Here we go--the actor of the small screen as well as the large screen, is forming an exploratory committee to see what his chances are of gaining the Repub nomination. I speak of one, Fred Thompson. Is that a drum roll? I guess some neocons will be a bit pleased, since a lot of people say he is the incarnate of Reagan and all the Repubs have mentioned his name over and over and...... So maybe this is the answer to the "Reagan" vacuum.
But wait! There is another! Newt, Da Man, Gingrich, may announce something this fall. we can only hold our breath. (he said sarcastically)
Thompson is running third in some polls and he has not announced he is running. That is kinda sad. But the Repubs are desperately looking for something to give them a hand up. Their parties leader, Bush, is not much help.
Do not know about you, but I am enjoying the scrambling
31 May 2007
Here we go--the actor of the small screen as well as the large screen, is forming an exploratory committee to see what his chances are of gaining the Repub nomination. I speak of one, Fred Thompson. Is that a drum roll? I guess some neocons will be a bit pleased, since a lot of people say he is the incarnate of Reagan and all the Repubs have mentioned his name over and over and...... So maybe this is the answer to the "Reagan" vacuum.
(sniff, sniff) Something Is Burning!
I may be the only one who actually gives a sh*t about what happens in Lebanon, but I will continue anyway.
If there is an overabundance of dandilions--Syria did it! Or if a politician gets a bad case of piles--Syria did it! Syria gets blame for everything that goes astray in Lebanon. The newest "Syria Did It" is the probs in the Pals refugee camp north of Tripoli.
Ok let us look at the organization--Fatah al-Islam. It is not part of the al-Qaeda organizational network. It is however using the connection for reasons of PR and recruitment. The leader of the group, Shaker al-Abssi is a felon in several countries, including Syria. He was in prison for plotting against the Syrian government, when he was released he fled to Lebanon and currently wanted on further charges in Syria. He is also convicted in absentia in Jordan to death for his part in the killing of American Lawerence Foley.
The Syrians have rejected this organization and has stated that it does not represent the feelings of the Palestinian people. They, as well as Jordan, are working through Interpol to try and apprehend the convicted felon.
There are indications, acoording to Seymour Hersch, that the US had help equip some Sunni groups in Lebanon to aid in the isolation of the Shi'a Hezbollah.
If this is true, then it is another "blowback" in their policies that the Bush administration did not count on. Does anyone in Washington learn fro past mistakes? (that is a rhetorical question)
For some weeks now we have been watching the plight of the 2 whales up a river in California. They caught the attention of many Americans and these people were worried about their welfare. They did make too much headway going back to sea until they were given antibiotics for their wounds received from boat props. After a couple of days they started back down the river to the ocean and have seemed to have made it, for they have disappeared. All in all good news. Right?
I know I have been called doom and gloom by some, but I need to ask the question. Did we do them any favors by helping them back to the ocean? I know, I know, you asking yourself, "what is this fool talking about"? Ok, let say they made it to the Pacific and they go to their feeding grounds and rebuild their strength, which would be a wonderful thing. But, consider this--did we really help them? I mean we saved them from dying in the Sacramento river, only to send them back to sea to possibly face Japanese harpoons.
Soo, I ask did we really do them a favor?
Just a thought.
30 May 2007
You remember Darfur, right? It is that region in Sudan where militias are raping and killing locals. These militias are said to be under governmental orders to carry out acts of violence against the locals. Does any of this ring a bell?
Everybody in Hollywood and points East have jumped onto the bandwagon to help the people of the region with humanitarian aid, education of the world to their plight and to try and exert some pressure on the government of Sudan. Actors, some politicians, NBA stars, a lot of Americans are trying to help the best way they can--that is by bringing the plight of the people of Darfur to the media. So far the news is getting out, but getting out slowly, unfortunately.
Guess what! Today, 29/05/07, the President of the United States of America had a news conference, and no a bird did not crap on him, this time, he announced the US would impose sanctions on the government of Sudan, in an effort to get the Darfur situation settled.
A statement made by the Prews during his news conference. "I promise this to the people of Darfur," Bush said at the White House. "The United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world."
Here is the gist of what the Pres is calling for:
With international diplomatic efforts to halt atrocities in Darfur at a standstill, the President announced three measures intended to change the calculations of the regime in Khartoum and intransigent rebel leaders. First, the U.S. will add 31 Sudanese companies to a list of 130 that are already denied access to the U.S. financial system. Second, the U.S. will freeze the assets of three of the many individuals responsible for the violence in Darfur. And finally, it will "seek" a resolution at the United Nations Security Council to impose targeted sanctions on individuals and expand an ineffective arms embargo that has been violated with impunity.
Comments from allafrica.com:
Three people? After four years? And not one of them the real ringleader of the policy to divide and destroy Darfur? And once again the U.S. is going alone? This is not leadership. This will not create missing leverage. This will not build multilateral pressure. And this will not end the crisis in Darfur.
What small steps that have been announced are largely due to tireless activism from concerned citizens, persistent efforts by members of Congress from both sides of the aisle pressuring the White House, and the president’s own demands for tougher policy options. However, the current Plan B is too unilateral in nature and much too weak to have an impact on the calculations of either Sudanese officials or intransigent rebel leaders.
Ok, why did the pres really hold a news conference on Sudan? WAKE UP! Smell the coffee! Elections! He is trying to take a weapon away from the Dems. Bush can be criticsed but he can say at least it is a start. Meanwhile, the people of Darfur will continue to suffer and die!
29 May 2007
AFRICOM? What the hell are you talking about, Professor? It is the new US military command for Africa. In February, Bush announced the formation of AFRICOM. Why? Well, think about it, the US does not have a substantial presence in Africa. It does everywhere else in the world and that cannot be. Apparently, the US has got to have a military presence around the world and Africa did not have one, so here you go.
Oh yeah, it is not about oil! But 12% of Nigerian oil will go to the US and in as little as 8 years it will most likely be 25%, but it is not about oil. But wait! China now has a massive investment program going on in Africa. We cannot like those "godless" commies get the upper hand on the continent. It is not about oil! Even though 8 countries in Africa produce crude, to include Sudan, Gabon,Chad, etc. But it is not about OIL!
Recently, on the Horn of Africa, there was a situation that needed the assistance of the US, I believe it was Somalia. Anyway it was learned that there was not a coordinating agency for the US to handle any deployment of military force, I mean assistance.
Of course, the US has said that they do not want a military build-up in the continent, but the fact that it will have a "command" unit on the continent will be just as inflammatory as troops. And as so will further radicalize the continent and the possibility of another "Iraq" will be a very good possibility.
Another excellent plan, another excellent cog in the Bush foreign policy machine.
Is There Anything New?
This a quote from the "Independent".
The US Army tried to kill or capture Muqtada al-Sadr, the widely revered Shia cleric, after luring him to peace negotiations at a house in the holy city of Najaf, which it then attacked, according to a senior Iraqi government official.
This is from the Washington Post,
The comeback of the Iraq Study Group's suggestions underscores the intense desire by some in Washington to fashion a workable long-term policy on Iraq. The months since the commission issued its report have seen increased polarization, with Democrats mostly united in their desire to end American involvement in the war and President Bush struggling to buy time for additional troops to pacify Baghdad.
THe Bush Admin seems to want to try failed tactics in Iraq. They are trying to wall off the bad guys to help security. China tried it--It failed. The US brought in basically foreigners to run the country. The Brits tried it --It failed! These guys just keep rewaching into a bag of failed policies and try them again. The Sadr thing about invite to talk then kill, was used by the US Army against the Apache. They called for peace talks with Mangas Colorado and when he shpowed up he was killed. It failed! The Apache problem continued for another 30 yrs or so.
Now after about 6 months the admin will take another look at the Iraq Study Group Repoprt. Better late than never, I guess. Why is it revelent now and not 6 months ago? What part of it is attractive? Or are they grasping at straws? Trying desparately to find something that will give them some good news and work?
The Bush Administration is a absolutely failure in foreign policy and grasping at failed tactics from the past will not help the situation at all.
28 May 2007
With the recent election the Dems were swept into office by their anti-war stances. Now where has that gone? No where! The Dems wanted to show that they were not wimps and could take control. What a snooze!
Newsflash--the dems are still wimps. They entered office with gran plan whic slowly gave way to their wimp-itude. They caved on Iraq, the one subject they should have help tough on. They compromised with the pres and in doing such wimped out--AGAIN! They were headed for a holiday break and did not want to let the pres have ammo in his attacks, well by caving, you morons, you have empowered the lunacy of the war.
Here on my blog on 12/06, I said that the victory of the dems would be NO victory for the people. I said nothing would change. So far I am batting a thousand. Ok let us look at the vote of Hillary and Obama--political at best. They waited until the late hour for the vote and saw that their vote would not make a difference and they voted NO! this will make the anti-war people happy, but what did it do for the troops dying in Iraq?
Another sign of democratic wimp-itude. Ji,mmy Carter, a man that I respect and for the most part pretty intellectual. But his recent statement about the Bush policies were the worst ever. (a paraphrase). A lot of lipservice was given about the statement and then Jimmy gets on air and does everything to apologize except saying "I am sorry". Wimping out!
Personally, I think he should have looked into the camera and said, "I said it! I meant it! Now, BITE ME!"
Whoever wins the '08 election will be a sad representative of the will of the people, that is in the belief that you actually feel that they care about your will. Until the dems grow a spine, they will continuously be preceived as being WIMPS! As they should!
OSIM! And time for the lesson. Morning class!
This subject has been in the news now for years, the ping-pong match has gone to and fro. But where did it start?
When was the first anti-gay legislation enacted in America? Give me when, where, why and what.
I realize that is not much to go on, but any other info and google would make it too damn simple and easy.
You may begin.
27 May 2007
Here goes all the news that was ........for the week.
Carter critizes Bush and he in turn is critised--He waffled!
Cutty Sark burns in the UK..the ship not the scotch!
Russian spy charged with death of Russian spy--that sounds confusing!
Dems bowed low to kiss the Pres' ass on the Iraq Bill--predicted!
Rosie and Hasselbeck have cat fight on the View--would have been more interesting if they had pulled hair and ripped off clothing, but I will take what comes. DAMMIT!
Gonzo is still in Washington. Does this guy wear padded knee pads?
Gen. in Iraq says he does not know why the increase in violence. Is he in Iraq? Or is he in Peoria doing a waitress?
Well there was some good news coming out of Washington--A bird crapped on the Pres during a news conference--poor man cannot catch a break. LOL
Oh yeah! There is more good news--American Idol is done for the season--now maybe the people will pull their collective heads from their asses and learn something. NOT!
If I missed anything, please feel free to include it in the comments.
I am CHUQ and I have no idea who approve this f*cking message!
26 May 2007
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and other Democratic leaders Friday strongly defended their handling of the Iraq funding dispute with President Bush, saying the legislation will result in a "new direction" for the war despite the fact that it includes no withdrawal timeline or any other binding restrictions on Bush’s conduct of the war.
Dammit! The Dems are playing the slogan game. Bush had "Stay the course" and the ever popular "way forward". Just when I thought it was slowing down, the Dems do it. "new direction". All I can say is .... please!
Can anyone say....WIMP!
This will be another feature --the most anal bullshit coming from the mouths of politicians.
WASHINGTON, May 25 — The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.
What happened to they will follow us back here if we leave? Would that mean the terrorist won? I am still working on the veto of a bill that would start bringing the troops home.
But wait there is more! Gen Pace when asked about the increase of violence and death in and around Baghdad, said he could understand why the increase.
Let's see an occupying force that is becoming extremely unpopular and will not go away and you cannot understand why the increase. Ok I have had enough!
Damn! What an anal bunch of f*cks!CHUQ
I have been watching the candidates talk, shake, struggle and waffle for some time now and I would like to take this opportunity to make my prediction for who will get the Repub nomination.
Guiliani--Tap dances more than Ben Vereen.
McCain--has a real problem with his little temper.
Paul--he talks about real issues and not the imaginary crap of the rest of the pack; that will get you eliminated quickly when you are a republican candidate.
The rest of the pack is just fodder to keep the public guessing.
(Drum roll) and the WINNER is--Mitt Romney! Why?
he has no foreign policy experience
he has "family values"--like staying married to the same women.
he appears presidential on the surface.
But the real clincher is---HE HAS HAIR! When was the last bald president? Do not hurt yourself--Eisenhower.
There you go--I have gone out on a limb--let see if I am right!
I am by no means an economic geek, but we have been told that inflation ia hold ing at a low level. But if one looks at the economic theory that inflation is a large amount of dollars chasing after a limited supply of output, then could not the gas situation be the beginning? For with hgigh gas prices, everything that is transported should go up also and then we have the large amounts of money chasing limited supply. But yet, according to government and private stats inflation is low.
IMO, someone is either mistakened or f*cking lying. And knowing our government the way I do, I believe the later.
JHust a thought, since alot of peoples will be travelling and bitchin' this weekend.
25 May 2007
Recently, the Congress has passed an immigration bill, and as predicted some like some not so. The debate will continue among all concerned, both pro and con, until it slips away into the night.
CNN's Lou Dobbs has made it his life's work to bring the immigration thing to light. He has written books and done countless shows on the subject.. But recently he out did himself. I think he sees that his bread and butter may be in jeopardy so he did a report on leprosy. He made the point that this disease could be coming across the border with the illegal immigrants. And that if unchecked could become a problem, a health problem for the US strained healthcare resources.
Well my facts show that 70% of leprosy cases are in three countries, India, Nepal and Myanmar. And that there were small amounts in Mexico and even smaller amounts in the US. It would seem that Mr. Dobbs is using a Bush tactic--the Fear Card! Since he is an outspokened opponent of the "illegals" and considered by some to be well informed, then he will be heard by those that will use such hysterical bullshit to their advantage.
I would like to see Mr. Dobbs, since his subject maybe drying up, find a new crusade to go on--like the welfare of handicapped vets. It is just a thought and probably would not sell many books, but it would be a righteous crusade nonetheless.
At a news conference yesterday in the Rose Garden, the Pres said this:
Washington - US President George W Bush, who has warned that a hasty US pullout from Iraq would be catastrophic, said on Thursday that US forces would leave if the fledgling Baghdad government asked them to.
"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation," he said at a White House press conference."If they were to say 'leave', we would leave."
Would someone send me the link top where Saddam invited the US? Let me see if I have this right? Iraq invited us to invade? Iraq asked for democracy? Iraq chose the people for the parliment? That last question is a trick question! Iraqis voted, yes but did they choose who was to run for office? Back to the questions! Iraqis invited the violence? Do you really think a puppet government will ask us to leave? Only when we tell them to ask us to leave.
My point is--this just more of the Rovian spin that has kept this country ass deep in a problem without a solution.
24 May 2007
On tuesday a document was de-classified and on Wednesday Bush used info from that document in his address to the Coast Guard Academy. It seems that there was a classified document that said that Osama said that Iraq should be used for actions against the US. (a paraphrase)
How nice. Since the creditability of the admin is so low, may I see a show of hands of those who believe this info? My thought is, if this is a true statement and is in fact accurate, why was it not de-classified earlier and used in the presentation to go to war? Or why wait 4 years later to de-classify the document?
This admin just keeps throwing shit at the public and some eat it up. Why? Trying to find a justification now is kinda like f*cking for virginity--It is too late! May I suggest that more time be spend trying to solve the withdrawal delock and less time trying to convince the public of the necessity for war.
The Fear Card--Bush friend and ally--this turd spends every waking minute trying to find ways to keep the American scared to death of another attack. The sad part is, they buy into the program hook, line and sinker.
23 May 2007
Was just watching CNN and they had a report of a new FDA approved over-the-counter diet pill, that will go on market in mid-June. CNN interviewed a doctor about the pill and she talked about all sorts of stuff, but what grabbed my attention when she said that the people taking it should start eating healthy, getting exercise and such. Will it be a breakthrough in the War on Obesity?
Well, think about this--if you change your diet and eat healthy and get regular exercise--why would you need a pill? Would not those changes do the trick without an expensive bottle of pills?
Has anyone but me noticed that the Pope, if he wore a dark cloak with a hood, would look alot like the Emperor on Star Wars?
Just an observation for 23/05/07
Also they are saying that Viagra may help prevent jetlag. So you might not be overly tired but part of your anatomy would be up and ready. How can one sleep with that problem?
As I reported earlier--Lebanon is burning again! This time it is interesting, the US indirectly support Fatah al-Islam in an attempt to confront Hezbollah. Now Hezbollah is supporting the government in the stand off with the militants. Hey! I can make up this stuff!
So the question now is, if Hezbollah is supporting the government and the US is a supporter of the government, are they now "good guys"? If so, what of Israel? they still have a beef with Hezbollah?
I recently read a book, no really, titled Samson Blinded by Obadiah Shoher, it is an Machiavellian look at the Israel-Palestine situation. One of his observations is that the world "should not discourage Arabs from killing one another". I would say that this seems tom be the plan all along. For as soon as one small fire gets extinguished another breaks out and when it is analyzed the US or Israel or both are involved on either side or sometimes boths sides. Playing each end against the middle.
OMG! What a great foreign policy ploy!
It would appear that the US is ratching up its plans for the US and its War on Terror.
The US government and Washington elites are aggressively ramping up their "war on terrorism" rhetoric and propaganda, stoking fear and paranoia in order to bolster their war agenda, and reinvigorate the mass public perception of new and growing "homegrown terrorism" threats to the US homeland.
The next phase of America’s war abroad (under the management of a post-Bush neocon/neoliberal consensus), and the deepening militarization of the US homeland towards a full police state, are well underway.
This research paper has some intersting details in it. Your thoughts will be appreciated.
22 May 2007
Mitt baby, is leading the pack in Iowa according to a recent poll. McCain and Guiliani are about tied for 2nd. Why? This guy flops around like a fish out of water. Hopefully, it is an error and the guy taking the poll was either drunk or stoned.
McCain is still cranky! In the debates I said he looks like a p*ssed off Doberman and I also said he needs a nap. Nothing has changed--he still needs a nap. I ask his suppoorters, Do you want someone who cannot control his temper to be in control of the World?
Guiliani, does not need a nap, he is already in a coma.
Sunday violence erupted between the Lebanese army and some Palestinians in the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp. The battle has been raging for two days, maybe three. All promoted by the search for a bank robber. Fatah al-Islam faction, is the culprit. Now the small town north of Tripoli is being bombarded by the army and the "bad guys" are fighting back.
US has said that it is unfortunate and both sides need to step back and look at the situation. Now that is excellent advice! But apparently it is only for others, the US does not need top do this.
And of course, the inevitable , SYRIA DID IT! The Lebanese government is blaming Syria, again. They say that Syria is trying to destabilze the goverment of Lebanon. I know that those who read my blog are extremely intelligent, so would someone please tell when just when Lebanon got a stable government? Apparently I missed that newsbreak!
I will be watching this situation and will probably have a lot more to say as it drags on.
21 May 2007
Morning students. Todays lesson is a short and should produce many good grades.
Name another Revolutionary war hero that was a traitor to his country.
Was he executed? What was he really accused of doing that prompted the treason charge?
Your answer must be precise.
You may begin,
Is There Anything New?
This a quote from the "Independent".
The US Army tried to kill or capture Muqtada al-Sadr, the widely revered Shia
cleric, after luring him to peace negotiations at a house in the holy city of
Najaf, which it then attacked, according to a senior Iraqi government official.
This is from the Washington Post,
The comeback of the Iraq Study Group's suggestions underscores the intense desire
by some in Washington to fashion a workable long-term policy on Iraq. The months
since the commission issued its report have seen increased polarization, with
Democrats mostly united in their desire to end American involvement in the war
and President Bush struggling to buy time for additional troops to pacify
THe Bush Admin seems to want to try failed tactics in Iraq. They are trying to
wall off the bad guys to help security. China tried it--It failed. The US
brought in basically foreigners to run the country. The Brits tried it --It
failed! These guys just keep rewaching into a bag of failed policies and try
them again. The Sadr thing about invite to talk then kill, was used by the US
Army against the Apache. They called for peace talks with Mangas Colorado and
when he shpowed up he was killed. It failed! The Apache problem continued for
another 30 yrs or so.
Now after about 6 months the admin will take another look at the Iraq Study Group
Repoprt. Better late than never, I guess. Why is it revelent now and not 6
months ago? What part of it is attractive? Or are they grasping at straws?
Trying desparately to find something that will give them some good news and work?
The Bush Administration is a absolutely failure in foreign policy and grasping at
failed tactics from the past will not help the situation at all.
Side Note: Lebanon has exploded --AGAIN!
20 May 2007
There has been a lot of lip service about why we should stay in Iraq. Repubs have said there are some successes in the country with the surge. The Demos will debate this fact and so will many others. But the idea that we, as Americans, should give the President more time for his plan to work.
My thought on this is, he has had 4 years and the progress has been a negative, why would we believe that it will work now?
More important, ask if the Iraqi oil law is passed as it is, which favors the oil companies over the country, how fast would the administration be looking for a quick out? I would almost bet that there would be some revelation that comes to their minds and we would start the withdrawal.
Just a thought.
I have started this as my regular Sunday post--it is easier than thinking--gonna give the brain a day off.
1) 60 million votes on American Idol! Damn!
2) Rosie of the View started an anti-war tirade by saying the US was responsible for 650,000 deaths in Iraq. May I suggest that she stick to raggin' on Donald and leave the anti-war stuff to informed people.
3) Wolfowitz to resign from World Bank---Leave it to the incompetence of the Bush Admin to not be able to find a Jew that can run a bank. (Not my analysis, that of Bill Maher--funny nonetheless)
4) McCain is cranky--he used the "F" word when talking with fellow Senator from Texas, Coryn, when they were speaking of the new immigration thing. I keeep saying that McCain needs a nap.
5) This is a good one--Congress rating in the polls is lower than Bush's. I sincerely hope the American people are watching the occurrances in Washington and that they are as pissed as I am. Probably not.
6) Paris gets off with good behavior before she goes to jail. Can anyone else get this deal?
7) This is one of my favs--a man in Minnesota was refused a gun permit, and he is pissed and wants to go to court. THE MAN IS BLIND!
In conclusion--While I was read blogs a few days ago I saw this description of a blog--"a conservative blog against stupidity" After reading it twice and thinking a moment--I have come to the conclusion that that statement is just one long oxymoron!
Have A Day---Peace, Out!
19 May 2007
WOW! We have a proposal for the immigration problem--the Congress is mashing out a compromise, probably as we speak. Opponents on both sides will not like it--that's politics. All pundits have there stances and the common man has his/her stance, whether good or bad, they listen to people like Lou Dobbs. Who, BTW, if there is ever an immigration deal hammered, will have nothing to say and he may slip into obsurity as did the show "Crossfire".
There is a simple way to look at the problem and somewhere an economist is preparing a multi-page diatribe, citing every known axiom, law and whatever else he can find to dispute my simple explanation. Read them if you want a good sleeping pill. But regardless, there is a simple explanation to what will happen.
NO BEES + NO IMMIGRANTS = NO FOOD!
I suggest that you prepare for the worse. If you like to eat, then I suggest that you redo your budget for the grocery bite will be heavy.
Let see, the Wall Street journal, et al are thumping their chests at the direction of the economy; they say it is good and strong. That is probably true for those who read the Journal. I will offer my opinion and I realize that somewhere, someone will write a 4 page diaribe citing all the economic theroms, axioms, laws, do-dahs and yadas, to illustrate why the the economy is strong. To that I say, Bully! But to Joe Q. Public it will not appear the rosy picture they paint.
Since most reporting is done piecemeal so not to really effect markets, one must wait through an entire month of rosy predictions to get to the grits and the gravy. For instance there is about 4% unemployment--that is good news, but for those who have falling off the emplyment roles and those who have not found a job; the news is not so good.
here we go, WalMart, Target, etc sales are down, while Tiffany's, Bloomingdales, etc are up. If you closely at that, you will see where the poor shop is down, basic meaning they have NO money after necessities. While the spots the rich go shopping at are up, basic meaning they have more disposable income.
You may not agree with my analysis, your choice, but I suggest that you ask someone besides people who depend on the Markets for their employment, what life is really like. They will most likely say to a person, "poor get poorer and the rich get richer".
18 May 2007
Hopefully everyone is watching the drama play out in the Sacramento River, two Humpback whales, a mother and her young, are a bit confused at where they are. Different organizations have different plans to try and coax the two back down the river and into the Pacific. So far not much has worked. Do not fret for now, they do not seem to be in any danger, right now, but people are concerned and would like to return them to their habitat.
Since nobody has been successful and the situation is leaving the bunch scratching their heads. I have a suggestion, take a copy of the last Repub debate and play it for them, that should drive them away and back to the ocean. If that does not work, try a blown up pic of Gov. Thompson, with all the rouge and such, that would definately scare the ba-jesus out of them.
Just a thought.
There is lots of lip service going on in Washington, in newspapers and on the media about the proposal of the Iraqi government that wanted to take a two month break. Of course, the Pres boys do not want this, they want them to stay and hammer out the oil law, about the only thing the Admin is inyersted in, at this time. (I have covered this ridiculous topic previously.) All the talk is that if they take the break the American people will not stand for it. Well, that is a flippin' lie! The admoin is worried that if they takes this break, the American people will be all over the occurrance and demand that the troops come home. Something the White House fears more than anything else.
All that being said, put yourself in their position (the Iraqis). If you lived with all the violence and death daily, would you want a break? Please, do not use their concern for the Iraqi people, for that is about as lame as lame can get. It was NEVER about the Iraqi people!
OK, let us look at this from another angle. Does your representative take his/her breaks? Even when there is crucial bills to be considered? I say they stay in Washington until ALL necessary bills are formulated and given to the pres for his consideration.But, no, they work 4 maybe 5 days a week, about a total of 4 hours a day and take off whenever they feel "stressed".
What is that old saying from your childhood, when you point a finger, there is four others pointing back. If they cannot understand the necesswity for a break from the crap in Baghdad, then I suggest our representatives go and spend some quality time in Baghdad and maybe then they will understand and shut the hell up.
Are The Troops That Important?
You have heard your president say just how important the troops are to the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. My question is, Do you believe? Do you believe that the troops are getting the best equipment to make their mission easier and safer?
The answers are in the reporting. First, the Hum-V needs to be reinforced to make it safer from damage caused by IEDs. Work that progresses slowly at best. Yet there is a vehicle already that is safer than the Hummer, the Cougar. Test have shown that it is a lot safer from damage caused by IEDs. Then why is it not in action in Iraq in limitless numbers? The cause most often cited is the production of the vehicle. But yet there are auto plants closing all the time. Now ask why one of these is not tooled up to produce the Cougar? Think back to WWII, the nation got behind the war effort and plants were squirting out a bomber a day, for example. Why has this country not gotten behind the troops more solidly?
Now, let us move on to body armor. The troops are saddled with the armpr known as the interceptor. It has proven to be adequate, but there is a more protective armor. It is known as Dragon Scale. It has been proven to be more protective than the interceptor and yet it is not allowed for use by the troops. Even the man who developed the interceptor has stated that the dragon scale is heads above his item. Then why is it not being given to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They say it is unproven, but yet the CIA operatives are using it in Iraq. Again, why are the troops not being given a more superior protection?
I have been saying this from the beginning--the troops are tools to be used and when used up, in one way or another, they are discarded and new ones are bought. I have started writing to Congress and others demanding to know why these two items, that would protect our troops more than the crap they have now, are not being mass produced to outfit the troops.
If there is one thing you can bet on, it is that I will pass on any and all information I recieve about this subject. It is time for the American people to stop the "sunshine patriot" stuff, like a buying magnet and start demanding that everything will be done to make the troops as safe as they can possibly be.
Anytime you hear a Congress talk about supporting the troops, I say ask them about these two situations. Do not let them side step it by saying it is under advisement. That is a cop out and a game they will play so they do not have to answer a hard question. If you let them get away with this betrayal of the troops, then DO NOT say you support the troops! If you are not outraged by this then you ARE NOT in support of the troops and flying a flag will not change that fact!
17 May 2007
Where's the fire? Everywhere!
Paris honey will do 23 days, if she is a good girl. Britnay is finding a new spirituality. HA!
Gonzo-gate is gonna have more casualities than the old "saturday nite massacre".
Repub also rans try to be humorous--now is not the time.
Prince.,...whatever his name is...will not go to Iraq.
Baldwin is still a dick, Hasselhoff may still be drunk, Imus is still fired and Ana Nicole is still dead.
Somewhere a couple of kids were arrested because they were planning a shooting at their high school. Their plans were to kill 33 so they would have the "worst" incident record. And the media had nothing to do with it. I mean with the endless VT coverage.
OK my rant about the "important" stories is over--HAVE A DAY!
An Iraqi Democray
In the past supporters of the war in Iraqhave nicknamed me Mr. Gloom and Doom and the Voice of Doom, which is no problem for believe me, I have been called worse, but to be truthful, I kinda like Mr. Gloom and Doom. Sorry, I digress. I have been told that if I am so damn smart then why don't I offer a plan. Well, I have I offered a plan for a democratic way to handle the situation. Now I would like to offer another. Both in my opinion would do the job, depended on how much intestinal fortitude one has.
I have been an outspoken opponenet of the US attempt to bring democracy to the country of Iraq. My opposition to the transition is two fold. First, Iraq is and has always been a tribal society, therefore the lunacy to bring democracy to the area is , well, lame. The Iraqis have no nationalistic identity, hell there has not been a country of Iraq, until 1917, when some well meaning Brits started drawing lines in the desert and calling them countries. So to think that the US can bring a democratic government to a tribal society overnight is, at best, a pipedream and at worse just plain stupid. Sorry people, but lastly, the US definately can not bring democracy to the country by force.
Since I have been a critic of the whole idea of democracy for Iraq, I have been asked what my idea for a government for Iraq. I have put forth my idea of how, if one must try the democracy thing, to use the institutions now in place. (Blog entry of 04/05/07, Iraqi political Solution) This plan is on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum. However, if you want an end to the violence then hard decisions must be made. I agree, they are not pretty, but effective.
OK where to go for the country? At best democracy is weak and very unfit for wartime. It works best in peacetime. That only should eliminate it for consideration for Iraq. In case no one has noticed, there is a war going on in the country. There are a few things that could be done to help the violence thing that now controls the country. What can to done? These are not popular but they will go a long way to helping control the situation. Introduce wartime censorship, postpone, until further notice, any elections, restrict the freedom of association, in essence suspend the democratic process now in place. Does it sound familiar? It should!
I hate to be the one to break it to the administration, but no amount of peace negotiations will end the conflict. Why? Animosities will remain. Violence will always be a threat. Unfortunately, not many will want to hear it or like it, but a strong armed individual or committee is the only answer to the violence and the death. To keep trying the democracy thing, knowing full well it is not working is just plain lame. A waste of time, money and lives.
If you want out of Iraq, there is your answer. Good or bad, it is the only one that will work, then worry about the democracy thing, if that was ever truly your goal.
16 May 2007
Bush has found his new War Czar, Gen. Lute, by the end of the Bush Presidency, he may have changed his name to Loon from Lute. Since the guy that gets this job, will probably have little to no say in the war and will most likely be the fall guy for the Bush Team, why would he want this job?
His job will be to co-ordinate the wars that the US is involved in. OK, what will his job be? His job will be to....(thinking....thinking). Come to think of it, doesn't he already have people doing this job? I mean with a wealth of generals lanquishing around Washington, there is no boby coordinating the wars? That could explain the lack of success our troops are having?
And somehow the 4 stars generals are gonna take a 3 star one seriously? Come on, rank has its priviledges and playing second fiddle to an underling will go over about like a fart in church.
Personal opinion, a complete waste to time, money and effort. We already play a plethora of generals to do this type of gig, so why now? Answer, it will be Lute's fault, no matter it is, it will be his fault.
The second repub debate was last nite. It was a bit more interesting than the first, but still lacked something. Guilliani has 9/11, that is about it. McCain needs a nap. Mitt is looking presidential, still do not see him as a pres. Ron Paul! Enjoyed his confrontational style. They all tried it at one point or another, but Paul was most successful, IMO. There were a couple of one liners and couple of shots, but nothing of substance.
Who won? I have it Paul and Mitt pretty much ties, IMO. Guilliani and McCain pretty much tired, of I am sorry, I meant tied. The rest were as always--also rans.\
15 May 2007
It seems that every election, one party or the other, brings up the corruption and such in Washington, and they set about convincing voters they if elected they will clean up Congress and Washington. Did you buy into this deception? How many times? And just how clean is Washington now because of your vote?
This is a quote from an article on the site called politico.com.
As House Democrats tackle a lobbying reform bill that they pledged to adopt on the midterm campaign trail, reformers say that a number of the members are privately questioning its necessity after all.
This is business as usual, why would a politician, who desparately depends on cash for their very existence, ever do anything to jeopardize that?
Yes, you are DUPED and you fall for the same BS at every election. Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome". In more clear words, you are just plain stupid, if you keep mfalling for the same thing at every election.
First of all, what the hell is an independent? A literal translation would be someone who thinks independently and votes issues, not the rantings of politicians on endless emotional issues.
In reality, voters who call themselves independents are just disgruntled Repubs or Dems, who still vote along party lines, but may disagree with this candidtae or that candidate over some wedge issue.
Then there are those who vote for a weak, non-existent third party. Most of these are started by disgruntled politicians who are seeking to make a statement, most should be smart enough to know they have no chance.
When asked what your voting preference is; you have three choices, sometimes only two, byt they are Dem, Repub and Independent. By declaring that you are an independent, you are saying "I have no idea how I will vote". Sad, for if you will not stand for something, you will fall for anything; ok it is an old saying, but it still rings true.
I mean look at the threat that was announced yesterday, Hagel is considering a run as an Independent. But is he? No, he is a republican and will always be a republican. No matter what he tries to call himself, he will never changes those spots.
14 May 2007
Hunting: An American Tradition?
Hunting was a way of life not long ago. You were a good provider for your family if you were a good hunter But since the invention of supermarkets and white collar jobs, it is no longer a necessity to be a good hunter.
Hunting moved from a necessity to a sport. Now if you buy a hunting license you become a member of a large sporting club--the American hunter. You are a sportsman, who hunts from a tree stand that is comfortable, with a gun that shoots a mile with a scope that can see 2 miles. Oh Yeah, the gun holds a clip of 4 or more rounds. you arrive at your chosen luxury box in a tree by your ATV, which has a cooler on the back with lunch and suds. There is more but why beat that dead horse.
Now my question is--what part of the above description defines hunting as a sport? Or what part of it gives the prey a "sporting" chance? When I was living on a local river with not much money I hunted almost daily. I was shooting doves on the ground and some guy saw me and said "you are not giving them a chance." I replied screw them, I am making lunch nor sport.
I just do not like the fact it is called a sport--it is not! Looking for a trophy buck is not sport, it is just some sick form of blood lust!
I say that if there must be these "people" in the woods, then make the license fee $1000 and put it into a pot, take all that pay to a pre arranged area and the one that walks out alive gets all the cash, with 10% going to the state for maintaince fees.
13 May 2007
Who Is The Populist?
This term has been passed around of several generations and recently I read an article that called Hugo Chavez a populist. Also John Edwards has been called a populist. So, who and what is a populist? I am being a bit simplistic, but to go into the entire spectrum would be too confusing. My aim is to have people understand what it is I am speaking of and to act from knowledge and understanding.
Let's speak of Chavez--I have seen the question asked, "Is Chavez the heir apparent to Castro"? Here is an intersting subject. Since Castro is considered a communist, at least by Washington, then I would say no, he is not the heir to the Castro mantle. Chavez is not a communist. But if we are speaking of him as being a pain in Washington's ass, then I say YES, he is the heir apparent.
Many reporters have labelled the movement in Central and South America as a populist movement. But what does that mean? Basically, it is a movement that advocates nationalization or the breaking up of large corporations; in reality it is reactionary authoritarianism. In an extreme case, fascism could possibly be the next step.
Watch the news from Latin America, Chavez, Morales, et al are moving to nationalize industries, the Oil in Venezuela, mining in Bolivia; these industries were usually controlled by corporations.
The word nationalization, rings like socialism; at least to the uninformed. Just because the term is used does not make the user a socialist, just an opportunist.
Now, how about John Edwards? By NO stretch of the imagination can Edwards be considered a populist, only in the narrow minded crap fed by the media. Do you think that anyone calling for the break up of companies could raise enough funds to run from office? Please!
When the news uses terms, please make sure you understand them, for if you do not they can dictate what you think. Think for yourself and make you decisions from knowledge, not from ignorance. That plea is most likely falling on deaf ears!
12 May 2007
Why do I ask the question? well, the movie industry is considering getting some movies with smoking a"R" rating. CNN reported that a lot of people find it obnoxious. Well, Is it?
(Lengthy Pause For Comment)
I will answer this for you, I do not would want too many brain farts to cloud the subject. NO! It is not obnoxious! Screaming brats on planes, that's obnoxious. Driver talking on cels, is obnoxious. A 300 lb woman or man in a bikini, well I cannot say that is obnoxious, but damn sure scary!
I reality, I find ALL politicians obnoxious. I find the greed that has a grip on the A,erican people, obnoxious. I also find war, obnoxious and lastly, I see the ignoring of poor people by the pundits in Washington, the most obnoxious of the obnoxious.
I listened to one of our leaders, a general, in Iraq; he was speaking of the troops saying that they know the US needs help and volunteer to do their part. Well, it is true they volunteer, but I beleive the monetary incentives outweigh any patriotic feelings. The incentives seem to keep going up and up, to try an meet enlistment quotas or to try and keep those already in the military.
I ask, just how successful would recruitment be without the monetary incentives? Would the person be more inclined to enlist if they were told that they would be on the streets of Baghdad and a target for anyone with a weapon? Or would they jump at the proposal of getting 10,000 to 40, ooo for their signature? While they are counting their bonus and signing on the dotted line is when you throw the part about dying.
Sounds like a successful plan to me. Sounds like a death warrant for the enlistee.
That is an excellent question, the easy answer is probably unless they shoot themselves in the ass somewhere between now and then. Whatever candidate you support, really does not matter to anyone but you.
The Repubs have a tendency to find the less likely candidate and win with them.. Huh? Professoe WTF? Ok look at Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and of course, the ever popular Bush II. Each one of these candidates were men that you would scratch your head and ask, "What are the Repubs thinking"? But guess what, the inept candidates seem to just keep winning and winning. It is an enigma.
With all that said, whether you agree or disagreee, does not really matter. The point want to make is that the above mentioned were elected president and each time it seem to be a surprise. To who? Whomever! Now, ask yourself, if these were so inept and the Dems could beat them in the election, what chance does the American people have in the process as it now stands?
I mean, the Dems could not find anyone that could do better against these men? It scares me. And it leads me to question the intelligence of the people and the integrity of the system.
11 May 2007
Where Has All The Gas Gone?
Sounds like a 60's protest song. But really, where has it gone? The answer is mergers!
In 1991, 189 firms owned 325 refineries and then in 2001, 65 firms owned 155 refineries. What does that have to do with the price? Companies are controlling supply and with that the demand is high, they make lots of cash. The small amount of refineries cannot keep up with supply and that drives prices upward.
Mergers have taken a toll on refineries. When the merger occurs, the company then closes some of the absorded companies refineries in an attempt to cut cost thus making the merger look like a success. Which in turn drives investors to invest--more profit made.
The remaining small amount are operating at 90%, leaving no room for exspansion of production during times of high demand. Then if for some reason a refinery is taken off line the supply decreases even more, driving prices up even further.
Today, in my area the price of gas is $2.90 and when the summer travel system arrives it will jump up and I am looking at about $3.25 per gallon by July.
Ok class--here is your summary of today's lecture.
Gasoline prices have become very volatile since 2001. While increased crude is a factor, tight supply and reduced refinery capacity plays a major roll in the volatility. Pricing schemes are used by oil companies to maximize their prices and profits.
Is there an answer that will help the American people find some relief from the problem of gas? Yes there is! Buy a bike!
10 May 2007
I realize this is a very long piece, but please read it and comment. Who would you think wrote this?
There has been on the global level a lot of talk recently about reform and democracy. They are attractive slogans that can only be rejected by a dictator or a reactionary. A dictator naturally opposes democracy. The reactionary abhors reform. But the whole debate would be rejected by all if it proves to be an exercise of selective propaganda or a misuse of attractive slogans to serve hidden agendas other than those of reform and democracy.
If we are truly serious about reform and democracy on the global level, then we must start with the peak of our world. The peak and head of the world is the United Nations. The General Assembly is our world’s parliament. If the parliament of the world were not democratized, it would not be possible to accept any call to reform or democratize any national parliament or government in any country in the world. The question is: how do we reform and democratize the UN General Assembly (the World Parliament)? The answer is very clear and simple. The world parliament must be given the same mandate enjoyed by a national parliament in any established democracy. Thus, the General Assembly would be the legislative body, the Security Council would be the executive branch and the International Court of Justice would discharge the task of the judiciary.
The proposal made by the Secretary General of the UN does not merit a second thought. It is utterly irrelevant and so colorless that it does not deserve any consideration.
The genuine radical reform dictates the transfer of the powers of the Security Council to the General Assembly. Its resolutions, rather than those of the Security Council, should be the legally binding ones. It is so because the General Assembly is the forum where all the member states meet. Unlike the Security Council, all member states are represented in the General Assembly on an equal footing but without any powers. What is the use then of the sovereign equality among member states? Indeed what is the use of the General Assembly itself if it is nothing but a decorative icon? What is the difference between the UN General Assembly and London’s Hyde Park when both are places for speechifying? The Assembly now is just like the Okaz Market in pre-Islamic Mecca which served as a forum to recite poems hailing one party and tarnishing another.
The Security Council must be transformed into a tool for the implementation of the resolutions of the Assembly. If this could not be achieved then the General Assembly must be abolished. The costs and expenditures incurred by the Host Country and the member states would thus be saved. The Security Council shall remain provided that it is sufficiently expanded. Its new powers, mandate and composition must be reviewed. The rulings handed down by the International Court of Justice must be fully respected. Those who might oppose this new radical concept of the reform of the International Organization will have no leg to stand on when they level their criticism at a country whose parliament has no real legislative power, at a government that does not implement the decisions of the national parliament or at a state that does not respect the rulings of its courts. How could those who criticize other countries and demand that they follow the path of reform and democratization oppose, at the same time, the call for the UN General Assembly to have a real legislative power? How could they oppose making the Security Council subordinate to the Assembly and charge it with implementing the Assembly’s resolutions? How can they disrespect the International Judiciary? Those who oppose this radical reform have no logical right to criticize the undemocratic states.
The General Assembly comprises all the member states that have united for peace. Today however it is nothing. The General Assembly is gravely insulted in the Charter. It is humiliated and treated like a child. The representatives of states are slighted in the general Assembly. It is taken lightly in all the articles of the Charter. It cannot do a thing without instructions from the Security Council. Its resolutions are implemented unless endorsed by the Council. It is unable to do certain things save upon a recommendation from the Council. It is well known that the Security Council is the embodiment of dictatorship while the General Assembly embodies democracy. The Security Council is made up of very few states. It is similar to a dictatorial military junta or an emergency council. It cannot be farther away from any form of democracy and equality. The so-called Security Council is a tool in the hands of a mighty, frightful and horrendous dictatorship. It is an unstoppable executioner’s sword. Its rulings cannot be appealed however unjust, harmful or biased they may be.
Therefore, the peak of the world namely, the United Nations embodies the most glaring type of dictatorship. It is inconceivable to talk about reform and democracy at any level without recognizing this flaw in the UN.
As long as the world does not exercise democracy in the so-called United Nations, the highest political institution in the world, the call for democracy in any country in the world cannot be taken seriously. And as long as the reform efforts focus exclusively on the Security Council, then the world is simply not serious about the reform of the United Nations.
The General Assembly is the United Nations. All countries are represented in the Assembly. But the Assembly is nothing. It is another “Speakers’ Corner” like that of Hyde Park, a mere decoration, a farce and a bogus fantasy. Countries incur unnecessary expenses to send their representatives on exhausting trips across continents for the sole purpose of completing the laughable props of the farce. It has no powers and no responsibilities. Sending representatives to the General Assembly where they have no say in, and cannot make a binding decision on matters of importance to the peace and security of their peoples is the ultimate insult to nations. All the binding decisions are made by a limited group in the Security Council. The Council is not international in character. Even that limited group is hostage to the veto power of a select few. With one objection, one gesture from a permanent member all the activities of the United Nations come to a halt. When one country casts a veto, resolutions are pre-empted and all action is paralyzed. The will and decisions of the members of the powerless General Assembly are humiliated and trampled upon by that one veto.
The reform and democratization of the United Nations necessitate the transfer of the powers of the Security Council to the General Assembly where all countries are represented. The binding resolutions should only be those democratically made by the General Assembly. The Security Council should become only a tool for their implementation.
The Problems Facing the Expansion of the Security Council:
1. The European Union (EU): This entity is well on its way to becoming a single state with a single market, a single foreign ministry, a single currency and a single army. Let us imagine that this federal state occupies a number of permanent seats in the Security Council. It already has two permanent seats. Germany is a candidate for another permanent seat. If it gets it, the EU will have three permanent seats. This will be a grave international problem. If that seat is given to Germany, what would be Italy’s position? It would be a terrible injustice to Italy. This is another big problem. If Italy is given a permanent seat, how could one entity occupy four permanent seats? This is a major problem. Just imagine what would have happened had the USSR had several permanent seats in the Security Council? Imagine also what the situation would be if the USA occupied now a number of permanent seats. Then who will have the right to deny Turkey or Greece that status? This problem will definitely emerge.
2. The African Union (AU): That union as well is on its way to become one state. Will it be given more than one seat? That will repeat the problem of the EU. If the AU is given only one seat in view of the fact that it will be a single state in the future, who will occupy that seat? If the seat is assigned to the AU, no one state member of it has the right to take the African seat alone. It will be Africa’s seat not a seat for any particular state. This will cause another problem.
3. India is qualified for a permanent seat. If it gets it, would not that increase the challenge faced by Pakistan, a nuclear power? Would that be in the interest of world peace? On the contrary, it would be a grave threat to world peace. Japan is also a candidate. If it gets that seat, would not that increase the challenge facing North Korea with its problematic nuclear situation? What about China and Indonesia? Would not giving India and Japan permanent seats lead the nuclear-armed China to a boiling point? Would that be in the interest of world peace? On the contrary, it poses a threat to world peace that is graver than anything it had known before.
4. When Turkey enjoys that right, who would be able to deprive Iran or the Ukraine of a similar privilege? This is a real problem. Egypt is also qualified for and deserving of a permanent seat. If that happens, what would be the position of its traditional enemy, Israel? Would it mobilize the Zionist lobby in America to strip Egypt of that right? This is an inevitable problem that would constitute a dangerous threat to peace in the Middle East. If the Council is thus expanded, who could object to Indonesia’s claim for a permanent seat? This too is an inescapable problem.
Giving any non-nuclear state a permanent seat in the Security Council is totally meaningless. It is a farce. It would be an act of deception against that state.
The expansion of the Security Council would subject world peace to new dangers. It will ignite a cold war that might well turn into a hot one. The world will be making a grave error if it goes down that path.
If the purpose of the UN reform is to strengthen world peace and consolidate democracy, then it must focus on the transfer of the powers of the Security Council to the General Assembly. This way, democracy will be achieved in the UN. The seats of the Security Council will lose their importance. The cut-throat competition on them will cease.
Once again I say it clearly: the peoples of the world must not be taken in by the lie that is put before them. What is on the table is the reform of the UN not only the possibility or otherwise of the expansion of one of its organs; the Security Council.
The United Nations is not merely the Security Council. The General Assembly is. The 190 member states are represented in it. The Nations that united against Germany in World War II were only four. They are not the current United Nations that is made up of 190 members. The four nations were free after the war to establish their own security council. They were free to do as they wished and to arrogate to themselves special rights through that council. Today, the 190 member states are the United Nations. They have a natural right to create their own security council which is different from that created by the four nations that defeated Germany. The nations represented in the General Assembly have the right to exercise all powers through it. I stress “all powers” without exception because the General Assembly is the only organ that represents all the peoples of the world.
It is the assembly of the 190 member states of the UN that has the right to constitute its security council in the manner that it deems fit for the achievement of its goals and the protection of its safety. This means that the General Assembly will be the international legislature and the sovereign international parliament. It alone will have the final say in matters brought to its attention.
This is the essence of democracy in the world organization. If it is not achieved on that basis, any talk of democracy and any call on states to adopt democratic systems will be nothing but a laughable farce that cannot be taken seriously by anybody.
The correct and democratic solution is for the General Assembly (i.e. the 190 member states) to discharge all the powers enshrined in Chapters 1-19 of the UN Charter. It alone should establish its own security council. The council is only a tool for the implementation of the resolutions of the Assembly.
If this does not happen, the UN as we know it would be doomed. We must prepare ourselves to live in a world without the United Nations.
This question is of extreme importance to the destiny of the world peace or war. Therefore, any decision about the proposals on the table must be deferred. The world leaders, intellectuals and academicians must reflect carefully upon all these ideas. They should avoid making hasty decisions that aim at nothing but pleasing some or appeasing others without giving due consideration to the near or distant future. They must consider carefully the negative repercussions of any decision they may make. The matter is of extreme gravity. It deserves more than one year of study and analysis. The opinion of all the peoples of the world must be sought. They are the real stakeholders in this matter.
The world will be heading towards self-destruction if it thought of expanding the Security Council while continuing to disregard the General Assembly as is the case now. There will be loud calls for the withdrawal from the United Nations. I will personally be the first to make such a call. I have delivered my message and my warning as God is my witness.
This statement is based on the preamble of the UN Charter and article 109 thereof
Yesterday an ad staring running with ex-generals criticising the pres and his tactics. Gen. Batiste, said that he retired because he could deal with the lunacy of the Bush policy and so that he could speak out. Is it true? Depends on who you want to believe. Is it politically motivated? Well DUH! The election is next year and why would these guys come out now and not sooner. Politics! politics!
And also in the news 11 moderate repubs met with the Pres and gave him an ear full about the war and the support for it. Why now? I mean all the negative reports and lies and______, well yoiu fill in the blank. Politics! Politics! And when is the next election? Are the reps starting to listen to the people? Only if you believe in the tooth fairy.
Re-election could be the only reason the war is ended. If you reps are interesting in re-election then the war will become more and more unpopular, as the American people start showing their disapproval. Will the war really end? When? The war will end when the multinationals want it to end.
The voters have a say and their say is heard, but it is only a whisper drowned out by the shouts of the multinationals.
Oh by the way, just to let you know--those 11 that met with the pres told him that all the reports they have show that the American people are losing confidence on the war.. That means, you are being listened to? ROFLMAO! NO! I t means they have an out now and if for some reason it comes back to bite them in the butt; it will be the people who are at fault, for the reps were just doing what they wanted. Politics! Politics!
09 May 2007
I spend a lot of time on discussion forums for politics and of course I run across a few good posters, but for the most part, I am at odds with most of them. recently, I was discussing the Sirge with a few on a forum and in pops some, I will try to be polite, moron who does not want to exchange views but rather attack, name call and quote only stuff that supports his/her view.
This person says the Surge is working--and as proof they cite the fact that there are lulls or quiet tinmes in Baghdad. That means the surge is working. Then when violence erupts that means that the bad guys had to adjust before they could continue--and that means the surge is working.
After scratching my head for awhile, at the sheer lunacy of any of those observations; I just had to post.
We are fighting insurgents--that is what insurgents do--they fight--they back off--they regroup--they adjust. That is why they are so successful; the ability to readust to the tactics being employed against them..They are insurgents, not an army!
The best I can say is, crack must be getting cheaper, for that would be the only way to see the Surge as a success.
08 May 2007
OK , today we are gonna take a trip in the Professor's time machine, the Way Back Machine. We set the selector switch to 1990. August 2 to be exact. Swoosh! Crackle! here we are on the border between Iraq and Kuwait. At this moment the Iraqi Army is rolling across the border headed for Kuwait City--the invasion has begun.
Now, what was Saddam's justification for the invasion?
(Waiting!) ( Waiting!) (Tapping fingers on desk!)
Time is up! The news said he was reclaiming a provence of Iraq. Well, not historically. Iraq did not exist until 1917. However the area in conflict was part of the area to be known as Iraq. It was decided by the Brits to give the al-Sabah family their own country, so they drew the lines and Kuwait was born.
Saddam's excuse for the invasion was that the kuwaitis were horizontally drilling and tapping into Iraqi oil reserves. His reason was probably correct, but only the sands of the Iraqi desert know for sure.
Did either justify the invasion by Iraq? Defend your answer.
OK, we had a guy die from a bomb in Vegas; it was on top of his car. A bomb threat aboard a ferry in Washington state. Seems there are more and more of these recently. Appears to be after the mindless extensive coverage of the Va. Tech disaster. Do you think that the continuous coverage of the story for over a week, may have emboldened whacky wannabes? Anyone thinking about such an action, was jerking off in the corner, considering that if they do the same they will be FAMOUS.
Of course, none of the media will accept responsibility and aI am sure there will never be a study to see if there is a correlation, so my opinions are basically a fart in the wind. Since no one else will do it--I HOLD THE MEDIA RESPONSIBLE!
07 May 2007
Ooooooh! Gas prices at an all-time high. Cha-ching! Listen to the register ring.
Congress has said they want to know why. Easy answer--profits, you idiots!
With so many refineries out of action and no new being built this trend will probably be continued, indefinately. New refineries will not be built because they say it will cost too much--steel up, etc. I say tough noggies. The industry had no plan to build other refineries. They made sure the American stayed addicted to gas, so I am sure there was at least economist that predicted the need for new refineries. But why do that? With the probs with refineries--the supply will be low demand high--profits even higher.
Take a good look at the situation and you will see capitalism at its best. (sarcasm intended).
Your assignment is to give an idea at how the problem can be solved. Due ASAP!
Been watching CNN, why?, dunno just bored I guess. Anyway, they are stuck on a tornado story that will last longer than the storm and possibly longer than the clean-up.
I will say that is was a devastating storm to the town, considering that about 90% of the town was damaged, but is it a national story now? The day of, yes. Now it is a regional and local story. But noooooooo! Today CNN will be talking to the 3 goats that are wandering around the town.
Your media sucks and sucks bad! You want bullshit not news. You will be forever in the dark of why things happen and when they do happen you will want immediate answers--it will be too late to educated the STUPID!
06 May 2007
Remember the “Matrix”? You know where life was an illusion created by a computer. Just like the Matrix, you are used by a master program called the “Complex”. Its full name is the Military-Industrial Complex. What is it, you ask?
Simply put, it is the marriage of industry, military and government for the constant increase in military strength to further expansionism and to reinforce the wealth of a few. It is a gold mine for all those involved, especially those who supply the material to create ordinance. A small group of companies make billions off of the contracts for such implements of destruction.
Again you may ask, what does this have to do with me a soldier?
Once the ordinances are researched, made and stockpiled, the money stops for there is no reason to make more. But wait! If a war starts then the weapons will be used and there will be a new need for more of these ordinances, they must be replenished.
Do you now see a trend developing? You should! The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are using ordinance at an alarming rate and yes, they must be replaced.. This will allow those few companies within the industry to accumulate more wealth. It is a vicious cycle with you in the middle.
So you see, you are nothing but a tool, along with the weapons, to work in conjunction with policy to assist these companies with their pursuit of the accumulation of wealth. A war is needed; policy provides that need and you provide the sweat. You face the dangers of war and the CEOs along with their buds in government sip champagne and plan for the next conflict that will need you and their product.
Just as the Matrix controlled lives, so does the Complex and it can be as lethal as the Matrix and its agents.
The fact is, your welfare and safety are not important to those in the Complex--only profits are their concern. Their only thought of you is how you can best be used to further their interests. While you are asked to pay the ultimate price, they are accumulating vast fortunes and looking to the next war with a smile.
It is their profits and your dangers!
OK, with the world as pathetic as it is these days, war is inevitable; someone will piss someone else and the bangs will begin. I suggest that Saudi Arabia donate a 100 sq, km. tract of land in the desert and on this land the world builds a town (design to be forthcoming). Then the sides with the beef at each other oick 100 hundred people per side, then each side is given the same ordinance (types to be announced). Then they flip a coin to see who will be the aggressor and who will be the defender. At a prescribe day and time, the war will begin and continue until one side wins.
Oh yeah, the leaders of the two countries will be involved in the fighting.
Whoever wins the battle wins the dispute.
This is a simple solution, I agree, but think of the death and destruction that could be avoided. And the warring countries could continue with daily life without the hinerance of a conflict.
This plan would solve the problem of politicians strarting wars and sitting back to let others handle the devastation. They will be involved up to their collective yellow asses!
05 May 2007
First, the best news in the media today is that biatch, Paris Hilton will go to jail. She looked like she was really pissed at the prospect. HA! Finally, and I say put her in with Big Bertha and let the loving begin. Sell that tape!
Hasselhoff is a drunk--go figure. You would drink too if you longer had the Baywatch Babes to deal with.
The Washington hooker story--about the best thing I can say is--there is nothing good I can say. Never mind!
Oh yeah, let us not forget the big story--what color hat will the Queen wear to the race? I know I will sleep well until that question is answered.
I have a thought--why not let CNN change their slogan from a "all the news you can use" to " all the news that is useless". Just a thought.
Now a question for the class. Why are the American so starved for information on the Brit monarchy? If someone has a good answer, it will be worth some extra credit.
The new US Ambassador to Iraq went on camera and made sure that everyone knew we were not meeting with Syria, we had an encounter. Thinking.....Thinking....WTF? They sat down a talked for thirty minutes, more or less, but it was not a meeting. So that means that anything less than an hour, or so is not a meeting but an encounter and in such is not suppose to be productive. Is that about it?
Words and Phrases that need to be banned from news reporting.
Boots on the ground
and my personal fav--stay the course
The reason for banning is simple, they are idiotic, nonsensical and just plain f*cking stupid!
Is there a thought? The Professor awaits!
I recently encounter a simpleton on a discussion forum that posted a conserv article about "liberal fascists" that are trying to ban conserv talk show host like O'reilly, Limbaugh, etc. First, BULLSHIT! Something that will never happen. But I hard a hard time getting past the phrase "liberal fascist".
Liberal--someone on the left of the political spectrum, at least that is a definition in today's politics.
Fascist--someone on the extreme right of the political spectrum.
May I suggest that you pick one or the other, but using the two together is just plain ignorant!
After burying head in hands and doing a lot of laughing, I decide to respond. "Liberal Fascists" is a word similare to military intelligence or happily married or immortal dead. They are all oxymorons. Two words that mean polar opposites and should never be used together to make a point. When you do you appear to be a simpleton with the IQ of your hat size.
I suggest that the author of the article let "real" analysts do the analytical stuff, that would eliminate giving himself a migraine.
04 May 2007
I watched the 1st of the Repub candidates and their debate. This is what I saw.
First it was a snooze. And if I heard the name Reagan one more time (a total of 19, by my count) I was gonna scream.
McCain--he looked like a oissed off Doberman.
Guiliani--he look he was as uncomfortable as a Ho (Imus word) in church.
Romney--came off as an overpracticed drone
The rest were just there looking for a bone that could help. Ron Paul was the only other also ran that impressed me. I did not walk on eggshells trying not to offend anyone. He spoke with confidence and openness.
All were trying desparately to look like the heir apparent to Reagan--not one of them is that person.
There seems to be a concensus that since a militray solution is not possible, then we should focus on a political solution. I say, why not? But, as the system is now in Iraq, that would be a monumental undertaking. Is there another way? You bet, but it will not be popular.
Iraqi Political Solutions
In the beginning there was a plan and it was called democracy. And within the plan was the necessity for Saddam to go, once that was acheived, all else would fall into place. And all would live happily ever after. At least that was the plan.
Good Morning class.
Without going into a complete history lesson of the most recent Iraq war, we will just say--did not work out that way!
In the beginning the military would be used to bring about the end of Saddam and the stability for democracy. Did not work out that way!
A year ago when asked, Pres Bush said we were "absolutely" winning in Iraq. Is not working out that way!
Recently, the President has said that the solution for Iraq was not solely a military one (states the obvious) but that a political solution has got to be found. That the Iraq government must step up and do their part. Will it work out that way?
A political solution that is prophized is , at best, a flippin' pipe dream!
OK, let us look at the situation in that light.
Does the Pres mean a solution within the current political atmosphere? If that is what he is eluding too--will not work out that way. Why? You may ask and the Professor will gladly enlighten you.
First, the politicians within the current government are pretty much hand picked by the US and are not representative of the average Iraqi population. Their sole common denominator is that most were opponents of Saddam. Is that enough to guarantee a real democracy? Not hardly! Only if you are a US politician or business person would you consider this a representative government.
Why can this Iraqi government not find a way to democracy? Good question! The simple answer is tribal mentality. To use the American experience in democracy is just short of stupid, nothing about Iraq would conform to that example. Why? The concept, in the West, of a strong Iraqi national sentiment does not exist. Has never existed! The people are defined, within the country, by their ethnic identity. Unlike in the US, where the parties are defined by ideology, in Iraq they are defined by ethnicity, instead of ideology.
Until the divisions of ethnicity are eliminated all decision made by a majority of parlimentaians, which will be Shi'a in favor of Shi'a, then all decisions will be strongly resisted by the others and the violence will continue and continue and .....
Professor? You seem to believe there is no way around the violence.
I do not have all the answers--believe it or not--but what about this:
In order to establish an equal voice among all political parties and prevent the domination of any majority party in the legislature, bills can be passed on the basis of the number of parties with majority approvals. If legislation is passed on the basis of a majority vote within political parties rather than a majority in parliament as a whole, the interests of diverse sects are taken into account since no one majority party can pass the legislation it most desires. If a majority of political parties vote in favor of a bill, it passes, but if the 113 members of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance along with other Shiite groups constitute a majority in parliament and they all vote for the same bill, then that bill would not pass.
With this modification, policies most preferred by various sects will reflect national interests. Minority parties with no more than five members such as The Upholders of the Message, Iraqi Turkmen Front, and National Rafidain List, which currently hold seats with less than five members, could choose to vote alone or form coalitions to exercise their vote. Thus, it would not be the overall number in parliament that counts, but rather the numbers within the parties that decides the fate of legislation.
But Professor, can this be good for the people of Iraq?
There is no doubt that Iraq still needs time to develop its democracy, but the present day party politics in Iraq is a power struggle among groups competing for government control, and ultimately seeking benefits for their own sects. A new kind of majority rule based on the number of majority votes within parties can foster negotiation as no one majority party or sectarian group can dominate legislature in the Iraqi parliament.
Overall, laws that guide the function of government participation must enforce multiethnic unity for political parties to unify society. Ideas should be drafted to help Iraq develop a democracy that fosters multiethnic representation and cooperation.
Class, please keep in mind that these are just a few thoughts that could possibly help democracy find a home in Iraq and that the present day experiment is destined to be a complete failure and in so a stepping stone for another authoritarian to step up and demand power.
Class dismissed and you will be held responsible for the information in this lecture.
03 May 2007
Good morning class! Ok, let's enter into the "way back" time machine and journey to the 60's and 70's. This period was full of protesters against the war in Vietnam and among them was one, Joan Baez. She did concerts, wrote songs and spoke out against the war. She was even married to a guy named David, who was in prison for being a "draft dodger". Needless to say, she was not very popular with the government in power at the time. She was, however, very popular with the protesters and resisters.
ON personal note, I was not one of her fans. I was not for the war, as a matter of fact, I was one of those damn "commies" that protested the war. Baez, in my opinion, used her then husband to further her career. It made really popular because that he made a stand and went to jail, instead of going to war. Please understand this is a personal opinion.
ZAAAAP! Now we are in the present day. Mellencamp was having a concert for Walter Reed guys and he wanted to inclide Baea, who is a friend of his, but she was not allowed to join in the concert.. WHY? According to the Army, she was added too late to the roster, for them to make arrangements. The military said that it was not because of her opposition to the war. They even said that Mellencamp was against the war, so that is a none issue.
If you believe that, then your check is in the mail! Baez is a very verbal opponent of the war where Mellencamp wants to sell records. He may be against the war, but he is a wimp. He wants to avoid confrontation, where Baez seems to relish it. If the war became popular tomorrow, then Mellencamp will come to his senses and be all for it. It is about money and record sales.
My opinion? Baez should have been allowed to play, but then again I am one of those damn "commies".
Rice has said that the US has no plans or expectations on the meetings with Iraq and its neighbors. NO SH*T? Cannot understand that since ev ery other decision in the area has been so well thought out.
Why would the US attend a meeting of concerned countries with the war in Iraq and not have an idea on what to say? After all who started the bullshit?
Are the American people getting their money's worth out of these.....(thinking).....representatives?
- ► 2008 (360)
- Law And Order Candidate
- Cedars Of Lebanon Are On Fire
- Personal Thought
- Remember, Remember
- What Of AFRICOM?
- Anything New?
- The Democrats--Yet Again!
- Professor's Classroom
- Weekly News Roundup
- The Democrats--Again!
- Weekly Anal-ocity
- Political Prediction
- To immigrate or Not
- New Proof Of Al-Qaeda In Iraq
- New Diet Pill
- Lebanon--Part II
- A New Terrorism Plan
- He Is Leading In Iowa
- Leb anon Is Burning! -----AGAIN!
- Professor's Classroom
- A New Iraqi Plan?
- A Question On Iraq
- Weekly News Round-Up
- Professor's Classroom
- Immigration 101
- Economic Classroom
- And Yet Another Rant
- Personal Observation
- Is There Troop Support?
- News Roundup
- Another Plan For Iraq
- New War Czar
- Republican Debate--Part II
- Clean Up the Congress
- Are You An Independent?
- Is It A Sport?
- What Is A Populist?
- Is Smoking Obnoxious?
- Soldiers And Iraq
- Can Demos Win In '08?
- Gas Prices
- Something To Think About
- Generals Speak Out
- Is The Surge Succeeding?
- Professor's Classroom
- Gas Prices
- Daily Rant
- Open Ltter To The Troops
- An Idea For A War
- News UpDates
- Yet Another Rant
- Daily Rant
- Republican Debate Analysis
- Iraqi political Solution
- Joan Baez Banned
- News UpDate
- UFC And The Future
- Politics: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- A Daily Rant
- Walls Of Protection
- ▼ May (64)