• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

State News Writer Willfully Distorts Truth

Poorly Formed Opinions No Surprise From Declining Publicatio

I guess it's a good thing that Mr. Thieleman is indifferent to torture, because getting through his most recent column was just that. It was so bloated with generic political invective I could have sworn that it was pieced together from crumpled up pieces of paper and cum-rags from the wastebasket in Glenn Beck's office.

For the record, Obama has:

Stopped the Great Recession from becoming and Apocalyptic Depression.

Saved the auto industry, which is now making green cars and turning a profit.

Reversed the federal ban on stem cell research.

Invested in green energy jobs and ordered new government buildings to be zero emission.

Reformed and expanded federal student aide, saving families $9 Billion.

Funded American cities that struggle with gang violence to fight against it..

Ended federal prosecution of Medical Marijuana users.

Preserved two million acres of wilderness that were threatened by loggers, miners and polluters.

Passed a stimulus bill that helped build and restore highways and railroads, which has been especially needed here in Michigan.

Cut taxes for the middle class and small businesses.

Moved health care further along than any President.

Saved Americans from pirates near Somalia.

Called for an end to "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell", a heinously bigoted policy of discrimination.

Engaged the world in a more thoughtful and effective diplomacy.

Made his administration the most accessible and open in history.

And, he talks to Americans like they are intelligent adults. But even that can fall on deaf ears and numb skulls.

I cannot be sure what Mr. Thieleman and the right-wing ignorentisa have against making sure for-profit insurance is also for-people insurance. The President wants to keep insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions and see to it that access to health care is affordable for all. But, Mr. Thieleman’s ilk doesn’t mind that in the world’s richest country, people have to make the choice between food and medicine or staying alive and going into bankruptcy. That doesn’t happen in France, Germany, Sweden, or the U.K.

Mr. Thieleman would probably say that those countries are socialist. What does he imagine the quality of life is for people in those nations? They aren’t eating gruel or drinking from puddles. The truth is, their citizens experience a quality of life that matches or exceeds that of those in the United States. Drawing examples from what other nations do right isn't unpatriotic, it's something a President does when he loves his country and wants to see it prosper. I for one do not doubt our current Commander-In-Chief in this regard.

“Change” and “Hope” continue. Obama’s approval ratings are a virtual mirror to what Reagan endured politically early in his Presidency. The difference is, this President is charismatic and in addition, possesses a remarkable intellect.

President Obama has tried to work with a radical political minority that has been fueled by an angry and misinformed mob that feels marginalized by having an educated, intelligent, and black President. This group is most represented by people who show up to Presidential events with assault weapons and misspell “Socialism” and “Fascism” on their protest signs.

Despite this, he is the only President to go live on television and take questions from hostile and partisan adversaries in an effort to get something done. Obama will work with people who are willing to work with him, and finally he is calling out people like Mr. Thieleman for engaging in willful distortion and intentional disinformation. I suppose I shouldn’t accuse him of malice; Mr. Thieleman may simply be among those who aren’t educated or intelligent enough to know the difference. In which case, he has my pity.

As for “saving our own," Mr. Theileman doesn't even want the poor in this country to have access to health insurance, nor affordable education, nor a helping hand when they lose their job. The assertion that he wants to take care of people at all is absurd.

We can save the people facing impending doom in Haiti and the people struggling to keep their homes and get ahead in the U.S. Each ambition has a different objective and each mission uses different sets of resources. It's like saying that you can't mow your lawn and also donate to Goodwill.

Recovery at home would go along much faster if Mr. Theilman’s friends in congress didn't insist that The President needs 60 votes to sneeze and that 41 Senate votes justifies the total derailment of legislation directed toward economic recovery and improving people’s quality of life.

Unfortunately, Mr. Thieleman's and his right wing allies operate under the belief that short-term political gains are more important than moving the nation forward.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a response to an Opinion written by Eric Thieleman in the State News on February 1, 2010.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• 2 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

The Republicans Lost In A Landslide

Because They Created The Mess We're In

And NOW They Want The Guy Cleaning Up Their Mess To Fail.

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

Republicans = ♥ (Crazy > Smart)
The Most Abrasive Liberal Rhetoric Is Lukewarm Compared To The Right Wing
by Dr. James McSaddle

Florida Congressman Alan Grayson was criticized for calling out Republicans on their failure to to offer solutions to the serious and far reaching problems that face our current health care system.

The cost of care is going up and the quality of care is going down. We have an inexcusably high infant mortality rate and too many people go bankrupt or die because of the dishonesty of the for-profit insurance industry.

Congresman Grayson's aggressive posture is far less offensive than the outright lie-mongering, distortion, and incitement to fear that have become a part of the Republicans "brand".

It's difficult to listen to G.O.P. leaders call Obama a fascist, especially when the Patriot Act and FISA permitted the federal government to conduct unconstitutional searches, seizures and surveillance against American citizens.

It's especially difficult to hear Republicans compare Obama to Hitler while their own political success hinges upon the effectiveness of their lies and intimidation. The best hope for the Conservative Movement is the prevalence and persistence of the willful ignorance a person needs to believe what they say.

Their constituency consists primarily of those whose psychology is so frail that they believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya and that the poor and sick should be sentenced to death for being poor and sick. Some of them show up with AR-15s and other implements usually reserved for the battlefield or the apocalypse.

Somehow for-profit insurance corporations has gotten a visible number of angry white rubes to yell, stomp, and spit on their behalf in the public square. . .I'll never quite understand it.

I know that the Republicans are keen on death and destruction, but it's intellectually dishonest, even for a them, to subscribe to and embrace this genocidal social Darwinism while doubting the validity of evolution.

They would rather be crazy than smart, they would rather cultivate sociopaths than intellectuals; they would rather the collect campaign contributions from polluters and let humanity die on an uninhabitable planet than work to limit pollution; they would rather spend a trillion dollars on a war of aggression than on creating jobs or improving education.

I don't think it's particularly partisan to think that the G.O.P. platform represents a gross and perverted value system.

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

McCain Running Dishonorable Campaign

Worse, It's The Political Equivalent Of A Michael Bay Movie.

Lately I have heard that McCain supporters take issue when he is called "dishonorable". They insist that no man with his war record could ever act dishonorably.

Just because John McCain, failed in his mission, crashed his plane (for the fifth time) and as a result got the shit kicked out of him by a band of malnourished Communist Asians, to whom he revealed classified information in exchange for special treatment doesn't mean he isn't dishonorable.

It certainly doesn't mean that he is beyond serial infidelity, unconscionable corruption, political cowardice, and promoting baseless lies designed to provoke violent racism and xenophobia.

Lately at his rallies, McCain has been prompting some outrageous reactions from his supporters.

For instance,when McCain utters the name of his opponent, Senator Barack Obama (D- Illinois), the crowd has been shouting utterances like "terrorist!", or they say "kill him!" or "off with his head".



They do this without the any admonishment or disapproval from John McCain, who just peels back his lips to reveal his damp, gray and crooked grin, through which his rancid breath escapes in subdued cackle.

Every election year, it seems like someone says that it's about the most dirty election season ever, and usually that notion is just misguided hyperbole. But we live in times where what was ONCE misguided hyperbole is now the most clear and truthful way to describe the world in which we live.

John McCain's campaign is the political equivalent of a film by Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer. It's over budgeted and under developed, it's loud, it's irrational, it's flashy, it's over hyped, it plays to the lowest common denominator and its hard for anyone with cognitive fortitude to watch it for even a moment.

Sarah Palin, the suspension of his campaign, Joe the Plumber: These are overproduced set pieces in a campaign that should never have been. It appears that in this election, people know garbage when they see it, and they are holding their nose at the sight of it.

Still, I worry.

Armageddon and Pearl Harbor each opened at #1.

• 1 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

Doctors: McCain Has Advanced Melanoma,
6 to 18 Months To Live
Mayo Clinic M.D. Originally Reported On Findings, But Has Since Gone Silent

During his first campaign for the White House in 2000, Senator John McCain unconditionally released all of his medical records to the press and gave reporters virtually unlimited access to his entire medical history.

However, last May Sen. McCain agreed to allow only highly restricted access to the very same kind of records. Only selected news organizations and journalists were allowed access to Sen. McCain's medical history during this election cycle. Members of the news media were permitted just three hours to go over 1000s of pages of files in an sealed and isolated room. Reporters were not allowed to use cell phones or use the internet while in the sealed area. Anyone who left the room was not allowed back in. This new level of secrecy baffled many members of the press who remarked that the move was inconsistent with the openness the McCain campaign showed in 2000.

The reason why Sen. McCain has gone from absolute openness with his medical records to a new level of secrecy is because the Senator's health has declined considerably since his original presidential campaign. This decline is not unusual for a man who was 64 eight years ago.

John McCain is 72 years old, and if elected he would be the oldest first-term President in history. Both voters and medical experts have expressed concern that the state of Mr. McCain's health may preclude him from executing the most important tasks of his presidency if he is elected.

At his most recent physical, McCain's personal physician at the Mayo Clinic, Dr. John D. Eckstein said that because of a "serious aliment" that Sen. McCain has just 6 to 18 months to live.

While Dr. Eckstein was not specific on the nature of the illness himself, other experts in the field say that McCain is likely to be suffering from advanced melanoma that could require chemotherapy in the near future. No one is quite sure if McCain's major illness is treatable or if his illness is terminal.

"We aren't going to talk about any potential illness or potential treatment until after the election." said an Senior McCain aide who asked not to be named.

"Right now, it's all speculative" said Dr. Eckstein when he was asked if Senator McCain would be able to maintain a full schedule as President while he underwent chemotherapy. Side effects of the chemotherapy include rapid weight loss, a suppressed immune system,memory loss, malnutrition, nausea and hair loss.

If McCain underwent these procedures it is possible that he would be unable to discharge his duties as President on a full time basis. If elected, McCain might be put in a position where he would have to frequently and regularly invoke the third section of 25th Amendment which would make the Vice President the Acting President.

The constitutional provision was used by Ronald Reagan in 1987 when he underwent surgery as George H.W. Bush became the Acting President. President George W. Bush invoked it when he underwent two separate colonoscopies in 2002 and 2007. However, since the inception of the 25th Amendment, no one has invoked it to cover anything as serious or as long term as chemotherapy.

In a potential McCain administration, current Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be Vice President and ultimately she would bare the responsibilities of the "Acting President" if section three of the 25th amendment was enacted.

"Even with chemotherapy, the Senator is gravely ill and he is unlikely to serve a full term", said Dr. Eckstein.

The Mayo Clinic physician initially expressed that he was upset that his findings were removed from the medical records to which reporters had access. "Senator McCain would be the oldest first term President ever, and his medical conditions could have a profound impact on his ability to conduct while in office".

Dr. Eckstein was contacted for a follow-up interview, but he did not respond.

• 4 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

John McCain Est Un Sac De Douche
Insults Are An Important Part Of The French Language, No?

The other day in French class, we were learning how to describe things. (Il est/Elle est = He is/She is).

One of the exercises included finding five ways to describe a celebrity. The choices included Will Smith, Michael Phelps, Charles De Gaule, George Bush, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and John McCain among others.

A fellow that sat behind me said that he was going to describe John McCain and said "Il est indépendant, Il est intelligent". Which, of course, is total bullshit in any language.

When he was done, I said "John McCain? Il est douchebag!". Most of the class laughed including the youngish instructor. I admit that it was a cheap shot and that a majority of the class was more impressed by my used of the word "douchebag" than my criticism of John McCain.

After class, the guy who lavished praise upon McCain in the language of romance walked by my desk as I was packing up to leave.

" [COUGH]douchebag[COUGH]faggot[COUGH]" he muttered.

Yep, he did the thing where he coughed an insult. What's worse is that as he did it he walked away. I was mostly offended because he thought he could insult me and that I would pretend that I didn't hear it just to avoid escalation. As Bugs Bunny said, "He don't know me too well, do he?"

"Excuse me?", I said to him. He didn't acknowledge me, and his back was to me was he walked to the teacher.

"Excuse me! Did you have something to say to me?" I said to him as I picked up my pace without his acknowledgement.

Finally, I stepped in front of him and leaned over into his face.

"Excuse me? Did you have something to say to me?"

He looked at me, but he didn't say anything. Still in front of him, I reiterated.

" Because I am right here."

"Uh, your outrageous comments, uh. . ."

"Outrageous? I think what you said was outrageous! You put your opinion out there, and so did I. I even did it in French! But you, you went ahead and insulted me, and you thought I would ignore it.

He was silent and clearly jarred.

"Maybe next time if you have something to say to me, you'll say it to my face? How's that sound?"

He didn't say anything.

I jetted off in a fuming rage, because this Pugsley Adams looking bastard draped in his American Eagle reminded me of every half-thinking spoiled Detroit-burb moron who thinks that John McCain is the cats pajamas.. He looks like the kind of guy whose interests, outside of Republican politics, include taking dates to Fazoli's and then raping them in the Pontiac Vibe that his dad, an Oakland Country lawyer, bought for him.

Obviously, politics shouldn't escalate to this kind of personal confrontation. But, I am emotionally invested in this election, and after seeing how mean spirited and ruthless the Republican's have been in winning elections and fighting the culture war, I decided that I should be no less cruel or dangerous.

It's a shame that this Preidential election has become so contentious that it almost came to fisticuffs in a French class.

But, that fucker will probably never cough & walk ever again.

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

Evan Bayh

The Indiana Senator and Former Governor Offers Political and Practical Payoff

Evan Bayh isn't my first choice for Vice President but I haven't offered a more coherent way of choosing a running mate for Barack Obama. The biggest challenge is that it's been hard to find someone who can both balance his strengths and who doesn't highlight his perceived-weaknesses.

For instance, it's been hard to find someone who can reaffirm Obama's brand of "Change" and who also has a great depth of old-school experience, (the Tim Kaine/Kathleen Sebelius challenge) Likewise, it's been hard to find someone who balances Obama on experience-perceptions but who doesn't obscure the "Change" brand (the Joe Biden challenge).

Ultimately, Barack Obama is at the top of the ticket, and people are going to be voting for him or against McCain. Evan Bayh does not directly reaffirm Obama's “Change” message. He's been in politics for 20 years as a popular two term Governor of Indiana and winning two terms to the U.S. Senate. But, Evan Bayh is a moderate-centrist Democrat, exactly the kind I don't vote for at the top of a ticket.

But Bayh has the background to help make an Obama Administration highly effective and successful. Between his experience cutting taxes while balancing the budget along with his decade-long experience and relationships in the Senate, he can do a lot to making Obama's inspiration-cast vision into a strong legislative and administrative strategy that Obama will need if he is to truly bring substantive Change to Washington. Don't think for a minute that that isn't still on the table.

Bayh also has served on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, and also the select Committee on Intelligence, so his brain trust can give valuable insight as Obama forms foreign policy decisions with guys like Joe Biden and Bill Richardson. Yes, Bayh voted for the war and has at times had a hawkish stance, but Obama has always said that he wants a Vice President that will challenge him and express disagreement. At the end of the day, the decisions on war and peace as well as prosperity and wellness will indeed be Obama's to make, and can he have more confidence in those decisions knowing that they have been tested and challenged by people who are competent and achieved.

What really sets Bayh apart from other contenders is that he is good at not bringing too much attention to himself, because rarely does a showy running mate bring positive attention to the top of the ticket. He has done a decent job of not making it look like he wants it too badly.

Obama is in a position to win Indiana. A Democrat hasn't won Indiana since 1964, but the map has been changing. Some congressional and state legislative races in 2006 showed Indiana to be veering Democratic, and most polls show Obama with a slight lead there. This is especially remarkable because Indiana went for Bush by a margin of 60% to Kerry's 39%. Also, North West Indiana is in the Chicago Media Market, and they have seen Obama in local media for many years and they know him very well there, and they like him, as evidenced by his performance in the primary.

Evan Bayh is a popular former Governor who has twice been elected to the Senate from that state with huge margins. If Obama wins Indiana, McCain is toast unless he picks up Pennslyvania, Minnesota or Wisconsin. At the very least McCain will have to spend money to keep it Red, which means he spends less time and money on Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, Michigan, Virginia and Florida.

* Evan Bayh balances the ticket with his experence in:
* National Security and Intelligence
* The Economy & the Budget
* Formulating legislative strategy
* Being too mellow to cause trouble
* Being a Hillary supporter who can help heal remaining rifts.
* Winning statewide elections in Indiana.

Between his experience and mellow demeanor, Evan Bayh can balance Obama on the ballot and in the White House much the same way Al Gore balanced Bill Clinton.

Then again, it COULD be Delaware Senator Joe Biden.

(theTruthOrSomethingLikeIt.blogspot.com)

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

The Infidelities Of Johns Edwards & McCain
Why The Edwards Story Is Worse For John McCain

When something bad happens to a well-known leader in the Democratic Party, you might expect that the Democratic Party might suffer.

Those of us that have been paying close attention to this election have noticed that Republicans have been quick to exploit any news story that can be distorted to discredit Barack Obama. But with the Edwards story, John McCain and the Republicans are treading lightly this time.

Why? Because John McCain's vapid, shallow and crotchety campaign has been based on two things:

First, the McCain campaign is out to assassinate the character, policies and campaign narrative of Barack Obama with an alarmingly vitriolic and immature tone that more and more voters are finding repulsive.

The second part of the McCain campaign strategy is to continue his hyperbolic glamorization about his service and character. John McCain wants you to believe that getting shot down and beaten up is a qualification to lead, and that taking on populist policy positions as part of an image-making strategy after the Keating Five scandal somehow validates the assertion that he is an independent minded maverick.

There is a growing consensus throughout the voting community that John McCain’s self-manufactured image as maverick-foreign affairs guru-former fly-boy is little more than a thin marketing strategy that worked better eight years ago.

So, of course John McCain doesn’t want the public to be reminded of his character flaws, which includes his violent and vulgar temperament as well as propensity toward skank-pronging.

John McCain’s first wife, Carol waited years for her husband while he was in a P.O.W. camp. When he came home to find that the former model was severely injured in a car accident.

Despite his apparently catastrophic war injuries on the behalf of the Viet Cong, he was able to muster the strength and virility to commit hundreds of infidelities with dozens of women.

When he finally found an FWB who had extensive connections in Republican politics and who was a millionaire heiress to the Anheuser-Busch fortune, he left Carol outright.

McCain even had the audacity to get a marriage license to wed Cindy McCain, (the infamous pill-popping Stepford Wife) before his divorce with Carol was final.

So, while John Edwards was egregiously unfaithful, I’m sure McCain would like it better if the public wasn’t talking about the marital infidelities of politicians.

Especially when his character-myth is the lynchpin of his campaign narrative.

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

Too Big For Your Britches

Bruno's neck resembles pancake batter as it spills out of his shirt color while his necktie hangs loose and flaccid. It looked as though it fit him at one time, but he had gotten too fat. He came in at 10:15 AM, fifteen minutes before session and tapped me for all I had learned in the five meetings that I had been in since I had seen him yesterday at 3:30 PM shortly before he left back toward home with the female district aide.

I asked him if he had looked over the position paper I had given him. He said that he glanced at it and I knew he was lying. He asked me if the bill's sponsor had donated to the campaign, and I said that they had. The female district aide had intervened, saying that the bill's opposition would likely give him more for his next campaign, and he went with her as he always does when she has anything to say, which is seldom but still too often.

I had fifteen minutes to explain a days worth of work. I'll have to put the rest of into a position paper and hope without expecting that it will get read. That job had fit me at one time, but I've gotten too big for my britches too.

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

You Get What You Deserve

Hillary Clinton, the former first lady will most likely win the Pennsylvania Primary on Tuesday, but probably not by the crushing margin she had thought six-weeks previous.

Barack Obama the Senator from Illinois is poised to win Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota in the weeks ahead, and by June 3 all the contests will be over. At the end of all the nominating contest he will be ahead in overall delegates, pledged delegates, the popular vote, states won, and he will still be polling better against John McCain than Hillary Clinton.

History will judge Hillary’s campaign for the White House as a failed experiment in girl-power. Looking back on the past twenty years it will be clear that the Spice Girls did more to promote a positive view of feminism and woman-empowerment than Mrs. Rodham-Clinton.

It's better for womankind though that the first female nominee for President from a major party not be the spouse of a former President. It's not just because it is a formula for defeat but because it would be regarded by the masses that the first woman to have a serious shot at the White House would only have had made things happen by virtue of nepotism and a certain sentiment of socially engineering affirmative action enabled by a certain core constituencies of the Democratic Party.

To be fair though, Hillary Clinton is in many ways a better candidate than most of the choices that were available in 2004. But in this most recent contest the fiery populist John Edwards 2008 (2.0) was a far superior product to not only the establishment hack Hillary Clinton, but also to the establishment lightweight John Edwards of 2004 (BETA). But what is most important is that Senator Barack Obama is better than them all.

It's no wonder Hillary is out for blood. She knew that in 2004 a White House run would have started in haste and ended in disaster. She would have lost as badly or worse than John Kerry. She had all along been counting on a John Kerry defeat so that she could have her time in the sun four years later. Even given the tragedy and disgrace that has ensued since November 2004, she would probably have still been crossing her fingers that John Kerry would sink his prospects of winning by eating escargot and almond-crusted brie at a Red Wings game if it could mean she had a shot at George Bush's job in 2008.

However, she didn't count on the fact that the Bush Administration would implode the way it did. Even those of us who saw it coming didn't have a clear idea about the complete clusterfuck of an economy he would leave us with and how our energy crisis would have persisted completely unabated. Nor would we have ever predicted that Hurricane Katrina would have exposed such disgraceful poverty and governmental incompetence. We didn't know that the Jihad For Jesus would have made a giant stink about Terri Schiavo leading to a repugnant and repulsive government overreach that came to be known as "Schiavo's Law". In looks as though like Iraq, which is the greatest foreign policy disaster in U.S. History, is only one part of the dystopian story that has unfolded over the past 7 1/2 years.

Because Hillary Clinton didn't count on these things, she didn't anticipate that the 2008 electorate would shift in such a way that provoked people to do more than demand a replacement for George W. Bush. Rather, they have been inspired to demand a candidate who as President could deconstruct the institutions and thwart the culture of Government that have made the failures, corruption, and malice of the Bush Administration possible. Voters at the moment seem generally wise to the fact that you can't fix the problems of establishment hackery with another brand of establishment hackery. Indeed, they finally appear wise to the fact that you can't fix your cavities by switching from Pepsi to Coke.

It is this change in sentiment that inspires Hillary to so viciously assault Barack Obama. Her blood-lust isn't inspired by an aversion to the defeat of higher ideas, but rather her own personal defeat. She probably has a good idea that she isn't going to win the nomination in 2008 and she also knows that if Barack Obama wins in November that she wont be able to run in 2012 when she will be 65 years old. And thus she understands that such a victory of her opponent would be a nail in her political coffin, as she is unlikely to pursue the White House in 2016 when she will be 69 years old. She is biting, clawing, and throwing sand in Obama's eyes every chance she can get in an effort to soften him up for John McCain in an effort to preserve the faint possibility that she might be the party's nominee in 2012.

In 1958 former candidate for President Adlai Stevenson (perhaps the Al Gore of his time) said, "people get the kind of government that they deserve". The retrospective context in the time since Stevenson made those remarks reveals them as a cruel, damning, and perhaps completely valid assessment of American Democracy and the American electorate itself.

But maybe, just maybe this time the people will get both what they deserve as well as something good. Just Maybe.

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

Hate & Fear May Win Elections
But They Don't Produce Results

Barack Obama was born four years before black Americans won the right to vote with the Voting Rights Act. That same man in that same country now stands poised to lead it.

In Iowa, Barack Obama has passed his first test on his way to the White House. More importantly, the American people have passed their first test toward empowering themselves in the post-Bush era. What happened last night in Iowa is a testament to what can happen when people demand change. It stands in great contrast to the politics of fear and hopelessness perpetrated by the Bush administration over the past seven years.

After 9/11 George W. Bush could have appealed to the better angels of our nature by uniting the country and the world against the threats that we face around the globe. Instead, he employed the politics of division and fear to consolidate his power and assure himself re-election.

While this brand of negative politics did help Bush edge out a victory in the 2004 election, it has failed him in the governance of this nation.

George Bush's politics produced an underwhelming response to al-Qaeda and international terrorism and it has instead thrown our nation into two wars that we are losing.

It has enabled corporate greed and worsened the economic challenges of those who were already suffering.

It has given us the largest national debt and the largest deficits in our history while doing absolutely nothing to empower people who struggle to do better.

It has put American citizens under surveillance and has attempted to make enemies of the state out of George Bush and Dick Cheney's political opposition.

It has produced an embarrassing government overreach in response to personal decisions of Terri Schiavo's family and it has produced a critical failure of the government to help and protect the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Hate and fear may win elections, but they don't produce results when it is time to get things done.

Barack Obama offers the greatest departure from the Bush Administration just as we need it. When Obama was down in the polls and looking defeated through the spring, the summer and the autumn, he rejected calls from pundits and establishment hacks to employ nasty slash and burn tactics. Rather, in the most positive way possible, he drew contrasts between himself and opponents and made an argument about what kind of country we could be. He didn't tap into anger and he didn't tap into hate. By identifying the problems we face and offering solutions, Mr. Obama tapped into hope and promise.

As someone who worked in politics for a number of years, I have seen cowardice where I wished there was courage. I have seen it from both Republicans and Democrats, even Democrats I have worked for.

I have seen rancor where I should have seen deliberation.

I have seen partisanship where I should have seen thoughtfulness.

I have seen darkness in American politics, and for too long I have seen establishment politicians add to that darkness.

Sen. Obama knows that when there is darkness that you defeat it not by turning up the heat, but rather turning on the light. I am confident that this brand of politics will not only deliver a victory but that it will also produce results when Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of The United States.

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

"Well, look, I find it amusing that those who helped to authorise and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism.”

Sen. Barack Obama when several of his fellow Democrats critisized his remarks about his willingness to attack Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan.

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

Obama Has It Right On Foreign Policy

"The time for us to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in. And that is something that too many of us failed to do". - Senator Barack Obama

Barack Obama understands that the most important job for the next President of the United States will be to restore the integrity and moral authority of the U.S. throughout the world. The Bush administration's policy of unilateralism, stonewalling, and non-engagement has made America more vulnerable and less strong.

At the now famous "YouTube Debate" on CNN, Sen. Barack Obama was asked if he would meet with leaders of nations likes Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. He said that, "we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses."

Obama knows that you can't make peace with your friends, that you must make peace with your enemies.

Sen. Hillary Clinton called Obama "naive" for holding this belief. She said that it would be unwise to engage our enemies about the potential consequences of a failed state in Iraq.

Bill Clinton engaged with North Korea, and though the Bush administration initially abandoned this policy, they have since returned to it. Apparently they found that their policy of pretending that North Korea didn't exist was not effective at stymieing weapons proliferation in the region.

Richard Nixon, who was a skilled diplomat engaged Communist China, which led to a normalization of relations between that country and the U.S.

Both Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy engaged the Soviet Union during the cold war. This was important during Kennedy's time because it helped him navigate through the Cuban Missile Crisis without a nuclear exchange that would have destroyed both our countries. Reagan's engagement of the Soviet Union helped to end the Cold War.

The Bush policy of unilateralism and non-engagement is a radical fringe idea that has failed to unite the civilized world against America's enemies. It is worrisome that Sen. Clinton, the current frontrunner for the White House is embracing these policies.

This isn't the only foreign policy difference between the two candidates. Hillary Clinton supported George Bush's sloppy crusade in Iraq, Obama didn't.

On the same day that Sen. Clinton was voting to support President Bush, Barack Obama gave a speech in Chicago where he said,

"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics".

He added, ". . .even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

Obama made this speech on October 22, 2002, six months before the U.S. invasion. Looking back, he sounds less like an experienced statesman, but more like a prophet.

The judgement and wisdom of Sen. Barack Obama is far stronger than the so called experience of Sen. Clinton, and on this basis alone he should have our support.

For More Go: www.TheTruthOrSomethingLikeIt.blogspot.com

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

"George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it."

Keith Olbermann

The other day at work I saw a woman wearing a bizarre tee-shirt. On that shirt was a picture of Jesus, Mary, some saints and a heavenly backdrop. In the middle was a picture of George W. Bush praying, and underneath it said, "We are a blessed nation." I called the attention of my coworkers to the utter ridiculousness of this shirt. To my surprise, they defended both the shirt and George Bush. In that room at that moment, George Bush had 66% job approval and 33% disapproval, which is the exact inverse of what it is nationally.

Most polls from the last several months put George W. Bush’s job approval in the high 20s to low 30s. More importantly his job disapproval has been consistently around 65%

Less than one-third of all American’s like George W. Bush. We have a national consensus that this guy is a total fuckwit. Yet there is a segment of the population that is holding on to the notion that he possesses a level of competence that allows him tie his own shoes unassisted.

The war in Iraq is not only an obvious failure, but it is the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history. As a nation, we are less safe, and less secure than before Bush's belligerent, baseless invasion of that country. Iran, North Korea, Russia and others have exploited our weak position in the world to work for their national interest at the expense of ours.

Nearly 4,000 troops have been killed. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, and an equal number of American service-people have been maimed. These sacrifices were not necessarily, and in fact they have impeded America's ability to confront its real enemies.

But alas, the Bush presidency is not just about Iraq.


It is about an administration that so much lusts for power and control that in insists that it needs the power to randomly incarcerate American citizens indefinitely without being required to tell them or any court with what they have been charged.

It is about an administration that has promoted a culture of greed through corporate giveaways, tax cuts for the wealthy, and no-bid contracts for companies that profit from war and that keep members of the administration on its payroll to this day.

It is about an administration thats permits oil companies to receive tax-payer funded subsidies while they continue to post record profits, keep refinery capacity low, and gasoline prices artificially high.

It is about an administration with such warped priorities that it doesn't think that taxpayers should support potentially life saving therapeutic stem-cell research, but insists that they should spend $100 billion per year to kill Iraqi's.

It is about a President whom as Governor of Texas refused to commute the death sentences of five men who are mentally retarded, but somehow found the compassion to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby who protected an administration that committed treason through its character assassination of CIA operative Valarie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson.

It is about a President who exploited 9/11, whom took our well wishes and support and as Keith Olbermann has said, "re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it."

Geroge W. Bush took a nation at peace, and made it a nation at war with the world.

He took a prosperous nation and gave us the largest budget deficit, the largest national debt, some of the worst job and wage growth we have ever known.

Who are these people who think he is doing a good job? I suspect that it takes the same detachment from reality to deny the utter calamity that is the Bush Presidency as it does to enable a person to deny the existence of global warming, evolution, and Eskimos.It quite possibly could be indicative of a mental illness. Perhaps support of George W. Bush should be added to the DSM IV.

It takes a rare breed to defend George W. Bush. Those who do are an endangered species for sure. They are either too obstinate to die, or too rabid to understand their survival instinct.

The S.S. George W. Bush is sinking. These ignorant predications of support are merely some final desperate gasps for air from those who will surely go down with the ship. I however which that goddamn thing would just sink already.

• 0 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

Free Speech Is Supposed To Be Disruptive. How Else Could It Inspire Change?
This week the United States Supreme Court* heard arguments on the U.S. Court of Appeals case, Morse V. Fredrick, better known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.

*It turns out that the Supreme Court is just a regular court with sour cream and tomatoes.

As a high school senior, Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days for displaying a banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". He did this across the street from his high school during the 2002 Winter Olympics Torch Relay.The council for the school district is Kenneth Star who is the former Clinton Impeachment Czar, Chief Player Hater, and now a federally appointed buzz kill. Starr has said that schools "do not have to tolerate a message that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission".

As Justice Alito said, "I find that a very, very disturbing argument. . .because schools have defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all kinds of political speech". Which is absolutely true. A school could define that their educational mission is to be fiscally responsible and that criticism of the schools continued use of antiquated history books printed during the Eisnehower administration is in conflict with the schools "educational mission".**

** We all know the true purpose of public schools has devolved into keeping half-witted bureaucrats and administrators employed.

I was a senior in high school during the tragic murder-suicides at Columbine High School. Weeks after Columbine, a student from my high school was suspended because, outside of school he was suspected of possessing firearms that were not registered.

During art class I made the remark that, "It doesn't make sense that they would suspend him, because his time out of school only gives him more time and opportunity to plot our violent and bloody demise". I was critical of school policy through a satirical remark. It was not obscene and it did not present a clear and present danger. I was suspended for three days because I made an effective criticism of Principal Douchebag's*** poor decision making. I threatened to contact the ACLU, but they made it clear to me that they were in a position to fuck with me in numerous ways, regarding things including but not limited college admissions.

*** Names have been changed to protect the douchey.

We should all be concerned about this not just because students rights are at risk, but the wrong decision on this case could set an ugly precedent. Essentially the criteria for limiting the speech in this case is that if the said speech is disruptive to the goals and ideas of a government institution then it is not protected. Will this prevent newspapers and full grown adults from being able to criticize the White House, Congress, The Supreme Court, the schools, and the IRS? Will this author be sent to Gitmo based upon this blogpost? Maybe, he could use the sunshine and ocean views, though he is not so much interested in the electrical testicular trauma and water-boarding.

The Deputy Soliciter General Edwin Kneedler said that they might pursue a ruleing that would narrowly limit speech that they say advocates drug use.

First, how do you get that out of this case? The banner "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" promotes drug use about as much as it promotes Jesus. Second, is it so wrong for a student to be critical of a school or government's drug policy? It can be argued that that drug policy in the U.S. is shallow, condescending, racist, inaccurate and hypocritical. If this particular topic is not protected speech would it not appear that no topic is protected speech?

What it will come down to is whether or not the Olympic Torch Relay was a school event and if the banner was disruptive. The main reason why speech is protected is because thoughts and ideas are powerful. Critisisim is the ultimate enemy of tyrants and oppressors. Free thought, free assembly and a free press are the pre-eminent players in the marketplace of ideas that moves our civilization forward.

The "Tinker Test" based on the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines ruling from 1969, which defined a student's first amendment rights. The 7 to 2 ruling said that the schools must have a constitutionally valid reason for limiting free speech.


The Tinker case came from three students who wished to protest the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands with peace signs. The students were suspended for this action based on the idea that they were disruptive. The majority opinion said that the students were unjustly suspended, ". . .based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression". Ultimately the Tinker Test says that sometimes Free Speech can cause controversy but if it doesn't cause a profound disruption to classroom activities, such speech is protected.

If this Supreme Court has any regard for court precedent, it will vindicate Joesph Fredrick. He will then be able to sue the school district for millions of dollars and he will have a lifetime supply of Funions and he will be able to live out the rest of his life playing XBox.

God Bless America. And may his son toke it.

And then the LORD said, "Duuuuuuuuuuude I ate so many communion wafers, you have no effing idea!".

• 2 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »

Is it okay when the truth does not properly convey your opinions?

I don't typically endorse Wikipedia vandalism, but on election night 2006 I could not help myself. More than I wanted a Democratic majority in the Senate, I wanted the Senators Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and George Allen of Virginia to be defeated. These are two fellows whom, after 9/11 were under the impression that there was a conservative realignment in the United States. They used this as an excuse to espouse the most vulgar misogynistic, racist, and homophobic bigotry that any prominent politician has said in my lifetime.

By August 2006 I knew that Santorum was toast, mostly because he was a right wing lunatic in a blue state, and that a well known byproduct of gay sex*1 was named after him.

*1 I am aware that this can also be a byproduct of man-on-woman anal-sex, but I haven't been able to make this work - yet.

George Allen had long been considered a contender for the Presidency, though I have no idea why. Apparently, he was a popular governor and people thought that he had a good personality. I have been watching him for years on the Sunday talk shows, and partisan differences aside, I couldn't help but feel like he personified the very essence of the political douchebag, many of whom I know on a personal basis.

Senator Allen flaunted his racism because he thought it would work in Virginia. He was known to drop the "N" bomb quite a bit in his youth. In college he got his kicks by blowing up black people's mailboxes, and presumably went to his Confederate Flag adorned house, and participated in much shirtless rednecking. During the election, he in fact used the term "Maccaca", (a Tunisian racial slur) against dark skinned Virginia residences to impress his political base of toothless backwoods crackers. Well apparently people figured out that Senator Allen was just saying "Nigger" in Tunisian, and word got around about this.

Well, despite all this I think that what really won the election for his Democratic opponent was my Wikepedia vandalism.



I don't know why, but I thought that perhaps before people went out to vote that day that they would look up George Allen on Le Wìk. I figured that if people saw that he was raped in front of his children by werewolves that voters would decide that he was not fit for office. Worse it was another non-disclosure along with his college racism and that his mother was a French speaking Jewish African. Now the Virginia electorate would have to weigh his werewolf rape against all this plus his unfortunate unwavering support of the Bush administration.

You might say to me, "Dave, retarded stuff like this is why you no longer work in politics". To you I would say, "No, it is the fact that American political culture is filled with people who inspire me to do retarded stuff like this...this is the reason I no longer work in politics." And then to me you would say, " Touche sir, you are my better".

Besides, if I ever want to get back into politics, I will call in a favor from newly elected Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia)


*1 I am aware that this can also be a byproduct of man-on-woman anal-sex, but I haven't been able to make this work - yet.

• 4 comments. Got something to say? Come at me, bro. »