they obviously knew what happened. Hell, someone else had to force them to report the story, because they sure weren't going to unless they had to. The official story then has Cheney blaming the victim, saying it was the victim's fault he got in Cheney's way. It starts to become clear there was a pretty big hush-hush coverup job about it, but that the truth couldn't help but get leaked, despite the Administration's best wishes. There is even speculation that Cheney was possibly intoxicated, and not using his best intelligence before he started shooting. And, of course, they couldn't afford to admit the truth, because the truth would probably be an impeachable offense."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the political quiz, I came out right smack in the middle of the bottom left-hand box.

Ideology Test

2006-02-17T09:09:00.000-08:00

Where do you fall on the political spectrum? Are you a communist or a capitalist? Are you authoritarian or an anarchist? Most likely, you are somewhere in between.

Take this test to find out your true political ideology http://www.politicalcompass.org/ (click on "Take the test").

John McCain: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

2006-02-16T13:09:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows that John McCain is running for President in 2008. McCain has the support of traditional conservative Republicans . What I find disconcerting is that many Independents, and even some Democrats, find him attractive as a Presidential candidate and would consider voting for him. I think these people are not entirely informed on McCain's stance on a number of issues.

Before going any further, let me say that I truly respect John McCain. He was POW in Vietnam, is a supporter of campaign finance reform and is ocassionally willing to go against his own party and form his own opinions. In an era where political strategy takes precedence over personal conviction, I think McCain is a role model for aspiring politicians.

Despite McCain and his "straight-talk" I cannot support him for President and will fight to prevent his election. The reason for my campaign against McCain is his ideology: McCain has always been far more conservative than either his supporters or detractors acknowledge. Here are some examples:
1. He is strongly pro-life and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade,
2. Voted to confirm extremely conservative Supreme Court justices, such as Samuel Alito,
3. Opposed extension of the assualt-weapons ban (the Brady Bill),
4. Opposed federal hate crimes legislation,
5. Supports school vouchers,
6. Supports privitazing social security,
7. Voted to impeach President Clinton,
8. Voted Yes for Bush's irresponsible wartime tax cut to the wealthiest Americans,
9. Supported every item in Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994,
10. Fought efforts to raise the minimum wage,
11. One of the earliest supporters of the war in Iraq,
12. Voted NO to adding sexual orientation to employment discrimination legislation,
13. In favor of free trade and outsourcing,
14. In favor of campaign finance reform (good), but against public financing of elections (bad),
15. Not as much of a Maverick as he'd have you believe: he voted with the Republicans 84% of the time http://www.stopjohnmccain2008.com/,
16. In 2004 McCain earned a 100% rating from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, a conservative watchdog group,
17. Despite his reputation, he lacks integrity: McCain supported President Bush in 2004 after Bush and his team make false personal attacks against McCain in the South Carolina primary in 2000.

See http://www.issues2000.org/senate/John_McCain.htm for evidence of all the above.

Bottom line, do not be fooled into voting for John McCain.

Spring Training

2006-02-15T06:39:00.000-08:00

February 15, 2006 is a great day. Known to most people as the day after Valentine's Day, but to baseball enthusiasts as the day pitchers and catchers report to Florida and Arizona for baseball's spring training.

I love spring training. It is six weeks full of optimism and exciting rumors about trades and position battles. Each year I begin hoping that the Mets will do well and that the Yankees will somehow fall flat on their face.

Here are my pre-season predictions for the National League: (one caveat - injuries can change everything)

NL East
1. Phillies
2. Mets
3. Braves
4. Nationals
5. Marlins

NL Central
1. Cardinals
2. Brewers
3. Cubs
4. Astros
5. Pirates
6. Reds

NL West
1. Giants
2. Dodgers
3. Padres
4. Diamondbacks
5. Rockies

The NL West gave me the most trouble. I picked the Giants assuming Barry Bonds will be healthy, Jason Schmidt will be back to form, Matt Morris will add stability to their rotation, and that players such as Tim Worrell will solidify their bullpen. I would not be shocked, however, if the Dodgers or Padres win. Meanwhile, I think the Rockies, on paper, are the worst team in the majors.

In the NL Central I think the Cardinals still have too much talent (Pujols, Carpenter, Mulder) even though they lost a lot of good players in the offseason. The Brewers could be a surprise team with a lot of young talent (Weeks, Fielder, Sheets, Capuano, Turnbow). The Cubs and Astros should both compete, but I think they will fall short of the pennant.

The NL East should be a three team race between the Phillies, Mets and Braves. I picked the Phillies to win because of their young talent (Howard, Utley, Rollins). After a very active offseason, the Mets have a chance to win the division, but any Mets fan knows better than to actually predict a division championship. After the 1993 debacle of Bobby Bonilla, Bret Saberhagen, Vince Coleman and Eddie Murray, Mets fans know that being good on paper does not necessarily translate into a good season. The Braves win the division every year and have some good young players, so it would be no surprise for them to win yet again. The Nationals played over their head last year, and the Marlins had a firesale in the offseason.

The Big Fat Ugly Political Machine

2006-02-14T08:51:00.000-08:00

The Democrats really pissed me off yesterday. They forced Paul Hackett, a lawyer turned Iraqi War veteran, to drop out of the Ohio Senate primary. Party leaders, such as Harry Reid (D-NV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), feel that the other Democratic candidate, Sherrod Brown, is a more formidable opponent against Ohio's vulnerable incumbent, Senator Mike Dewine (R). Moreover, some Democrats worry that Hackett's "straight talk" might not be proper in the Senate where a certain amount of decorum is expected.

Some argue that the party cannot force a candidate to leave the race, it is the candidate's decision alone. Those people are wrong. Party leaders called Hackett's donors and told them to stop giving him money. Plus, party leaders can contribute money to one candidate at the expense of another and also dedicate the large grass roots infrastructure to whomever they choose. Hackett had little choice in the matter. Take a look at the NY Times article detailing his decision: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/politics/14ohio.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Instead of running for the Senate, Democratic leaders asked Hackett to run for the congressional seat that he narrowly lost in 2004 in a heavily republican district. Hackett is refusing because he promised the three Democrats in the primary that he would not enter the race: "My word is my bond." Party leaders apparently told Hackett to break his promise because everyone breaks promises in politics. Oy vey.

Hackett is a progressive candidate who is not afraid to criticize our leaders and speak truthfully. He keeps his word, stands up for everyday people, and does not "play" politics. Democrats need more candidates like him. The last thing Democrats should do is force these types of candidates to drop out of a race. In fact, I have a big problem anytime the party tries to dictate who is able to run in an election. Obviously, Democrats want strong candidates, but this is a democracy. I consider it undemocratic anytime the party decides who the nominee is rather than the electorate.

To learn more about Paul Hackett, check out his website at http://www.paulhackett.com/

Dick Cheney = Skeletor

2006-02-13T10:21:00.000-08:00

Dick Cheney is Skeletor. Can you see the resemblance? Okay, maybe not physically similar, but certainly they have a similar disposition. Both are evil, have a sneer, and are bad for the American people. In cartoon world we have He-Man to save us from Skeletor. As of now, nobody is saving us from Cheney.

Lets take a quick look at our VP. Cheney is known for playing political hardball. Apparently, he doesn't just rampage against his political opponents; he also shoots his close friends. This weekend he shot Harry Whittington in a hunting accident. Mr. Whittington is thankfully expected to make a full recovery, but I wonder if good ole Dick would have been arrested if Mr. Whittington died. I doubt it. The shooting was an accident, so lets take a look at more substantial facts about Mr. Cheney.

Mr. Cheney is responsible for leaking top-secret information that disclosed the identity of undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Special Agent Patrick Fitzgerald already indicted Cheney's former Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Scooter. hehe. Last week Libby testified before a grand jury that he was authorized to disclose Plame's identity by his superiors. Now, Democrats and Republicans are calling for an investigation into Cheney - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/politics/13cheney.html?hp&ex=1139893200&amp;amp;amp;en=ef5d2efe3efde24c&ei=5094&partner=homepage and some Democrats, like Howard Dean, are calling on Cheney to resign.

From a moral standpoint I think Cheney, if responsible, should resign. From a political standpoint, however, I prefer him to stay in office. If Cheney resigns, a new Vice-President could receive the advantages of incumbency in the 2008 general election. Since Cheney is not running in 2008 (THANK GOD!), I would rather not give the Republicans any kind of leg-up.

There are many other skeletorish positions Cheney has taken. For example, he continues to justify the war in Iraq by pointing to Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11, years after this was proved false. Additionally, Cheney often points to a document obtained by the CIA in Niger that allegedly detailed an Iraqi agent's attempt to obtain enriched uranium. Cheney used this evidence AFTER after the documents was revealed as a forgery.

Cheney's voting record in Congress (before he was Secretary of Defense) does not make him look any better.

(1) In 1986, Cheney voted against a sense-of-the-House resolution calling on the white-controlled government in South Africa to free Nelson Mandela. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/30/clinton.cheney/
(2) He is against abortion, and at one time was against it even in cases of rape or incest. Cheney also supports:
(3) Prayer in public schools,
(4) Privatizing social security,
(5) An absolute right to gun ownership (maybe he should also consider an absolute right to bullet proof vests after this weekend's incident),
(6) Tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. http://www.ontheissues.org/Dick_Cheney.htm,
(7) Torture. Cheney is purported to be one of the chief proponents for the use of torture against alleged terrorists
(8) Energy companies at the expense of everday people. Cheney is in bed with companies like Halliburton (Halliburton received a $7 billion contract in Iraq without having to submit a bid). Remember, Cheney was Halliburton's CEO from 1995-2000.

Finally, Dick Cheney is no saint. He told Senator Leahy (D-VT), "go fuck yourself" on the Senate floor. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy/. And years ago Cheney was arrested, not once, but twice for drunk driving. http://www.ontheissues.org/Dick_Cheney.htm.

Ladies and Gentlemen, our Vice-President: Dick "Skeletor" Cheney.

UPDATE: I just got this in an email forward.
New song and tag line:
Song: Cheney's Got a Gun
NRA commercial: "Guns don't kill people, VPs kill people".

What's the Big Deal?

2006-02-09T12:35:00.000-08:00

Why should we care about President Bush's illegal domestic spying program? Should the average person pay any attention to it? Shouldn't we give up some of our rights during war time? I think that most Americans are willing to give up some of their rights to win the war on terror, but President Bush's domestic spying program has gone too far. Here is why this issue is so vital to all Americans:

1) The President of the United States has lied to the American people. Throughout the past few years President Bush has told Americans that wiretapping requires a court order and that nothing has changed. (Listen to Air America - they play these clips often.) We now know that this was a lie. He also lied at the State of the Union speech when he said that past Presidents have exercised their executive authority to spy without getting a warrant. At best, that is distortion of the truth, and at worst, an outright lie.

2) The President is violating the Constitution and the law of the land. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that wiretapping a phone is like invading a home. An LA Times article explains it perfectly:

"Applying the 4th Amendment and its ban on unreasonable searches, the court said police and federal agents must show a magistrate that they had "probable cause" to suspect criminal wrongdoing before they could tap a phone. That case dealt with a criminal case, and [afterwards] presidents and their lawyers continued to argue that in matters of national security, the White House could order wiretapping without a warrant.The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that view in 1972. A warrant from a 'neutral and disinterested magistrate' must be obtained before a phone is tapped. . . These 4th Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillance may be conducted solely with the discretion of the executive branch." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-authority6feb06,0,2762191,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

In addition, Congress in 1978, responded to the scandals of secret FBI wiretapping by enacting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), declaring such intercepts illegal except as approved by a specially constituted court.

President Bush authorized domestic wiretapping without going to a magistrate and without getting a warrant. He also violated the FISA. In short, he is violating an act of congress, the 4th Amendment, and is ignoring the Supreme Court's previous rulings on this issue.

Moreover, the President KNOWS he is violating the law. Several members of the Justice Department, and a FISA Judge (FISA is the court that used to provide warrants for domestic spying before Bush decided to circumvent this process) resigned in protest when they found out the administration was considering this program. They advised the President and his general counsel that the program was illegal. See the February 6, 2006 Newsweek article.

3) This is a constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court's power to rule a piece of legislation or an act of the President unconstitutional is considered a major part of our system of checks and balances. Our entire constitutional structure breaks down if the President is able to completely disregard the Court's ruling. The President is not acting as a President; rather, he is acting as a King. He did not get consent from Congress -- he did not inform the House and Senate intelligence committees about this program (he only informed the ranking members of each committee rather than the entire committee as he is legally obligated to do). And he is disregarding Supreme Court opinions. How is this different from a monarchy? He is treating Congress and the Supreme Court as advisors whom he can ignore, rather than equal branches of government. Senator Russ Feingold referred to the wiretapping as part of a pre-1776 mindset and he is right.

4) Individual Rights are being violated, creating a slippery slope. If we allow our rights to be violated now, what rights will we give up next? Bush and his Republican cronies constantly raise the level of fear by talking about how the terrorists are going to get us. If we don't have wiretapping, the terrorists are gonna get us! They will justify almost any governmental action as part of the war on terror. Soon we will be in an Orwellian state where we have cameras in our houses, neighbors spying on neighbors , and anyone speaking out against these measures will be labeled unpatriotic. Oh wait...the last one is already happening. In fact, neighbors are already spying on neighbors through the TIPS program - http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/losingCL.html (this link also has excellent information on how civil liberties have been eroded under the Bush administration).

Bush claims he is entitled to these powers because he is a "war-time President" . Well, when does the war end? The war on terrorism has been labeled as indefinite. It could go on for 50 years or even an entire century. We will never know when we have won. Again, this is completely Orwellian. A constant state of war cannot be used to justify the erosion of our civil liberties. The fight to spread freedom should not eliminate freedom at home. Consider this excellent article from the Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13461236.htm

There is a latin phrase: Inter arma silent leges. It means, "In time of war the laws are silent." But, this is America and if winning the war on terrorism requires giving up our Constitution, then the terrorists have already won.

A Must Read

2006-02-08T08:30:00.000-08:00

Senator Russ Feingold (WI) is one of the few Democrats in Congress standing up for the American people. He votes his conscience and rarely lets political strategy interfere with his desire to do right by the American people. During a time when Republicans justify breaking the law in the name of homeland security, and a time when Democrats are not speaking out forcefully because they are afraid of being branded weak on defense, Feingold is one of the few safeguarding the rule of law.

The following speech is Senator Feingold's response to the NSA domestic spying portion of the State of the Union. It is excellent and I hope you all read it in its entirety. One of his key points is that Bush is wrong when he accuses critics of having a pre-9/11 mindset. Instead, Feingold contends that Bush has a pre-1776 mindset.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/02/20060207.html

President Hillary Clinton???

2006-02-07T12:03:00.000-08:00

Ever since Hillary Clinton was elected to the US Senate in 2000, there has been rampant speculation that she would run for President. Republicans hate Hillary more than any other Democrat. Anti-Hillary rhetoric is widespread and even some Democrats dislike her.

Let me say right off the bat that I strongly support Hillary Clinton and I think she would be a superb President if she decides to run in 2008. There are many things in particular I like about her: She: (1) is a strong proponent of universal health care, (2) is against the irresponsible tax cut and the enormous budget deficit, (3) is terrific on education issues, (4) is working to prevent global warming, (5) supports a woman's right to choose, and (6) is strong on homeland security and foreign affairs, http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/.

Most Hillary haters are unable to point to a single good reason. Republicans are afraid of another Clinton administration so they blast her every chance they get. Some Democrats dislike her because they view her recent move to the political center as selling out and not standing up for what she believes in . Others say that she is unelectable and Democrats should focus their energy elsewhere. Two recent articles have garnered a lot of attention lately while making this very point - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-chinks-in-the-hillar_b_14330.html and http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/01/hillary_the_blo.html. In fact, most people I speak with seem to think Hillary should not be the nominee because she is too polarizing.

I am not sure whether she can win a general election. I think it depends on who she is running against. Hillary will have a difficult time if the Republicans nominate Senator John McCain. If, however, the Republicans nominate another ultra-right wing conservative like Bill Frist, I think Hillary has a chance. Hillary will excite the base much more than John Kerry or Al Gore did. Kerry almost beat Bush on a pure anti-Bush vote. Hillary, on the other hand, has a huge following and can raise as much money as any Republican challenger. Plus, people might become nostalgic for the Clinton years and all it represented: record prosperity, balanced budgets, multi-lateral foreign policy, peace initiatives and hope.

It is too early to decide who I will support for the Democratic nomination in 2008. In addition to Hillary, I am very intrigued by Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. I will post more on Feingold later, but I hope that there can be a real primary, focused on the issues. Ideally, a strong candidate will emerge that can represent the party more effectively than John Kerry.

Finally, I know it is slightly absurd to talk about an election that is 2 years away, but my explanation is that I just cannot wait for Bush to be unemployed.

State of the Union -- Point, Counterpoint

2006-02-03T07:06:00.000-08:00

President Bush's State of the Union speech was a real gem. Not since Colin Powell's presentation to the UN on weapons of mass destruction have we seen a speech more littered with lies, distortions and selective facts. Lets take a look at all the lies and distortions that the President made. This post will be LONG, but educational. Brownie points to those that read to the end.

Civil Tone
Bush asks both parties to respect one another and be more civil. I agree with this statement, but did anyone else find it odd that right after he said be less partisan, he gives a very partisan speech? This administration has no credibility on this issue. Bush campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider". Then VP Cheney tells Senator Leahy to "go fuck yourself" on the floor of the Senate. hmmm.

Energy and Middle East Oil Independence
This was the part of the speech I was most hopeful about. Bush talked about developing energy alternatives -- a point I strongly agree with. He also pledged to decrease U.S. reliance on Middle East oil by 75% over the next 20 years. Sounds great, right? It is a sleight of hand!

Currently, the U.S. only gets approximately 10% of its oil from the Middle East. The majority of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico. Thus, Bush's proposal is not such a major initiative. In last year's State of the Union he also spoke about researching alternative forms of energy, particularly hydrogen. Bush, however, is NOT truly committed to renewable forms of energy. Here's the proof: The US Department of Energy plans to lay off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget. The cuts are focused on wind and ethanol researches - the same areas Bush claimed could be used to replace our oil dependence. See http://whitehousemoron.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/2/02020/77260

Isolationism
Bush kept lambasting isolationists: "The road of isolationism may seem broad and inviting, but it ends in danger and decline." Who is he referring to? With the exception of nutjob Patrick Buchanan, nobody is calling for an isolationist foreign policy. He is dumber than I originally thought if he believes arguments for pulling out of Iraq are isolationist in nature. Or perhaps it is part of his political strategy - See http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-bacevich02feb02,0,4238309.story?coll=la-news-comment

Second guessing is not a strategy
This was one of the lines in Bush's speech. It is another effort to stiffle dissent and paint people that are anti-war as anti-American. Bush talks about how "freedom is on the march", yet there is less freedom in America when dissenters are ridiculed and, in some cases, arrested. For example, Cindy Sheehan (the now famous protestor whose son was killed in Iraq) was invited by a member of Congress to the State of the Union as a guest. She was forced out of the chamber and arrested for wearing a shirt stating how many soliders had been killed. Combined with the NSA scandal, it becomes clear that freedom is on the march, marching out of America.

NSA Domestic Spying
This segment was outrageous. Bush made two claims: (1) He authorized domestic spying based on authority given to him by the constitution and based on the precedent that previous presidents have used this authority with court approval; and (2) the program is essential to our security.

Point number 1 is an outright LIE. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-truth1feb01,0,1999790.story?coll=la-home-headlines. Check this link out - it is excellent. In fact, warrantless searches for national security purposes was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1972. The President was wrong when he said other administrations had done it. For example, Bush's press security, Mr. McClellan, previously said that the Clinton-Gore administration engaged in warrantless physically searches without permission from a judge and they point to the Aldrich Ames case as proof. But, at the time of the Ames search in 1993, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes -- it did not cover physical searches. The law was changed in 1995 to cover physical searches. See http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/01/17/ap2456266.html

Moreover, Bush broke the law by not informing Congress. The non-partisan Congressional research service concluded that Bush's limited briefings on domestic eavesdrooping without warrants are "inconsistent with the law". See http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/31/sotu-bush-did-not-inform-appropriate-members-of-congress/

Point number 2 is bullshit. Few people have a problem with electronic eavesdropping of suspected terrorists. All we ask is that you get a warrant first. A special court was set up to rapidly issue such warrants, so timing is not an issue either. And do not imply that 911 wouldn't have happened if we had domestic spying program. Not when Condoleeza Rice had a memo on her desk one month before the attack stating that terrorists were planning a major attack by crashing an airplane into a building. Not when the FBI had two of the hijackers names on a watch list. Not when one of the hijackers on the watch list purchased his ticket for Flight 77 with his real name and address, an address that he shared with another hijacker. The point is, if existing programs had been utilized properly, and the FBI had conducted simple searches for wanted terrorists living in the US, the 9/11 plot could have been foiled.

Line Item Veto
This one gave me a headache. President Bush asked Congress to pass the line item veto. The line item veto allows the President to veto only certain portions of a bill, while passing other parts into law. It means the President does not have to give an up or down vote on the bill in its entirety. Champions of the line item veto claim it can eliminate pork barrell spending and government waste. The problem is that Congress passed the line item veto in the 90's and President Clinton signed it into law. Then, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the line item veto is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers (allows the President to legislate). See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).

Health Care
The President barely spent any time of on this subject. His first idea was to make use of electronic recrods to reduce costs. I agree with this. This idea was first introduced by Hilary Clinton & Newt Gingrich. His other ideas do nothing to help the 46 million Americans without health care.

Economy in General
Bush used selective facts to make it appear like the economy has been strong under his regime, errr presidency. Although he has reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, total spending has risen 30% during Bush's presidency. He claimed that America has created 4.6 million jobs, but did not mention that America lost 2.6 million in the first 2.5 years of his presidency. Nor did he mention that many of the jobs he created involve instances where people are forced to get second jobs to support their families. Wages have risen, but real wages (taking into account inflation) have actually declined.

Tax Relief
Bush said that Congress should act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent. Act responsibly???????????? Hello??? War??? Deficit????? Tax cuts are the least responsible course of action.

Education
Bush called for an "American Competitiveness Initiative" to double the government's commitment to research programs in physical sciences and math. I support this initiative, but do not trust Bush to implement it after his failure with "No Child Left Behind".

Iran
The President is heating up the rhetoric against Iran. I agree that Iran cannot be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. The President, however, did not present a strategy on how to stop Iran. He spoke to the Iranian people about rising up against their government, but that scares me. The Iranian people may very much want democracy, but they do not like us and will not be motivated by Bush to rebel.

Random observations
The President tried to play to his neo-conservative base by invoking biblical quotes, talking about freedom and values. He tried to raise the level of fear by constantly speaking of how the terrorists are going to get us if we don't do x, y, z. I agreed with his message to Hamas - America will not deal with them until they recognize Israel and work for a lasting peace. Also, did anybody else notice that he called weapons of mass destruction "weapons of mass murder". I wonder if there was a reason for that new vocabulary.

Finally, the President said "Our greatness is measured by who we are and how we treat one another." We must not be so great then. We torture people, spy on our own citizens, arrest people for wearing t-shirts that protest the government, do not provide relief to hurricane victims, and outsource thousands of American jobs. Real great. It reminds me of a line from the movie The American President, "how is it that you love America, but hate Americans?"

Guide to the State of the Union

2006-02-01T15:51:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow I will post my reaction to President Bush's State of the Union speech. For now, here is a quick guide to help understand the President's popular phrases and terms:

“The State of our Union is strong” = “I hope you haven’t been watching the news”

“Terrorist surveillance” = “illegal wiretapping”

“Justice Alito” = “Right for the Far Right”

“Activist Judges” = “Judges who don’t rule exactly how I want them to”

“Health care reform” = “Big cash for health companies and big costs for Americans”

“Reducing the deficit” = “Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics and fuzzy math”

“Tax cuts are working” = “Tax cuts are working for me and my big donors.”

For a more thorough analysis of each of these phrases, check out: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=20401

One Court, Three Scalia's

2006-01-31T14:52:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, twenty Democrats crossed party lines to vote for cloture and end the filibuster of Samuel Alito. Today, Samuel Alito became the 110th Supreme Court Justice of the United States by a vote of 58-42.

Before focusing on what this means for everyday Americans, lets spend some time discussing the 4 Democrats that voted for Alito, and the 20 Democrats that voted to end the filibuster (which is akin to voting for Alito).

Senator Kennedy explained that nobody in the Democratic caucus defended Judge Alito or argued that he did not warrant opposition. Instead, opponents of the filibuster were afraid that they would suffer politically by being accused of obstructionsim by conservatives. I understand that there might be a political cost to voting a certain way, but ultimately a politician is elected to make decisions that are in the best interest of the American people. But these politicians did not vote in our interest; they voted for their own self-preservation! Why should we excuse Democrats from red states (or blue states) when they cross party lines on critical votes? How many Republicans in blue states desert their party on important issues? It almost never happens (Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe being two rare exceptions). This is just another example of Democrats trying to sell themselves as Republican-lite under the mistaken assumption that this will improve their electability.

Now, what does Alito's confirmation mean for the rest of us? It means more of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Take a look at some of the positions those two justices have taken over the past several years: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=274629.

As you can see, Thomas is in favor of state sponsored religion; Thomas believes due process does not apply to enemy combatants; both Scalia and Thomas believe consensual sex amongst homsexuals can be a criminal offense; they oppose federal regulation of polluters; they believe states can discriminate against the disabled; they opposed Oregon's assisted suicide law; and both argued that the Family and Medical Leave Act is unconstitutional.

I am not surprised that a conservative was appointed and confirmed. This is the price we pay for reelecting Bush in 2004. It is unfortunate that more Americans did not realize that Bush would appoint ultra-conservatives to the Court. As a result, we all can expect less protection of individual rights, more power for the President at the expense of Congress, and less oversight of laws favoring big corporations at the expense of workers.

What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet

2006-01-30T10:21:00.000-08:00

Houston's new Major League Soccer team just named itself "1836", after the year Houston was founded. What an awful name! How do you cheer for a team named after a year? Chanting "Lets-go-eight-teen-thir-ty-six" just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "Lets-go-Mets". I guess they'll have to change it to "Lets-Go-Hous-ton". http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=356392&cc=5901

Houston is not alone in having a crappy team name. The Anaheim Mighty Ducks always sounded a little ridiculous to me. Mighty Ducks? Pahh-lease. A lot of baseball names are pretty wimpy too: the Cardinals? The Blue Jays? The Orioles? The A's? The Angels? Clearly those were created prior to gangsta rap.

I cannot have a post about ridiculous sports names without including some great names for players. Here are three baseball players in particular that I like: Wonderful Monds, Coco Crisp, and Milton Bradley.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget to watch the State of the Union address tomorrow evening. President Bush is expected to talk about our energy policy. I hope he embraces a goal of complete energy independence within the next ten years. He spoke about using Hydrogen in the past, but he is so buddy-buddy with the oil executives that I find it difficult to trust him on this issue.

Myth Busting

2006-01-27T13:16:00.000-08:00

There is a popular myth that President Bush is strong on defense. The record shows otherwise:

1. During President Bush's watch North Korea, a member of the so-called axis of evil, acquired nuclear weapons. The American public found this out almost two years ago and the United States has done nothing about it.

2. Iran, another member of the axis of evil, is forging ahead with its desire to use nuclear technology which can one day be used to create a nuclear bomb. President Bush has not even tried negotiating with Iran. Rather, he has abdicated that responsibility and left it in the hands of Europe. Europe has failed and the President looks unsure on how to proceed.

3. President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq based on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There are many reports that the President was so determined to go to war in Iraq that he purposely ignored or discredited intelligence reports refuting Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. The President then changed his reason for the invasion to "liberating the Iraqi people." Yet, the Iraqi people do not want us there. They did not welcome us as liberators as Bush and his advisors anticipated, rather they began an insurgency which was not anticipated by administration officials. There was an overall lack of post-war planning.

4. The President failed to provide body armor to most of our troops in Iraq. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=1489733

5. President Bush has alienated most of the world, including many of our traditional allies. After 9/11 we had the sympathy and good will of the entire world. President Bush systematically squandered that good will and turned it on its head. Now millions of people throughout the world loathe America. President Bush's unilaterly foreign policy, his refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty that President Clinton had helped negotiate, and his general take it or leave it approach gives fuel to anti-American rhetoric. In fact, President Bush's policies have likely created more terrorists than he has killed or captured.

6. Osama Bin Laden is still at large and likely planning new attacks on American soil.

7. Condoleeza Rice was briefed on the possibility of terrorists flying into buildings over a month prior to 9/11. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040527222832444 (scroll down to Aug. 6, 2001). The Bush administration deserves partial fault for the attack, but I cannot blame them entirely. The success of the attack depended in large part on a failure of the US intelligence apparatus (which doesn't necessarily include Bush), and dumb luck.

8. Afghanistan. This is one area where the President's efforts were not entirely incompetent. We all supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but it has not been as successful as the President would have you believe. We let Osama Bin Laden and many of his main deputies escape at Tora Bora, largely because we gave military command to some of Afghanistan's tribal leaders rather than the US army. More importantly, the Taliban is back! President Karzai barely controls any territory outside the capital city and the Taliban has been increasing its influence as the US focuses more on Iraq. See http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=33&idsub=122&id=2384

9. In prosecuting his war on terror, President Bush has stomped all over the Bill of Rights and international law. The NSA domestic spying scandal, instances of CIA and Army torturing of prisoners in Iraq, and human rights absues at Guantanamo Bay are just a few examples.

10. Little has been done to safeguard our ports and railways from terrorist acts even though it has been 4.5 years since 9/11.

Some record, eh? Do not ever conceed that Republicans, particularly President Bush, are better able to protect the American people than Democrats.

To Filibuster or Not to Filibuster....That is the question

2006-01-26T14:12:00.000-08:00

Earlier today Senator John Kerry called on his colleagues to filibuster Bush Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. Pretending for a moment that this is not a political stunt, the question is should the Democrats (and moderate Republicans) join Kerry in this effort? The answer is hell yes!

There are many arguments against a filibuster. Three, in particular, are noteworthy:

1. Bush and the Republicans in Congress won their elections in 2004 and are entitled to their nominees as spoils of a successful election;

2. The Democrats cannot maintain a filibuster (need 41 votes and several Democrats have already decided to vote for Alito);

3. A filibuster makes the Democrats look like obstructionist, whiney bitches.

All three of these arguments lack merit. We have a system of checks and balances. The President must get approval (advice and consent) from the Senate for his important appointees. I conceed that the President should be able to appoint his own cabinet without facing a filibuster (unless the appointee is clearly unqualified). A cabinet appointee, however, only serves for the length of the President's term. A Supreme Court justice is appointed for life. A lifetime appointment is a powerful thing. Congress should not defer to the President without being convinced that the Supreme Court appointee is qualified and will serve the best interest of the American people.

Judge Alito is qualified, but he will not serve the best interest of the American people. He will serve as a walking constitutional amendment by acting as the fifth and decisive vote to overturn dozens of individual rights and liberties. Perhaps more alarming is that he will throw the Constitution's separation of powers/checks and balances out the window by greatly expanding the president's powers, so much so that Congress will be subservient to the President. President Bush already believes he can do whatever he wants without any oversight. He does not think that he needs Congressional approval for his programs (see the NSA domestic spying issue) and he also does not believe in judicial oversight of the executive (see the Guantanamo torture cases). Judge Alito will make sure that Bush can continue to do whatever he wants even if it violates the Constitution.

I do not care whether the Democrats have the votes for a filibuster or not. It is time Democrats stand up and fight for what is right (although I'd rather almost any Senator other than Kerry be the one to make the argument). Democrats are a minority party, but they still have a voice. As James Madison wrote in Federalist #51, "[i]f a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." The Republicans are united - they already have a stranglehold on the executive and the legislative branches. If Republicans have the Supreme Court it will be open season on individual liberties.

Finally, Democrats might be called whiners if they protest the nomination, but they will be called wimps without conviction if they acquiesce. Politically Democrats are screwed either way. I would rather fight on the side of the Constitution, justice and the American people. If we get called whiners for doing so, then so be it. I think time will vindicate our position. Moreover, Democrats will lack standing to complain about the erosion of individual liberties if they do not take a strong stand against Alito's confirmation now.

What's The Matter With Kansas?

2006-01-25T20:05:00.000-08:00

The title of this post refers to a political book written in 2004 by Thomas Frank. The book explains why Kansas, with its strong populist history, has become one of the largest bastions of conservative Republican support in the country. It is an eye-opening book that I highly recommend.

Mr. Frank concentrates on the internal battle of Kansas Republicans: moderates versus neo-conservatives religious fanatics. The moderate Republicans had been the dominant force in Kansas politics for several decades up until the 1990's. They are pro-business, supporters of laissez faire politics, deregulation, small government, and are largely pro-choice. The moderates are typically the wealthy businessmen and white collar citizens. They are the ones that benefit the most by Republican economic policies.

The neo-conservatives apparently do not concern themselves with economic issues. They are focused primarily on what they perceive to be declining morals in our society. They are strongly pro-life, pro religion in public schools and also pro-business. The unusual thing about the neo-conservatives, however, is that they are working class people. They are low to middle class, live in ordinary homes, and are religious. These are people that used to be the backbone of the Democratic party. Now, they vote Republican even though it is against their economic interest.

I know many Democrats (myself included) after the 2000 & 2004 elections that were flabergasted: we could not understand how millions of Americans could be so stupid and vote against their economic interest.

Dozens of theories sprung up as to how the Democrats could win again. The most prominent theory was that Democrats need to nominate more conservative candidates. According to this theory, conservative Democrats from southern or western states could appeal to Americans that were unable to identify with Al Gore or John Kerry. The theory implies that Democrats should sacrifice large segments of their ideology for the greater cause of getting a Democrat, albeit a conservative Democrat, elected. After the devestation of defeat it sounded pretty reasonable.

Mr. Frank soundly rejects this theory and argues that working class families deserted the Democratic party precisely because Democrats had become too conservative. Mr. Frank contends that in an effort to keep up with Republican fundraising, Democrats now cozy up to big business in an effort to get large campaign contributions to fill their coffers. After all, large corporations are able to raise more money than organized labor ever could.

The main thesis is that Democrats have abandoned their working class economic agenda. Democrats no longer focus on economic issues in their rhetoric -- they just assume that working class people know that they are better off with the Democrats. In addition, Democrats have largely abandoned workers in practice too. President Clinton's strategy of triangulation (embracing conservative issues so as to steal those issues from Republicans) in 1996 might have done more harm long term than good. Support for NAFTA and outsourcing, and concessions on privatization and derugulation lead many working class citizens to the belief that Democrats have abandoned them.

Furthermore, Mr. Frank asserts that everytime a celebrity appeals to the public on behalf of some liberal cause, it makes Democrats look even less like a party for the working class. Liberalism comes across as arrogant and condescending, the exact stereotypes Republicans encourage about it. This all feeds into the backlash that neo-conservatives feed on.

Democrats that are actually Republican-lite on economic issues, according to Mr. Frank, will be the natural loser in the competition for working class voters. These people are religious and are concerned about the future of this country. When given the choice between a Democrat who is now only slightly better for them economically (or not at all) than a Republican, or a Republican who embraces the church (and all that goes along with that such as being pro-life) and is strong on defense/terrorism, they will choose the Republican. Unless there are clear differences on economic issues, working class citizens will continue to give priority to values issues.

I have to say that Mr. Frank's thesis is very convincing. I think we need to stop being so afraid of standing up for liberal policies. What are your thoughts?

NSA Redux

2006-01-24T13:33:00.000-08:00

Instead of admitting that NSA domestic spying without a court order is illegal and improper, President Bush decided to defend the wiretapping. In fact, the President renamed the NSA actions "The Terrorist Surveillance Program" and is planning a vast marketing campaign to sell it to the American people. The American people should not be fooled by his spin. As Al Gore recently stated, "a president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government"

Congress needs to reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government. Again, Al Gore said it best: "I call upon members of Congress in both parties to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. . . Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the constitution of our country."

President Bush claims that Democrats are the ones against NSA domestic spying, but there are plenty of representatives from his own party that are against it too. In fact, Republican Senators Arlen Specter (PA), Chuck Hagel (NE), and Olympia Snowe (ME) signed a statement with Democrats requesting a Senate investigation into the NSA domestic spying.

Lets be clear: the NSA domestic spying initiative is illegal. Bush administration officials, however, are clueless. Here is a dialogue between General Hayden, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and a reporter:

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.. . .
GEN. HAYDEN . . . Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable."

Here is what the 4th Amendment actually says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/23/18342/1340 for more discussion on this subject.

This leads to the million dollar question: is this an impeachable offense? I would be astonished if a Republican controlled House of Representatives and Senate try to impeach their goldenboy, Bush, but take a look at this piece in the magazine published by the ultra-conservative Washington Times - http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/impeachment.htm

There will be more said on impeachment another time, but it seems to me that this is a much bigger deal than President Clinton lying about hooking up with Monica Lewinsky.

A Mets Fan's Lament

2006-01-24T09:51:00.000-08:00

Last week the boneheaded Mets front office, led by Omar Minaya, traded Kris Benson for Jorge Julio and a minor leaguer.

Dumb move. Kris Benson was the Mets #3 starter - a solid contributor behind Pedro Martinez and Tom Glavine. Benson finished the year with a respectable 4.10 ERA and 10 wins. Plus, if you look at the important indicators, hits/Innings Pitched and BB/IP, his stats look even better.

The consequence of this trade is that the Mets will be forced to use Aaron Heilman in their rotation. Heilman had a good year in '05, but his performance was mostly out of the bullpen. Now he will be expected to perform just as well, but with a lot more wear and tear on his arm. Moreover, Heilman's 2005 year is only one good year out of three in the majors. Many young pitchers struggle at first and become better over time, but the Mets are taking a big risk by replacing a solid pitcher like Benson with Heilman.

Julio will occupy the back end of the Mets bullpen. He throws hard and gets a lot of strikeouts, but his control is more inaccurate than Colin Powell's presentation to the UN regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He will compete with Duaner Sanchez for the main set-up role for closer, Billy Wagner.

This trade might have made sense before the Mets traded Jae Seo for Duaner Sanchez. Before that trade the Mets bullpen was looking very shaky for the upcoming season. Sanchez, however, alleviated the need for someone like Julio.

What are your thoughts?

Just because . . .

2006-01-23T13:01:00.000-08:00

To quote Michael J. Fox in Back to the Future, this is an oldie but a goodie . . . http://www.metacafe.com/watch/44178/south_park_cartman_kyles_mom_is_a_bitch/

If at work, make sure you turn down your speakers or use headphones.

Books Galore

2006-01-22T16:11:00.000-08:00

"It is only through daily reading that you refresh your mind sufficiently to speak wisely." ~Chinese Proverb

I am an avid reader. It does not matter whether it is fiction, or non-fiction. As Groucho Marx said, "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." Anyway, here is a list of books I intend to read sometime in 2006:

1. 1968, Mark Kurlansky FINISHED
2. A Storm of Swords, George R.R. Martin FINISHED
3. A Feast of Crows, George R.R. Martin FINISHED
4. 1984, Orwell FINISHED
5. What’s the Matter With Kansas? Thomas Frank FINISHED -- easily the most disturbing book i've read in a long time
6. My Life, President William Jefferson Clinton (1/2 way thru)
7. The Bonfire of the Vanities, Thomas Wolfe
8.. Catch-22, Joseph Heller
9. The Winter’s Tale, William Shakespeare
10. The Camel Club, David Baldacci
11. The Power Game: How Washington Works, Hedrick Smith
12. The Dance of Legislation, Eric Redman
13. Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger
14. The Tears of Autumn, Charles McCarry
15. Promises to Keep, Paul Boyer *
16. Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare *
17. The Fall of the House of Usher, Edgar Allen Poe *
18. The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald
19. Macbeth, William Shakespeare *
20. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Betty Smith *
21. Hamlet, William Shakespeare *
22. A World at Arms, Gilbert *
23. Civil War Books, Shelby Foote
24. The Cold War, John Lewis Gaddis
25. Foreign Affairs Journal (get a subscription)

A "*" indicates a re-read.

I am always looking for suggestions, so please post a comment if there are any books you think I should add to my list.

In Defense of Liberals

2006-01-19T10:50:00.000-08:00

Calling somebody a "liberal" has become an insult. Throughout election season Republicans attempt to place the "liberal" tag on their Democratic competition all the time, even if it is not true. I think it is imperative that liberals fight back and convince people that being a liberal is a title one should be proud to hold.

Unfortunately, most Democrats run away from the "liberal" tag. Instead, they tout their moderate or conservative positions so that they come off looking like "Republican-lite" to the electorate. Even true liberals run away from the label and instead call themselves "progressives". With the exception of a few Democrats such as, the late Senator Paul Wellstone, and perhaps Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, very few Democrats have spoken in defense of a liberal ideology.

Sadly, the best defense of the liberal ideology has come from the fictional world of television. A recent West Wing episode featured a live debate in which the Republican candidate (Alan Alda) attempted to smear the Democrat (Jimmy Smits) by calling him a "liberal". Here is Jimmy Smits' response:

Jimmy Smits: "I know you like to use that word 'liberal' as if it were a crime."

Alan Alda"No. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?"

Jimmy Smits: "It's true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country." "

Alan Alda: A Republican President ended slavery." "

Jimmy Smits: Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator. Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

Awesome. I wish a real life politician had the balls to publicly say the same.

Uncle Gerry Sucks

2006-01-18T13:21:00.000-08:00

Today I want to discuss how our democracy is not so democratic. Specifically, I would like to address the practice of "gerrymandering".

Gerrymandering means redrawing the boundaries of a congressional district to ensure the outcome of an election. The redrawing is usually done to favor an incumbent or a specific political party. The architects of these districts will draw crazy shapes across the state that make no geographic sense whatsoever. Typically, the only piece of consistency throughout the gerrymandered district is that it will heavily tilt in one ideological direction - either in favor of Democrats or in favor of Republicans. Both parties have historically been guilty of gerrymandering. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

The most recent example of Gerrymandering occurred in the Texas redistricting controversy of 2003. In 2002 Republicans took control of Texas' state legislature and decided to redraw their congressional districts so that a few incumbent Democratic congressman would have a herculean task to win re-election. The Republicans took Democratic leaning towns out of these districts and replaced them with Republican populated towns. Democratic districts had become Republican districts overnight. Meanwhile, the Democratic towns were placed in districts so heavily Republican that they had no chance to influence the outcome of the election. For more information on the Texas redistricting situation, check out http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031208fa_fact

Despite all this, redistricting does have a rightful place in our democracy. Every ten years we participate in the national census. The census details those states that gained and lost population over the previous decade. States that gained a certain amount of population are entitled to one or more additional congressional seats, whereas states that have decreased in population must forfeit one or more congressional seats. In the past few decades states in the rust belt have lost seats and states in the sun belt have gained seats. The problem is when the redistricting becomes politicized in a way that prevents voter choice.

Gerrymandering destroys our democracy. What do you think of when you hear the word democracy? I think of people having the freedom to make their own choices, competitive elections based on issues, representative government, and so on. Gerrymandering has eliminated this choice! When districts are 80% Republican, or 80% Democratic, there can be no competition.

In addition, Gerrymandering disenfranchises the minority group. In Federalist 51, James Madison wrote, "[i]f a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." If districts are created in an 80%-20% split, the 20% minority will never be able to elect officials that represent their view. They become disenfranchised.

Right now experts contend that there are less than a dozen competitive races for Congress even though there are 435 up for election! Think about the consequences of this conundrum. Public approval of Congress is almost at rock bottom - 67% of the public disapprove of Congress. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060118gallup,1,5284417.story?coll=chi-news-hed. We have an unpopular war, a corrupt and unethical Congress, a stagnant economy, a shitty health care situation, a widening quality of life gap between the rich and the poor, and domestic spying. Yet, if the experts are correct, the same elected officials will be back in office. Unbelieveable. We need impartial judges or other citizens to be in charge of redistricting. Lets draw districts that make sense based on geography, not politics.

Hmmm. Beer.

2006-01-18T07:57:00.000-08:00

Two recent University of Michigan graduates won $10,000 at the first National Beer Pong Tournament in Las Vegas, Nevada. Here's the kicker - only 160 teams participated. Are you kidding me? Those are pretty good odds. I have no doubt that some of my University of Delaware comrades could have won that mullah. The article can be found at http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1516969 Anyone up for Vegas next year?

"Why do I always feel like somebody's watching me" - Rockwell

2006-01-17T13:46:00.000-08:00

It is time for me to weigh in on the illegal NSA wiretapping that the Bush administration is carrying out in clear violation of the law.

This is America, damnit. We demean ourselves and everything our ancestors fought for when we throw the rule of law out the window. Bush is overreacting to a climate of fear where terrorists can strike at any moment. This is a real problem not to be diminished, but throwing out the Bill of Rights is not the answer.

Al Gore addressed this issue in a speech he gave yesterday. The speech is long, but it is truly outstanding and I implore everyone to read it in its entirety. Let me share one part of it here:

"Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: 'Men feared witches and burnt women.' The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights. Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march when our fathers fought and won two World Wars? It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same."

For a complete transcript, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779_pf.html

My only other thought is this: the President loves talking about freedom. He says that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23519-2005Jan20.html He also uses spreading freedom as justification for the war in Iraq. You may recall that the original justification was to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and to eliminate it as a haven for Osama Bin Laden and terrorists.

We were wrong on all fronts. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein had no interaction whatsoever with Al Queda. Of course, due to the ensuing chaos created from our invasion of Iraq, now it IS a haven for terrorists. Since those justifications failed, Bush now explains that we are in Iraq to spread freedom to the poor Iraqi people. Pardon me if I doubt his concern about the Iraqis matches his concern for adding to Halliburton and Exxon's piggybank.

Even if the "spreading freedom" justification for going to war is truthful and not a bunch of bullshit, how can we look ourselves in the mirror given the whole NSA spying situation? How can we claim we are trying to spread freedom when our freedom at home is being eroded by our own government? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA is reading this blog since I mentioned the name Osama Bin Laden above. If you're reading, how ya doing boys? I hope you don't get too much eye strain.

Fighting the war on terror is important and I strongly support hunting down and killing these terrorists, but not at the expense of our freedom and the rule of law.

"It must be the money" -- Nelly

2006-01-17T11:57:00.000-08:00

I am back and fired up for election season, 2006. From now on this blog will focus more on political issues. There will still be some posts about sports, the entertainment world and random ruminations, but we all need to wake up and pay attention to current affairs and the myriad of problems befalling our system of government. It might not be as entertaining as reading about my latest drunken stupor, but I hope it will be educational and alert you to the seemingly daily abuses of power taking place in this administration.

Lets begin with one of my most ardent concerns: the influence of money in the political system.

We elect congressman to represent our interests in the legislative branch of our government. These issues range from urban decay to price controls for farmers. From dealing with rogue states like Iran and North Korea, to free trade treaties with developing countries. From health care to crime prevention and so on. The point is that there are literally hundreds of issues, many highly complex, that a congressman must be educated about and vote on.

The problem is that Congressmen are forced to spend the bulk of their time raising money for their next election. Raising money for a 30 second television ad has become more important than having a discussion about issues the have a real impact on everyday Americans. Congressmen are forced to travel the country charging $500 a head so that they can finance their next campaign. Instead of governing they are fundraising. It is not that they are apathetic about the issues; rather, they have no choice but to spend the bulk of their time raising money if they want to keep their jobs.

Even when Congressmen attempt to discuss the issues, nobody is listening. Flip on CSPAN and here is what you will see: a congressman in a fancy suit talking about some issue written by their speechwriter. The camera will then show you the floor of the House and astonishingly, nobody else is there! Yes, you heard this correctly -- Congressmen make speeches to nobody but the cameras. How can our elected representatives have an intelligent debate about the issues when nobody is listening? Maybe other Congressman are not there because they are out raising money.

Another problem is the enormous influence of interest groups. Do not misunderstand -- I think interest groups are a vital part of American politics. Interest groups are the experts on particular issues and their knowledge is crucial to understanding the pro's and con's of particular legislation. The problem, however, is that interest groups have the potential to influence congressman not through the merits of their positions, but through money. Running for Congress is extremely expensive and it is difficult to run a grass roots campaign where average American citizens fund a person's candidacy. Instead, it is far easier for candidates to raise large sums from interest groups and corporations. Taking money from these groups, however, eliminate a congressman's independence. If, for example, the National Rifle Assocation and its members give Candidate X thousands of dollars to fund his campaign, how can the the candidate vote for gun control? Candidate X's campaign contributions will dry up and that will endanger his reelection bid.

Moreover, incumbents that have raised a ton of money stifle competition. Less people will challenge an incumbent in a primary or in a general election if they do not have an adequate amount of money in which to compete. This hurts voters because we are given less choices in who we wish to represent our interests.

Some think the solution is to find candidates who are already independently wealthy. The theory is that if these candidates are willing to use their own money to fund their campaign they can vote their conscious because they will not be influenced by interest groups and corporations. I do not think this is the answer. Our elected offices should not be open to the highest bidder. Our system of government is supposed to be a representative democracy. How can most multi-millionaires represent the average common person? I do not doubt that many of them have compassion for an average middle class family struggling to make ends meet, but I do doubt that they fully understand the issues that middle class families care about. How can they identify with the stress involved of choosing food for your family or prescription drugs; amassing huge credit card debt; or saving money to send your child to a good college. I would prefer to have a teacher, a plumber, an accountant, a carpenter, or family business owner be an elected official.

What is the solution? I think the solution is complete public financing of elections. Lets take money completely out of politics. We already have partial public financing of elections where candidates can choose to receive matching funds under certain situations, but that system is not working. Check out www.publicampaign.org for more information on this. That group writes, "[w]ith each year, the voice of the average American is becoming increasingly weaker, while the influence of large corporations and special interests groups grows stronger. But it is the fundamental right of every American to have full access to and an equal voice in our political system." If we eliminate the need for raising vast sums of money, Congressmen can spend more time researching and debating issues. We will all benefit if big business loses some of their influence in our government.

New York Giants Football Pre-Season Analysis

2005-08-19T14:04:00.000-07:00

Pre-season football is upon us and it is time for me to evaluate my favorite team, the New York Giants, and see how my analysis pans out during the regular season.

Offense
I really like the Giants offense this season. They have two solid wide receivers in Placido Burress and Amani Toomer. Toomer, who was a respectable #1 receiver the past few years, had a rough year last year because of injuries. This year Toomer looks to be healthy and moves over to play the slot position. Combined with deep threat Burress, a rejuventated and healthy jeremy Shockey at Tight End, and speed demon Tim Carter as the third wide out, the Giants passing game should be the best it has been in years.

The running game this year figures to feature a true thunder and lightening duo. Tiki Barber (lightning) has gotten better each year. He can break a long run at any time and is dangerous coming out of the backfield for a pass. Ron Dayne is gone! Everyone rejoice! In Dayne's place we have the gigantic Brandon Jacobs, who despite his immense size, still runs a 4.4. Giants training camp is buzzing about this guy and I hope he is the real deal.

The offensive line, which was better than expected last year, should be improved this year with the addition of Kareem McKenzie from the Jets. Plus, the Giants have adequate depth at this position for the first time in years with the return of Rich Seubert from injury. If the line can give Quarterback, Eli Manning, time in the pocket the Giants can score a lot of points this year.

Finally, Eli Manning. Even though the Giants have more offensive weapons than they've had in years, it will be all for naught if Eli Manning doesn't get them the ball. Manning is said to have enormous potential and if he can translate that potential into a good season, I think the Giants can be playoff bound. Manning struggled in his first few games last year after taking over for Kurt "I'm more used up than a Rafael Palmiero shringe" Warner, but seemed to make rapid progress in his last couple games. Hopefully he'll continue where he left off.

Defense

Defense is the side of the ball that I am most concerned about. The great Giants tradition of solid defensive play has not been seen in recent years.

The defensive line should be good against the run. Michael Strahan returns and should be his dominating self. Add right end Osi Umenyiora to the mix and the Giants should have two linemen capable of putting pressure on the QB. I'm not so sure about their run defense though. Former first round pick, William Joseph, figures to get a starting spot and the other tackle position is up for grabs. Any team that is unable to stop the run faces a long season.

The linebackers are also in flux. The Giants wisely signed a big time middle linebacker, Antonio Pierce, in the off season. That should be a huge upgrade over Kevin Lewis and Nick Griesan, who split time there last season. Carlos Emmons will shift from strong side to weak side. Giant fans hope he can utilize the talent he displayed while with the Eagles. He is a little bigger and slower than usual for a weak side linebacker, but hopefully his excellent instincts will make up for it. Barret Green, the usual weak side linebacker is injured, leaving Reggie Torbor to step in and take over the strong side position. Torbor was drafted as a defensive linemen, but has been very impressive in limited action last year and in preseason thus far. Torbor or Green's (when healthy) play will go a long way in determining whether the Giants linebackers are worth a damn.

The Secondary is another shaky area. Cornerbacks Will Allen and Will Peterson are two of the most overrated cornerbacks in the league if you ask me. It's not that they are bad, but they are not anything better than average. The Giants first pick in the draft this year (2nd round pick) was Corey Webster, a dynamic cornerback that figures to be used in nickle packages. The Giants secondary has gotten very few interceptions the past few years, but hopefully things will change with the addition of Webster who was known for making great interceptions while in college. Safety Gibril Wilson returns after missing most of last year with an injury. He started off hot right away and could be great if he does that again. Brent Alexander is the other safety and is nothing better than mediocre.

Special teams performed well last year and should continue to do so this year. Willie Ponder is a great return man and the coverage team was good too. The addition of Jay Feely should add a measure of reliability to field goal attempts.

Overall I think the Giants are improved over last year. Manning should be better this year, they are improved at middle linebacker and offensive line, more depth in the secondary and a better kicker. While not as good as the Eagles, hopefully the Giants can win 9 or 10 games and make a run at the playoffs.

Flag Burning

2005-06-23T08:44:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to ban burning and desecration of the American Flag. This has been an ongoing debate in Congress for years. Congress first took up the issue in 1989 after the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning was a constitutionally protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

Every time this issue comes up I get angry. We like to think we are the country of free speech and free expression, yet we are trying to forbid the ultimate display of that expression? Don't get me wrong. I consider myself a patriot and I love America. I believe in the ideas our country was founded on and have the utmost respect for any man or woman who served in our armed forces.

And it's not like I am a habitual flag burner. I detest seeing others burn our flag and I cannot possibly imagine burning one myself. Nonetheless, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Burning the flag is a powerful form of expression and I think it is unpatriotic to ban it. As Justice Brennan wrote in Texas v. Johnson, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

The Republicans have proposed this resolution for two reasons. First, although they claim to be patriotic, some of them act in unpatriotic ways. Second, they hope to put Democrats in an uncomfortable political position by forcing them to vote on the resolution. When many Democrats vote their conscience, and in favor of the First Amendment, Republicans will feature ads at election time portraying Democrats as anti-American. Of course, this plays right into the Republicans hands and their marketing campaign in which they portray Democrats as weak on defense and terrorism. Don't buy into it.

Three years later...

2005-06-08T14:11:00.000-07:00

NYC to DC
I'm packing up and moving to Washington, D.C. Today was my last day at my firm and I'm 30 minutes away from my goodbye party. It feels somewhat surreal, as if I'm just going through the motions of packing and not really going to move. I will miss a lot of people though, and that is what makes it somewhat sad. But the old saying is that whenever one door closes, another one opens. D.C. will bring a whole new set of experiences and challenges, and some good writing material for this blog!

Politics
Someone posted a comment asking me to comment on whether being a fiscal conservative is now a democratic ideal. I think has become part of the democratic platform, but only to a certain extent...and I'll tell you why. Clearly the Republicans are willing to mortage all our kids futures by taking on huge debt to finance our war in Iraq, and yet at the same time, give tax cuts to the richest Americans.

Democrats are the party calling for a balanced budget. And out of our four previous presidents the only one to balance a budget is the lone Democrat, Bill Clinton. I'm proud that the Democrats have decided to embrace fiscal responsibility as part of our fiscal policy.

It amuses me that the Republicans consider themselves strong on defense, and yet the country financing most of our debt is our greatest longterm strategic threat -- China. It is yet another example of the U.S. worrying about today and not paying any attention to tomorrow. For other examples, look no further than when we supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons in Iraq's 1980-1988 conflict with Iran, or when we aided Bin Laden in Afghanistan's war against the U.S.S.R.

Yet, I hesitate to proclaim Democrats the party of fiscal conservatism because Democrats are still against lowering the capital gains tax and against eliminating the estate tax.

Star Wars (some spoilers)
So I've seen Revenge of the Sith twice. I think it is the best of the new movies, but not as good as the old. The biggest problem is that there is no suspense because everyone knows what is going to happen. This was a problem that could not be avoided, and despite this obstacle, I think it was a good movie. The action scenes were intense, the story was interesting, and George Lucas did a better job than I expected in explaining why Anakin becomes Darth Vader. For those of you that have questions about what happened, or why events unfolded in a certain way, I suggest reading the book. The book answered many questions for me, such as explaining why Senator Organa takes Leia instead of Yoda, why Obi Wan doesn't finish off Anakin/Vader at the end of the movie, why there is no clip of the beginning of the rebellion, and why it took seemingly 2 seconds for Anakin to decide to become Palpatine's apprentice.

Observations
1. Packing sucks.

2. I keep things thinking I'll refer to them frequently, yet three years later I find said document and realize that I have not looked at it once.

3. Friends are what makes work bearable. Leaving those friends to go to a new job/location is not easy.

4. John Kerry is just as dumb as George W. Bush. Now I understand why he didn't run a good campaign. See http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF

5. The Mets signed Danny Graves. He's got to be better than Mike Dejean. But in general, I have a problem with any pitcher that I think I have a legitimate chance of getting a hit off of. Nonetheless, life is good. The Mets are young and improving, the Yankees are old and getting beaten by terrible teams.

6. It seems like half my fantasy baseball team is on the DL. Me not happy.

I will try to post again soon, but it may be a few days because I have a wedding in Philly to go to, then I'm moving.

Musings

2005-06-06T09:05:00.000-07:00

Here are a few musings from this weekend:

1. Having to write a "best man speech" should be an easy thing to do. After all, you theoretically have been good friends with the groom for a long time. The problem, however, lies in the fact that just about every funny story I have to tell is completely inappropriate for a wedding. The bride and her family would be shocked at some of the stories I could tell.

2. I would be a happy man if I could play tennis everyday for the rest of my life. How come they don't have tennis camps for adults? I'd love to go to some rural camp for two weeks, play tennis all day long and eat PB&J sandwiches with the crusts cut off for lunch. Maybe I can even get a fudgesical or brown cow for dessert. And Kool-Aid or Hawaian Punch -- when's the last time you had that?

3. Remember field day from elementary school? Every time I see giant watermellon it reminds me of field day.

4. How much better would work be if we had recess? Isn't it interesting that the only two groups of people in our society that have recess are elementary school kids and prisoners?

5. Sleeping in the same bed next to a really hot girl that has a serious boyfriend whom she remains loyal to is torture. This happened at a wedding over the weekend. Hasn't this chick seen Road Trip? It's not cheating if you're at a wedding, and it certainly isn't cheating if you're across state lines!

Who Am I and What Am I Doing Here?

2005-06-03T15:08:00.000-07:00

And with those words in the 1992 Vice-Presidential Debate, Admiral Stockdale, Ross Perot's handpicked running mate in the 1992 election, proved himself utterly unqualified to be second in command of America. But, I think it is a good title to explain where I stand on a variety of topics so that you'll have some context for future posts to this blog.

The Mets
I have been a die hard Mets fan since 1985 when they would have won the pennant if not for Darryl Strawberry going on the disabled list for 6 weeks late in the season. I have celebrated their victories, and more often of late, grown frustrated with their losses. Ten years ago I even did a presentation on the downfall of the Mets. Being a Met fan in New York where the Yankees have dominated the baseball arena since 1996 is sort of like being a communist during McCarthyism. You are ridiculed and forced to support your minority views against overwhelming opposition.

Politics
I am a moderate to slightly left-of-center Democrat that hates what the Bush Administration and neo-conservates are doing to our great country. Except for periods of supreme frustration, I will try to refrain from bashing our President. Rather, I will try to focus on positive steps our leaders can take to improve the lives of the citizens of America.

Let me start by talking about the Democrats strategy to take back Congress and the White House. Many pundits are talking about how the public disapproval of Congress is similar to that of 1994 when the Republicans swept the Democrats out of office. Democrats who think this alone will let them take back Congress are smoking a proverbial crack pipe.... And I'll Tell You Why. Unless the Democrats offer something constructive, the public will have no reason to believe the Democrats will perform any better than the Republicans. Keep in mind that in 1994 Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were able to tout their Contract With America. What concrete positions can the Democrats point to that the public can identify with? Democrats need to do a better job of explaining their positions to average American citizens. If people knew and understood the Democratic Party's platform, I adamantly believe the Democrats would win in a landslide every election. The Republicans, however, do a better job of marketing their ideas and demonizing Democrats' ideas. It never ceases to amaze me how many poor or lower middle class people vote against their interest every election because of Republican marketing.

Ok, enough politics for now.... I just saw the new Star Wars movie for the second time. I'll comment on Revenge of the Sith another time, but for now let me just say that I saw a preview for the movie Wedding Crashers, starring Vince Vaughan and Owen Wilson. Is it just me or do you also laugh every time you see Vince Vaughan -- even if he doesn't say a word!

I need to comment on Angelina Jolie. Many of my female friends keep telling me they do not understand the fascination with Angelina. They claim she's no prettier than dozens of other famous actresses. While that may be true, I think men are so enamored with Angelina not just because she is beautiful and sexy, but because she must be like a crazy possessed demon in bed. Think about it.

An Introduction

2005-06-03T14:58:00.000-07:00

So I decided to start a blog. Maybe it's because I need some entertainment while I am at work, or maybe it is because I have some thoughts about a variety of issues that I want to share with the world. Either way, I intend to post at least a few times a week. I'm not limiting myself to one topic (i.e. politics), rather, I'll likely write about anything amusing or important that comes into my mind. Most likely the blog will focus on the frustration of being a New York Mets fan; comparing life in your 20's in New York City to life in your 20's in Washington, D.C.; politics; popular entertainment; and amusing observations about life. My advice is to sit back, relax and enjoy the show.