Given that I'm too busy right now with my new job and not blogging anything close to daily, I want to open Inside Zebster up as a place to post other people's thoughts on issues related to the upcoming election. I have one piece I'll be putting up shortly. I welcome people from all perspectives to offer up their opinions. I don't plan on editing what you'd write but would reserve the right to ask that something be revised by you before I post that, though I think it's unlikely I'd feel the need to do that.
If you're interested, leave a comment here and/or email me. And hurry up, the election is a week away. Plus, I'll definitely be putting something up very soon regarding the exchanges today between John Kerry, President Bush and John McCain.
government politics citizens independent vote Kerry Bush McCain
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
No one to blame but yourself
If you buy all the negative ads that have no substance, no proof, no facts aimed at a candidate from the party opposite the one you're aligned with because you're just looking for a reason to support your current good-for-nothing, rubber-stamp incumbent, then you'll have no one to blame but yourself when nothing changes (even worse, if you don't vote at all).
As I've done time and time before, I urge everyone to vote; but equally as important I urge you to take a step back and look at the issues and the candidates with a fresh and open mind, as painful and distasteful as that may be for you. Also, look at all the issues and prioritize their importance, because you're going to be asked to vote for a candidate because he/she supports a "pet" issue of yours. They're hoping you'll ignore or excuse their mistakes and incompetence and even lies because they've brought pork to your district. Ask yourself what is truly most important, research that issue and the candidates' stance on that issue.
You know what? Sorry I've been too busy lately to write and the above is far from my best work. Just throw them all out and start over...you'll feel better, I promise. If nothing else, we'll end up with at least some oversight for the first time in a while. It is possible! Just think what a message it would send if you decided to vote entirely for incumbents and you got just one person to do the same, and that one person got one person to do the same, and so on. You know what you'd have? A true democracy.
For those who care, I hope to get a chance to make some recommendations, my reasons for supporting certain candidates. I can tell you now though that the overriding theme will be anti-incumbency, but I will have more reasons than that if I have time to do it at all.
government politics citizens independent vote reform anti-incumbent Congress
As I've done time and time before, I urge everyone to vote; but equally as important I urge you to take a step back and look at the issues and the candidates with a fresh and open mind, as painful and distasteful as that may be for you. Also, look at all the issues and prioritize their importance, because you're going to be asked to vote for a candidate because he/she supports a "pet" issue of yours. They're hoping you'll ignore or excuse their mistakes and incompetence and even lies because they've brought pork to your district. Ask yourself what is truly most important, research that issue and the candidates' stance on that issue.
You know what? Sorry I've been too busy lately to write and the above is far from my best work. Just throw them all out and start over...you'll feel better, I promise. If nothing else, we'll end up with at least some oversight for the first time in a while. It is possible! Just think what a message it would send if you decided to vote entirely for incumbents and you got just one person to do the same, and that one person got one person to do the same, and so on. You know what you'd have? A true democracy.
For those who care, I hope to get a chance to make some recommendations, my reasons for supporting certain candidates. I can tell you now though that the overriding theme will be anti-incumbency, but I will have more reasons than that if I have time to do it at all.
government politics citizens independent vote reform anti-incumbent Congress
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Anti-incumbent fever or anti-majority?
You've seen me comment, rant and encourage on this blog many times about my views regarding the voters' pathetic record regarding voting for who they're familiar with much more than who they believe to be the better candidate based on information. I've encouraged readers to research voting records and issues before deciding on a candidate.
Do the latest poll numbers, such as this one from The Washington Post, show that voters are finally getting wise and getting informed, therefore ready to clean out incumbents and start over, or do the polls simply indicate a dissatisfaction with the party in power?
Seems to me it's a justifiable dissatisfaction with the party in power, the Republicans; and for many, many good reasons. You can fill in the blanks yourself. While I think that's a good place to start, if the mindset of the voter doesn't include the realization that much that we're dissatisfied with can be attributed to overall complacency and arrogance, it will only be a start to a necessary house cleaning without a finish.
People need to realize that the minority party plays many of the same games, is beholding to many of the same special interests as well as specific ones of their own, has not done their job of being a watchdog on corruption (in fact, has joined in) and thus have failed us nearly as much as the Republicans have.
So while you're frustrated, angry and ready to kick the "bad guys" out by voting against the Republicans, realize that you're only doing half the job, therefore really not accomplishing anything, if you don't include the Democrats in your anti-incumbent passion. You'll simply be rewarding them for not being as bad, when in fact they are just as bad, just not in a position to take as much advantage of their power as Republicans.
So while I personally would rather see the Democrats in power come November than the Republicans (and that would be a good thing), it falls far short of my ultimate goal of a complete reforming of the system (read my previous series on Representative Govt) by infusing Congress with new blood, especially independents. While the Democrats will take advantage of the current climate, not infusing true independents into the mix and thus giving Americans more real choices and new ideas fixes nothing in the long run.
Cross posted in large part on
Watchblog.
ANNOUNCEMENT: I've started writing also at VOID, Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, the blogsite of an unconnected PAC whose mission is much as I've laid out here and other places, a perfect fit for the Zebster. I'll mostly be compiling poll data into short anti-incumbent updates, as well as the occasional editorial piece.
government politics citizens independent vote reform anti-incumbent Congress
Do the latest poll numbers, such as this one from The Washington Post, show that voters are finally getting wise and getting informed, therefore ready to clean out incumbents and start over, or do the polls simply indicate a dissatisfaction with the party in power?
Seems to me it's a justifiable dissatisfaction with the party in power, the Republicans; and for many, many good reasons. You can fill in the blanks yourself. While I think that's a good place to start, if the mindset of the voter doesn't include the realization that much that we're dissatisfied with can be attributed to overall complacency and arrogance, it will only be a start to a necessary house cleaning without a finish.
People need to realize that the minority party plays many of the same games, is beholding to many of the same special interests as well as specific ones of their own, has not done their job of being a watchdog on corruption (in fact, has joined in) and thus have failed us nearly as much as the Republicans have.
So while you're frustrated, angry and ready to kick the "bad guys" out by voting against the Republicans, realize that you're only doing half the job, therefore really not accomplishing anything, if you don't include the Democrats in your anti-incumbent passion. You'll simply be rewarding them for not being as bad, when in fact they are just as bad, just not in a position to take as much advantage of their power as Republicans.
So while I personally would rather see the Democrats in power come November than the Republicans (and that would be a good thing), it falls far short of my ultimate goal of a complete reforming of the system (read my previous series on Representative Govt) by infusing Congress with new blood, especially independents. While the Democrats will take advantage of the current climate, not infusing true independents into the mix and thus giving Americans more real choices and new ideas fixes nothing in the long run.
Cross posted in large part on
Watchblog.
ANNOUNCEMENT: I've started writing also at VOID, Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, the blogsite of an unconnected PAC whose mission is much as I've laid out here and other places, a perfect fit for the Zebster. I'll mostly be compiling poll data into short anti-incumbent updates, as well as the occasional editorial piece.
government politics citizens independent vote reform anti-incumbent Congress
Monday, October 09, 2006
North Korea open thread
I'd be very interested to know what you think is the way(s) to deal with KIM Jong Il's rogue North Korea, now that they've apparently successfully tested a nuclear weapon.
Do we essentially continue a strategy of containment which doesn't appear to be containing much but the growth of the people? What else can you take away by way of sanctions? It would appear that his people going without is not a deterrent to this clown.
I've heard it suggested we offer China that we'll remove our troops from S. Korea in exchange for them taking out this leadership. Interesting theoretically but does China even have that ability, though they'd certainly be interested in no longer essentially having our troops on their border.
One of the biggest deterrents to military action has been all those North Korean missiles aimed at South Korea. That aside, what military action would make a difference? We're stretched awfully thin as it is militarily, but would you propose a surgical strike to try to take out the leadership or bombing them back to the stone age (oh, that's right, they're already back in the stone age)?
Do we just de facto ignore it, while using words of condemnation? They are not a threat today, especially since they can't seem to get rockets to work; but there's always the chance they could sell what they've learned.
Any thoughts?
On a personal note: Having my stepson on the border there makes me wary of where this may lead.
North Korea KIM Jong Il KIM Bush Taepodong China nuclear weapons
Do we essentially continue a strategy of containment which doesn't appear to be containing much but the growth of the people? What else can you take away by way of sanctions? It would appear that his people going without is not a deterrent to this clown.
I've heard it suggested we offer China that we'll remove our troops from S. Korea in exchange for them taking out this leadership. Interesting theoretically but does China even have that ability, though they'd certainly be interested in no longer essentially having our troops on their border.
One of the biggest deterrents to military action has been all those North Korean missiles aimed at South Korea. That aside, what military action would make a difference? We're stretched awfully thin as it is militarily, but would you propose a surgical strike to try to take out the leadership or bombing them back to the stone age (oh, that's right, they're already back in the stone age)?
Do we just de facto ignore it, while using words of condemnation? They are not a threat today, especially since they can't seem to get rockets to work; but there's always the chance they could sell what they've learned.
Any thoughts?
On a personal note: Having my stepson on the border there makes me wary of where this may lead.
North Korea KIM Jong Il KIM Bush Taepodong China nuclear weapons
Friday, October 06, 2006
Unfortunate consequence
While to many the Foley scandal's potential to be the final nail in the coffin of the Republican stranglehold on our government may be a blessing, what it also unfortunately does is take our eyes off more important issues.
If you assume for the sake of argument that even without the Foley scandal the Republicans would have lost the House anyway, then you could actually posit the idea that this scandal works to the benefit of those who have things to hide, who still have a sizeable percentage of the voting public fooled.
So while the press and American public is fixated yet again on its favorite type of scandal, sex, their prying eyes and minds are now not so much on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the countless other examples of corruption, the deficit, habeas corpus, the Constitution, Congress' dereliction of duty in being a counterbalance to the powers of the Presidency, et cetera ad nauseum.
As I've said many, many times before, we get what we deserve when our tastes lean toward the most salacious of scandals instead of matters of real consequence. This is why I and others will continue to harp on what's important to our country and its citizens.
Foley Bush Pages Hastert
power Constitution cover-up Republicans
If you assume for the sake of argument that even without the Foley scandal the Republicans would have lost the House anyway, then you could actually posit the idea that this scandal works to the benefit of those who have things to hide, who still have a sizeable percentage of the voting public fooled.
So while the press and American public is fixated yet again on its favorite type of scandal, sex, their prying eyes and minds are now not so much on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the countless other examples of corruption, the deficit, habeas corpus, the Constitution, Congress' dereliction of duty in being a counterbalance to the powers of the Presidency, et cetera ad nauseum.
As I've said many, many times before, we get what we deserve when our tastes lean toward the most salacious of scandals instead of matters of real consequence. This is why I and others will continue to harp on what's important to our country and its citizens.
Foley Bush Pages Hastert
power Constitution cover-up Republicans
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Circling the wagons
So the President comes out and says he knows Rep. Hastert and reassures us that Hastert wants to get to the bottom of the Foley mess, essentially that Hastert had nothing to do with a cover-up. Well, I feel reassured, thank you. Partisan support instead of a call for investigation always makes me feel better. How about you? "Let's rally around our cronies like they've done for us until we figure out the facts and then have a chance to spin it to the public."
Mr. President, if you want to reassure the public, then don't jump to anyone's aid until you know the facts. Tell the American public you insist on a full investigation and that you will see to it that anyone who covered up or had information and failed to act is punished. Instead you sent a message loud and clear that circling the wagons to hold on to power is what is most important to you and yours.
And talk about circling the wagons, is that what Rep. Reynolds was doing yesterday when he held a news conference surrounded by children? What exactly was the message that was trying to be conveyed there? That if he surrounds himself with children, then he couldn't possibly have known about risks to other children and did nothing? I won't even go into what it means that Mr. Reynolds refused to have the little children removed from the press conference so that journalists could ask questions of an adult nature about which a press conference was held to discuss an incident of an adult nature.
As for Hastert's noble actions, instead of getting to the bottom of the issue, he's making the rounds of conservative radio talk shows rallying or reassuring the base. Like anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh listens because they want to know the truth about something; that that's the place of the moral high ground.
What actions like these always seem to indicate is where there's smoke there's probably fire. They'll circle the wagons of denial and ignorance until they can find a loophole to squirm through.
How about you reassure us with leadership and action? Tell us all that you know and when you knew it and what you did about it, and demand that level of transparency from all others. Next thing you know they'll be blaming the other guy -- oops, too late -- or blaming the other party -- oops, too late -- or, even most cowardly of all, blaming the Pages themselves -- sigh.
Cross posted on Watchblog
Foley Bush Pages Hastert
power Reynolds cover-up Republicans
Mr. President, if you want to reassure the public, then don't jump to anyone's aid until you know the facts. Tell the American public you insist on a full investigation and that you will see to it that anyone who covered up or had information and failed to act is punished. Instead you sent a message loud and clear that circling the wagons to hold on to power is what is most important to you and yours.
And talk about circling the wagons, is that what Rep. Reynolds was doing yesterday when he held a news conference surrounded by children? What exactly was the message that was trying to be conveyed there? That if he surrounds himself with children, then he couldn't possibly have known about risks to other children and did nothing? I won't even go into what it means that Mr. Reynolds refused to have the little children removed from the press conference so that journalists could ask questions of an adult nature about which a press conference was held to discuss an incident of an adult nature.
As for Hastert's noble actions, instead of getting to the bottom of the issue, he's making the rounds of conservative radio talk shows rallying or reassuring the base. Like anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh listens because they want to know the truth about something; that that's the place of the moral high ground.
What actions like these always seem to indicate is where there's smoke there's probably fire. They'll circle the wagons of denial and ignorance until they can find a loophole to squirm through.
How about you reassure us with leadership and action? Tell us all that you know and when you knew it and what you did about it, and demand that level of transparency from all others. Next thing you know they'll be blaming the other guy -- oops, too late -- or blaming the other party -- oops, too late -- or, even most cowardly of all, blaming the Pages themselves -- sigh.
Cross posted on Watchblog
Foley Bush Pages Hastert
power Reynolds cover-up Republicans
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
I for Integrity (Representative Govt VI)
As it is becoming more and more painfully obvious that those we've elected have betrayed us, we must find the strength of conviction to set aside our partisan tendencies to believe those we want to believe and instead think for ourselves and demand from each and every one of them a strength of conviction, the courage to stand alone if need be and do what is right. Those who falsely hide behind the R of Righteousness and those who hide behind the D of Defender of the common man, only to prey on our society for their own gain, must be replaced by those of true Integrity, by those whose only motivation is to serve the country. Country before party, country before narrow ideology, country before self. They do exist and more of them will step to the fore with the winds of change...all we have to do is encourage them by voting for the independent thinker at every opportunity.
We are as much to blame as the politicians for the unfortunate state of our country, of our society. Where once we were trusted and looked upon as a country to follow, as a country whose government and citizens prized above all else the betterment of all, we are now seen as a country of pariahs, as a country with no integrity, as a country swayed by political winds at the expense of mankind.
If our elected officials will not have the courage and conviction to change their ways, will at least the voters of this country come November have the strength to look hard and strong in the mirror of self-examination, of realization that they do what they do at our bidding and that we now bid adeau.
There is still time, still an opportunity to vote not for a candidate who claims to stand for your prized issue at the expense of overall good but to vote for candidates who will in your stead examine every issue on balance. Do you have the courage to vote for independents, knowing that you could be "wasting" your vote and risking giving an election to the "enemy?" We all fear that, and it is that fear that's kept us from exercising our true power and reforming this political nightmare. But remember this, while the Republicans try to rally their base and Democrats will do likewise, if we independents all vote for independents, the others can rally all they want in futility because there are more of us than either of them alone. That would send a message for sure, but wouldn't it send an even stronger message if their bases did turn out but voted for independents as well?
Is it more important to you that your side wins and that, therefore, your handful of favorite issues might prevail or is it more important to you that this country is set once again on a path of intellectual reason over almighty dollar? There is no time like the present to start to turn this around. I for one plan to vote for every independent I can come November. Maybe I'll be wasting my vote, but I'll sleep well knowing I didn't encourage a process where he who has the most to spend wins. I'll know that if my underfunded candidate wins, that person will not have been bought by special interest. I encourage every one who reads this to do the same, cast a vote for Integrity, for Independent thought and Independent political power.
Cross posted at Watchblog
government politics citizens independent vote reform
We are as much to blame as the politicians for the unfortunate state of our country, of our society. Where once we were trusted and looked upon as a country to follow, as a country whose government and citizens prized above all else the betterment of all, we are now seen as a country of pariahs, as a country with no integrity, as a country swayed by political winds at the expense of mankind.
If our elected officials will not have the courage and conviction to change their ways, will at least the voters of this country come November have the strength to look hard and strong in the mirror of self-examination, of realization that they do what they do at our bidding and that we now bid adeau.
There is still time, still an opportunity to vote not for a candidate who claims to stand for your prized issue at the expense of overall good but to vote for candidates who will in your stead examine every issue on balance. Do you have the courage to vote for independents, knowing that you could be "wasting" your vote and risking giving an election to the "enemy?" We all fear that, and it is that fear that's kept us from exercising our true power and reforming this political nightmare. But remember this, while the Republicans try to rally their base and Democrats will do likewise, if we independents all vote for independents, the others can rally all they want in futility because there are more of us than either of them alone. That would send a message for sure, but wouldn't it send an even stronger message if their bases did turn out but voted for independents as well?
Is it more important to you that your side wins and that, therefore, your handful of favorite issues might prevail or is it more important to you that this country is set once again on a path of intellectual reason over almighty dollar? There is no time like the present to start to turn this around. I for one plan to vote for every independent I can come November. Maybe I'll be wasting my vote, but I'll sleep well knowing I didn't encourage a process where he who has the most to spend wins. I'll know that if my underfunded candidate wins, that person will not have been bought by special interest. I encourage every one who reads this to do the same, cast a vote for Integrity, for Independent thought and Independent political power.
Cross posted at Watchblog
government politics citizens independent vote reform
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Blog intro update
It's been a while since I've written blog recommendations; and even though I haven't written much in the last couple of months, there's still new blogs to recommend. Also, feel free to include links to your favorite blogs in the comments. I look forward to checking them out.
Let me start with Watchblog. If you've been looking for a site that in a civil, respectful and professional way has political content from the left, right and center (or Democrat, Republican and Independent), then you will appreciate this site. I was asked to join them a couple of months ago as one of the writers for the "center." Until recently I haven't had time to post original content there but at least for now I have that time.
Independent Voting is the website for CUIP, Committee for a Unified Independent Party, of which I am an active member. The title is somewhat of a misnomer in that CUIP doesn't advocate an actual third party; it is an organization that promotes independent voting and issues most important to independents such as election reform and representative government. If you're interested in becoming an active independent, I recommend you start there.
My friend Robbie from San Diego, formerly posting at Greetings from America's Finest City and Independent Opinions (though I need to talk him into reviving that one) can now be found at El Mas Chingon, and he's madder than ever. An excellent site for thoughtful opinions on social and political issues, as well as sports and beer reviews. Leave anything out, Robbie?
Jerimiah Bullfrog at GoddamnILoveAmerica is perhaps best described as the Country Ninja Stephen Colbert. If you want to laugh your butt off while being reassured he's keeping us safe, visit there often -- actually, that should read "visit thar often."
All Things Zebster, my personal and sports blog. Also where I tend to blog when I'm too busy to write professionally here.
blogosphere blogging friends writing blog intros
Let me start with Watchblog. If you've been looking for a site that in a civil, respectful and professional way has political content from the left, right and center (or Democrat, Republican and Independent), then you will appreciate this site. I was asked to join them a couple of months ago as one of the writers for the "center." Until recently I haven't had time to post original content there but at least for now I have that time.
Independent Voting is the website for CUIP, Committee for a Unified Independent Party, of which I am an active member. The title is somewhat of a misnomer in that CUIP doesn't advocate an actual third party; it is an organization that promotes independent voting and issues most important to independents such as election reform and representative government. If you're interested in becoming an active independent, I recommend you start there.
My friend Robbie from San Diego, formerly posting at Greetings from America's Finest City and Independent Opinions (though I need to talk him into reviving that one) can now be found at El Mas Chingon, and he's madder than ever. An excellent site for thoughtful opinions on social and political issues, as well as sports and beer reviews. Leave anything out, Robbie?
Jerimiah Bullfrog at GoddamnILoveAmerica is perhaps best described as the Country Ninja Stephen Colbert. If you want to laugh your butt off while being reassured he's keeping us safe, visit there often -- actually, that should read "visit thar often."
All Things Zebster, my personal and sports blog. Also where I tend to blog when I'm too busy to write professionally here.
blogosphere blogging friends writing blog intros
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Olbermann's Special Commentary
For those of you who have not had a chance to see this, following is a link to Keith Olbermann's "special commentary" regarding the Bill Clinton Fox News Chris Wallace interview as it specifically relates to the former president's statement that he tried to get bin Laden and that leading up to 9/11 the current administration did not Special Commentary
While there is much in this 10 minute commentary that I agree with and much that I feel needed to be said by someone with an audience larger than the biggest blog site, its tone and lack of respect for the current president defeats the purpose. Though I do not respect President Bush, I respect the presidency; and though, as I said, there is much there that needed to be said and said strongly, Olbermann must understand that the way his message was delivered will turn off anyone who should hear it. He can use that "tone" when preaching to the choir all he wants; but preaching to the choir is just that, raving to the already-converted.
For the message to have true value, it must be delivered in such a way that those Americans who have yet to consider it or have not had access to the information which make up its points are willing to hear it.
If I sat in my seat and squirmed, what effect do you think it had on the people who in my opinion most needed to hear it? That's right, they immediately turned it off or, worse yet, it served to push them further away from the light, the light that should be shone brightly on the truth. There is much truth in what President Clinton said and in what Olbermann said, but there is also much truth available to counter-balance their side. So why not make a political commentary nearer the whole truth, thus nearer the middle where the vast majority of the hearts and minds of Americans reside?
Keith, you come across as disrespectful and biased. What point does that serve? What point does it serve to insinuate that our president is not a grown-up?
For a commentary such as this to have any real value, its messenger must deliver it with facts only, not intertwined with opinions as facts. To do so makes you no better, the same, as those you attack. The messenger will be seen as much a tool as the tools he hopes to shine the light of truth on. So while he fancies himself a crusader of truth and justice, he instead pushes us further from the truth.
Olbermann Bush terrorism al Qaeda
bin Laden MSNBC Taliban Iraq Clinton Fox News
While there is much in this 10 minute commentary that I agree with and much that I feel needed to be said by someone with an audience larger than the biggest blog site, its tone and lack of respect for the current president defeats the purpose. Though I do not respect President Bush, I respect the presidency; and though, as I said, there is much there that needed to be said and said strongly, Olbermann must understand that the way his message was delivered will turn off anyone who should hear it. He can use that "tone" when preaching to the choir all he wants; but preaching to the choir is just that, raving to the already-converted.
For the message to have true value, it must be delivered in such a way that those Americans who have yet to consider it or have not had access to the information which make up its points are willing to hear it.
If I sat in my seat and squirmed, what effect do you think it had on the people who in my opinion most needed to hear it? That's right, they immediately turned it off or, worse yet, it served to push them further away from the light, the light that should be shone brightly on the truth. There is much truth in what President Clinton said and in what Olbermann said, but there is also much truth available to counter-balance their side. So why not make a political commentary nearer the whole truth, thus nearer the middle where the vast majority of the hearts and minds of Americans reside?
Keith, you come across as disrespectful and biased. What point does that serve? What point does it serve to insinuate that our president is not a grown-up?
For a commentary such as this to have any real value, its messenger must deliver it with facts only, not intertwined with opinions as facts. To do so makes you no better, the same, as those you attack. The messenger will be seen as much a tool as the tools he hopes to shine the light of truth on. So while he fancies himself a crusader of truth and justice, he instead pushes us further from the truth.
Olbermann Bush terrorism al Qaeda
bin Laden MSNBC Taliban Iraq Clinton Fox News
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Stay the course? What course?
The President recently told us that as long as he's president we'll be staying in Iraq until the job is done, thus again telling us to support staying the course. You have to ask yourself though exactly what course is he talking about (course differentiated from plan) -- the current one that seems to be an irreversible sink hole or a plan yet unstated to alter the current course. I have to say that either would be a breath of fresh air -- a stated course or plan, or something that at least seems thought out and has a chance of working.
I've stated on this blog before that while I've always been dead set against going into Iraq, it is a mess we're responsible for fixing and leaving before it's fixed would have grave consequences. Yes, hard to believe graver consequences are possible. But in recent weeks I'm beginning to rethink that position (gee, what a novel idea, rethinking positions as circumstances warrant) and am getting closer and closer to feeling that we're headed toward the graver consequences whether we have our troops there getting killed and injured or not.
"Well, then you're just telling the terrorists 'we quit and you win.'" Exactly what terrorists might that be; an insurgency upset that we're there or those fighting a religious civil war? Am I the only one sick and tired of being told anyone who fights against what we (careful with that "we," Zeb) want is a terrorist? Think for yourself for once and ask yourself why that's the word of choice from this administration to describe seemingly any enemy, any combatant, any disagreer. We had Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently imply that those of us who are against this "war on terrorism" are akin to Nazi sympathizers; and the President, though in softer terms, echoed that sentiment. Well, if you put those things together, are we not far from being told that we who oppose them are the enemy?
Then you have the likes of Ken Mehlman on Hardball the other night making the case that we need to stay in Iraq because Ayman al-Zawahiri has said al Qaeda wants to turn Iraq into another Afghanistan with training bases. If you nut jobs hadn't invaded Iraq and opened it up like a can of worms, we wouldn't be worried about them setting up training bases there. This kind of backwards, illogical, keep-our-asses-in-office-at-any-cost rhetoric is what pisses me off more than anything.
You bungled a mission that you cherry-picked the evidence to support, and then your reason for staying there is essentially "We f'd it up so bad we have to stay to keep the terrorists out, and you have to reelect us because we're the party that'll keep you safe." Safer? I don't feel safer. "Well, we haven't been attacked since 9/11." Gee, I forgot it was an everyday thing before 9/11.
You want to make me feel safer? How about you deal with al Qaeda, bin Laden, The Taliban, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. There's a course, nay a plan, I could support.
On a different note...I was recently invited to be a writer for the independent/third party section of Watchblog, a three-perspective blog site that I've had linked for quite some time but don't believe I've introduced. So great for me, and hopefully Watchblog as well; but the time between applying and acceptance ran over me going back to working all those hours (yesterday 4:00 a.m. to 8:45 p.m.). So I won't get the opportunity to blog stuff there that I'm not blogging here. I barely have time to put up personal updates on All Things Zebster.
Rumsfeld Bush terrorism al Qaeda
bin Laden al-Zawahiri Taliban Iran Pakistan
I've stated on this blog before that while I've always been dead set against going into Iraq, it is a mess we're responsible for fixing and leaving before it's fixed would have grave consequences. Yes, hard to believe graver consequences are possible. But in recent weeks I'm beginning to rethink that position (gee, what a novel idea, rethinking positions as circumstances warrant) and am getting closer and closer to feeling that we're headed toward the graver consequences whether we have our troops there getting killed and injured or not.
"Well, then you're just telling the terrorists 'we quit and you win.'" Exactly what terrorists might that be; an insurgency upset that we're there or those fighting a religious civil war? Am I the only one sick and tired of being told anyone who fights against what we (careful with that "we," Zeb) want is a terrorist? Think for yourself for once and ask yourself why that's the word of choice from this administration to describe seemingly any enemy, any combatant, any disagreer. We had Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently imply that those of us who are against this "war on terrorism" are akin to Nazi sympathizers; and the President, though in softer terms, echoed that sentiment. Well, if you put those things together, are we not far from being told that we who oppose them are the enemy?
Then you have the likes of Ken Mehlman on Hardball the other night making the case that we need to stay in Iraq because Ayman al-Zawahiri has said al Qaeda wants to turn Iraq into another Afghanistan with training bases. If you nut jobs hadn't invaded Iraq and opened it up like a can of worms, we wouldn't be worried about them setting up training bases there. This kind of backwards, illogical, keep-our-asses-in-office-at-any-cost rhetoric is what pisses me off more than anything.
You bungled a mission that you cherry-picked the evidence to support, and then your reason for staying there is essentially "We f'd it up so bad we have to stay to keep the terrorists out, and you have to reelect us because we're the party that'll keep you safe." Safer? I don't feel safer. "Well, we haven't been attacked since 9/11." Gee, I forgot it was an everyday thing before 9/11.
You want to make me feel safer? How about you deal with al Qaeda, bin Laden, The Taliban, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. There's a course, nay a plan, I could support.
On a different note...I was recently invited to be a writer for the independent/third party section of Watchblog, a three-perspective blog site that I've had linked for quite some time but don't believe I've introduced. So great for me, and hopefully Watchblog as well; but the time between applying and acceptance ran over me going back to working all those hours (yesterday 4:00 a.m. to 8:45 p.m.). So I won't get the opportunity to blog stuff there that I'm not blogging here. I barely have time to put up personal updates on All Things Zebster.
Rumsfeld Bush terrorism al Qaeda
bin Laden al-Zawahiri Taliban Iran Pakistan
A Good Thing? (Rep Govt V)
So the Republican Party ascended to power over the last 25 years by polarizing the nation with its "you're either with us or agin us" tactics, by falsely setting itself up as the moral center of the country, and by taking advantage of what it's traditionally done best and Democrats have failed at...governing.
Now that the current inept and uncredible administration has shown us what we get when we vote by "tradition," by sound bite and by focusing on the possible negatives instead of proven positives, the Democrats have a chance to regain power, either half or all of Congress this year and perhaps the White House in '08. But will it be a good thing for the country if they do so by using many of the same tactics, by rallying its base further to the left and making the country even more polarized, thus leaving the majority of the country in the middle essentially unrepresented?
So while we're left to decide between a course without a plan or a plan without a course -- or is it neither -- keep in mind that we should be voting for candidates who represent positions on issues held by the majority of us, which can be substantially different from what we're told our majority position is, a sadly successful tactic because far too many of us wait to be told what our position should be or we're told what supposedly the majority position is and then go along with it.
The only way we can truly have a government that represents our views is to have views based on as much unbiased and divergent information as possible.
government politics citizens independent vote
Now that the current inept and uncredible administration has shown us what we get when we vote by "tradition," by sound bite and by focusing on the possible negatives instead of proven positives, the Democrats have a chance to regain power, either half or all of Congress this year and perhaps the White House in '08. But will it be a good thing for the country if they do so by using many of the same tactics, by rallying its base further to the left and making the country even more polarized, thus leaving the majority of the country in the middle essentially unrepresented?
So while we're left to decide between a course without a plan or a plan without a course -- or is it neither -- keep in mind that we should be voting for candidates who represent positions on issues held by the majority of us, which can be substantially different from what we're told our majority position is, a sadly successful tactic because far too many of us wait to be told what our position should be or we're told what supposedly the majority position is and then go along with it.
The only way we can truly have a government that represents our views is to have views based on as much unbiased and divergent information as possible.
government politics citizens independent vote
Thursday, August 17, 2006
On the tarmac?
I've been working a lot of hours and haven't had time to stay in touch with the world as much as I'd like or am used to; but when I first heard about this incident with the woman having a "fit" on that flight from London to Dulles, I knew it was an over-reaction. This is a 59-year-old woman, and no one on that flight can tell she's having a panic attack and is not a threat? Sure, terrorists can come in any shape and size, but what did she do that made people think she was a threat? Doesn't there have to be some reasonable presumption of a realistic threat before hundreds of people are inconvenienced? Hell, they weren't just inconvenienced...this person comes undone and everyone else on the plane becomes a suspect.
Even though I'd be very frustrated and probably angry if I'd been on that flight and it was diverted, I'd give them the benefit of being overcautious for our benefit. But if you make me a suspect because of someone else's actions, there'll be hell to pay. You've already searched my person far more than I'd appreciate, searched all my belongings as well, and then you're going to do it again on the tarmac of the airport after you've taken everyone off the plane? I have a very strong suspension that had I been on that flight and had that happen to me, this woman who's at the center of the situation wouldn't have been the only one arrested for throwing a fit that day!
terrorist airplane Logan Airport
Even though I'd be very frustrated and probably angry if I'd been on that flight and it was diverted, I'd give them the benefit of being overcautious for our benefit. But if you make me a suspect because of someone else's actions, there'll be hell to pay. You've already searched my person far more than I'd appreciate, searched all my belongings as well, and then you're going to do it again on the tarmac of the airport after you've taken everyone off the plane? I have a very strong suspension that had I been on that flight and had that happen to me, this woman who's at the center of the situation wouldn't have been the only one arrested for throwing a fit that day!
terrorist airplane Logan Airport
Monday, August 14, 2006
When politicians speak (Representative Govt IV)
Editor's note: Hi everyone. This is something I've been working on off and on for weeks. Since being back at my old job is as time consuming as ever, I thought I'd just put this up to have something new published.
When politicians speak, who are they talking to? Are they talking to other politicians of their own party? Are they talking to the voting members of their party? Could they be talking to undecided voters? Perhaps, but what's their true motive? Are they talking to those who've funded their campaigns, which is most likely?
Even when someone says all the right things to us true independents or swing voters, can we trust their motives? Are they just using buzz words like reform simply because they know that's what we want to hear? Even if they propose or vote for things we want, such as reform, can we trust that it's not based on political expediency, thus political survival?
How do we tell the difference? I propose one way to tell the difference is for the American voting public to stop having such a short memory. When politicians tell you they stand for something, we need to remember what they stood for, when and why. We need to be willing to research voting records and quotes in newspapers when those issues arise again. We need to ignore what members of their party tell us is that person's motivation, their position. We need to base our opinion of their motives and their positions on their actions and nothing else.
We most certainly need to drop our mental magnets that make us blindly nod our heads in agreement because the person making the statement or opinion is a member of the party we're aligned with. If that politician says something, evaluate it case by case. If you agree with that person 90% of the time, that's fine if you call them on the other 10% and if there's a true basis for agreeing with them the other 90.
I feel being an independent, which helps me keep my mind open to all views, has served me well in ensuring I have a basis for supporting a particular politician; and I've voted for nearly as many Republicans as Democrats and a fair number of indies through the years. I was raised that way and come from the only state, Maine, that has elected two independent governors through the years.
I would really appreciate the thoughts of others on both sides and the middle on this one, or I'll be forced to write a blog I've been thinking about doing related to why people rarely comment on blogs.
If you're interested in a life and work update, please check out All Things Zebster. I appreciate your support.
politicians independents voters Democrats Republicans reform politics
When politicians speak, who are they talking to? Are they talking to other politicians of their own party? Are they talking to the voting members of their party? Could they be talking to undecided voters? Perhaps, but what's their true motive? Are they talking to those who've funded their campaigns, which is most likely?
Even when someone says all the right things to us true independents or swing voters, can we trust their motives? Are they just using buzz words like reform simply because they know that's what we want to hear? Even if they propose or vote for things we want, such as reform, can we trust that it's not based on political expediency, thus political survival?
How do we tell the difference? I propose one way to tell the difference is for the American voting public to stop having such a short memory. When politicians tell you they stand for something, we need to remember what they stood for, when and why. We need to be willing to research voting records and quotes in newspapers when those issues arise again. We need to ignore what members of their party tell us is that person's motivation, their position. We need to base our opinion of their motives and their positions on their actions and nothing else.
We most certainly need to drop our mental magnets that make us blindly nod our heads in agreement because the person making the statement or opinion is a member of the party we're aligned with. If that politician says something, evaluate it case by case. If you agree with that person 90% of the time, that's fine if you call them on the other 10% and if there's a true basis for agreeing with them the other 90.
I feel being an independent, which helps me keep my mind open to all views, has served me well in ensuring I have a basis for supporting a particular politician; and I've voted for nearly as many Republicans as Democrats and a fair number of indies through the years. I was raised that way and come from the only state, Maine, that has elected two independent governors through the years.
I would really appreciate the thoughts of others on both sides and the middle on this one, or I'll be forced to write a blog I've been thinking about doing related to why people rarely comment on blogs.
If you're interested in a life and work update, please check out All Things Zebster. I appreciate your support.
politicians independents voters Democrats Republicans reform politics
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Personal news
Good news for Zebster, sort of, and bad news for the blog. Given that I've been unemployed for far too long looking for a job that would pay well enough to take, time was running out, so I' ve accepted an offer to go back to my old job driving a bread truck for IBC. The good news for me in that? Obviously first and foremost, a job and, secondly, a very good paying job. The bad part of it is that it's a physically demanding job that I was working on average 60-70 hours a week, and I don't ever have 2 days in a row off. Oh well, I need the work.
Obviously it's going to put a huge crimp on the blogging. I'll try to stay informed with my XM while driving around between stops, and hopefully I'll be able to put something up two or three times a week. If anyone's interested, I'm planning on putting some work-related updates on All Things Zebster.
I do plan on continuing the work search as much as possible to find a new career that I really want, but until then THE BREADMAN IS BACK! Thanks everyone. Peace!
Obviously it's going to put a huge crimp on the blogging. I'll try to stay informed with my XM while driving around between stops, and hopefully I'll be able to put something up two or three times a week. If anyone's interested, I'm planning on putting some work-related updates on All Things Zebster.
I do plan on continuing the work search as much as possible to find a new career that I really want, but until then THE BREADMAN IS BACK! Thanks everyone. Peace!
Maine news...pigs heads and pigheads
First, an update on whether the Maine Public Utilities Commission will undertake a formal investigation into whether Verizon violated privacy laws if they, in fact, cooperated with the NSA "wiretapping"program, something which Verizon in part denies doing. It is an update only to the extent that the MPUC voted to delay making the ultimate decision.
If you're not familiar with this story, KEVIN WACK of the Portland Press Herald reported last Friday that "The Bush administration is threatening to sue if Maine regulators decide to investigate whether Verizon Communications illegally turned over customer information to the National Security Agency." as is suggested in this letter from the US Justice Dept to the MPUC, "We sincerely hope that, in light of governing law and the national security concerns implicated by the requests for information, you will decline to open an investigation and close these proceedings, thereby avoiding litigation over the matter." You already know where I stand on this issue and how I feel about transparency in government. So I'll only say this at this time: We may be a little state with just 2 votes that usually vote Democrat. So we're politically safe to threaten. But there's no place in this country that's more independent and more against being bullied. Unfortunately, it'll be beauracrats who'll make this decision on whether to proceed. Also, what are you trying to hide? This potential investigation will not reveal what information you may have received, only whether Verizon broke the law in giving it to you.
From the All Politics is Local department, the latest in the ongoing multi-party, multi-sided squabble over campaign funding ethics, which Barbara Merrill finds herself in the middle and on both sides of. Isn't local politics great? Each side accusing the other of cheating, which gets even more interesting when you have at least 5 candidates going at it. You can read more by clicking the link above to the Lewiston Sun Journal article, but here are a couple of snippets from it. "Gubernatorial candidates seeking public financing must follow a strict set of rules and procedures, which includes collecting 2,500 $5 contributions to the Maine Clean Election Fund. Qualifying candidates stand to receive as much as $1.2 million to fund their general election campaigns. According to Michael's complaint, Merrill used public money to pay off obligations that she incurred before she was certified. The complaint says the payments to Harold Webster and Richard Dyer were illegal." To which Merrill's campaign responded thusly, "There was never any report of a debt to them in this period because there was none to report," Phil Merrill, Barbara Merrill's deputy campaign treasurer, wrote in the response. "On the day that the effort (to qualify for public financing) was completed, the candidate expressed a debt of gratitude and that was it." No wonder we haven't had our questions answered yet.
An update from the Biggots and Idiots Even In Maine department: A month ago some knucklehead thought it would be funny to throw a pig's head into a make-shift mosque in Lewiston. I guess he thought it would be a two-fer since it was a mosque used by Somali immigrants...desicrate a mosque and make a statement to people whose skin is way too black. Now he's saying he had walked into the police department beforehand to find out whether it would be illegal to do so and was told by the officer that the best he could tell he'd only be guilty of littering. I don't know who's the bigger moron in this instance to tell you the truth. The policeman said he actually looked into it and that's all he could find. If my police officers can't imagine what other legal issues might be involved in such a stunt, maybe they need to go back to the academy. This is the best quote from the article though, this "gentleman" "claimed in court papers that he didn't know pork was considered offensive by some Somalis and "never assumed" the vacant dual storefronts at 21-23 Lisbon St. he had walked past "nearly every day" were treated by Somalis as a mosque." Really? So why there and why a pig's head? Pure coincidence, I guess. He probably has a rebel flag in the back window of his pickup because he thinks it's pretty.
And finally, an update in the ongoing Dirigo Health squabble. This issue is more convoluted and complicated than I can wrap my little mind around but I know folks are interested. Too bad there isn't some other way?
Maine Merrill Lewiston pig's head governor Dirigo Health politics NSA campaign FOIA Verizon clean elections MPUC Public Utilities Commission USJD Bush Somali mosque
If you're not familiar with this story, KEVIN WACK of the Portland Press Herald reported last Friday that "The Bush administration is threatening to sue if Maine regulators decide to investigate whether Verizon Communications illegally turned over customer information to the National Security Agency." as is suggested in this letter from the US Justice Dept to the MPUC, "We sincerely hope that, in light of governing law and the national security concerns implicated by the requests for information, you will decline to open an investigation and close these proceedings, thereby avoiding litigation over the matter." You already know where I stand on this issue and how I feel about transparency in government. So I'll only say this at this time: We may be a little state with just 2 votes that usually vote Democrat. So we're politically safe to threaten. But there's no place in this country that's more independent and more against being bullied. Unfortunately, it'll be beauracrats who'll make this decision on whether to proceed. Also, what are you trying to hide? This potential investigation will not reveal what information you may have received, only whether Verizon broke the law in giving it to you.
From the All Politics is Local department, the latest in the ongoing multi-party, multi-sided squabble over campaign funding ethics, which Barbara Merrill finds herself in the middle and on both sides of. Isn't local politics great? Each side accusing the other of cheating, which gets even more interesting when you have at least 5 candidates going at it. You can read more by clicking the link above to the Lewiston Sun Journal article, but here are a couple of snippets from it. "Gubernatorial candidates seeking public financing must follow a strict set of rules and procedures, which includes collecting 2,500 $5 contributions to the Maine Clean Election Fund. Qualifying candidates stand to receive as much as $1.2 million to fund their general election campaigns. According to Michael's complaint, Merrill used public money to pay off obligations that she incurred before she was certified. The complaint says the payments to Harold Webster and Richard Dyer were illegal." To which Merrill's campaign responded thusly, "There was never any report of a debt to them in this period because there was none to report," Phil Merrill, Barbara Merrill's deputy campaign treasurer, wrote in the response. "On the day that the effort (to qualify for public financing) was completed, the candidate expressed a debt of gratitude and that was it." No wonder we haven't had our questions answered yet.
An update from the Biggots and Idiots Even In Maine department: A month ago some knucklehead thought it would be funny to throw a pig's head into a make-shift mosque in Lewiston. I guess he thought it would be a two-fer since it was a mosque used by Somali immigrants...desicrate a mosque and make a statement to people whose skin is way too black. Now he's saying he had walked into the police department beforehand to find out whether it would be illegal to do so and was told by the officer that the best he could tell he'd only be guilty of littering. I don't know who's the bigger moron in this instance to tell you the truth. The policeman said he actually looked into it and that's all he could find. If my police officers can't imagine what other legal issues might be involved in such a stunt, maybe they need to go back to the academy. This is the best quote from the article though, this "gentleman" "claimed in court papers that he didn't know pork was considered offensive by some Somalis and "never assumed" the vacant dual storefronts at 21-23 Lisbon St. he had walked past "nearly every day" were treated by Somalis as a mosque." Really? So why there and why a pig's head? Pure coincidence, I guess. He probably has a rebel flag in the back window of his pickup because he thinks it's pretty.
And finally, an update in the ongoing Dirigo Health squabble. This issue is more convoluted and complicated than I can wrap my little mind around but I know folks are interested. Too bad there isn't some other way?
Maine Merrill Lewiston pig's head governor Dirigo Health politics NSA campaign FOIA Verizon clean elections MPUC Public Utilities Commission USJD Bush Somali mosque
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)