California, Sacramento, and National Politics and Social Commentary Blog

Why the media has a bad reputation

2006-01-27T16:30:00.000-08:00

Today, I was listening to the national news on the radio half heartedly and heard a story with the headline that 80% of blacks would not return to New Orleans. Wow, I thought. 80% of blacks won't return. That's huge. I think I heard a blurb on the TV about it, too. And I saw a headline from an AP article on the internet (one that would have made it into newspapers). Wow! That's huge. Then I read the story.

The headline and the first paragraph did not contain the caveat of the story. The second paragraph did. The caveat was that 80% of blacks would not return "if the city's returning population was limited to neighborhoods undamaged by Katrina." In other words, if only those from undamaged areas returned, 80% of the blacks would not return. If . . . .

It is an interesting statistic. The study that it came from certainly shows that more blacks were hurt in the city than whites, but the 80% number is meaningless. Many, many blacks are returning to damaged neighborhoods and many more will return. The 80% number doesn't come close to telling us reality. It is a figure than an amateur statistician would use when all the facts aren't considered. It tells us nothing.

But it is so striking that it just makes a great headline. Any headline that makes me say "Wow" is going to sell papers and commercial time. The trouble is: I really had to search and hear the story three times before I understood it. I don't have time to read every story three times from three different sources. I work. I have a family. Isn't the media supposed to educate me about the world? If I cannot get my information relatively quickly, I won't be able to get it. If the information is buried or is misleading, am I really being educated? What good is the media if it doesn't educate?

That's why I don't like the media. They sensationalize everything so as to sell newspapers and commercial time, but such sensationalism hurts their ability to education, yet the media is there to educate (or is supposed to be). The media has abrogated its role as an educator in favor of a roll as an entertainer. As such, it cannot be trusted as an educator. In their defense, most of the problem is that the public wants to be entertained. That's our fault. Nevertheless, the media still wears the verneer of an educator. That is misleading. Because of this and political bias, the media has a well-deserved poor reputation.

Politics as Usual-Samuel Alito

2005-11-20T21:19:00.000-08:00

Supreme court nominee, Samuel Alito, said he was a life-long Republican, didn't believe in Roe v. Wade, and was a conservative. He said this in a memo in a bid to get a job with the Reagan Administration back in 1985. I suppose he should have said he was a life-long Democrat, was pro-abortion, and was a liberal socialist. Maybe he would have gotten the job then.

First of all, are you kidding me? I know a Supreme Court nominee is a big deal, but are we really going to go that far back and look at what someone said when they were trying to get a job with the Reagan Administration? I wonder what I have put on my resumes and cover letter in the past to try to get a job. I once tried to get a job with a Republican think-tank and I definitely tried to come off as more conservative than I really am to try to get the job. Is that going to be a big deal for me 20 years from now?

And, don't get me wrong, but who nominated this guy anyway? Was it . . . George Bush? Of course, he's very liberal, so I suspect we are surprised that Judge Alito might be a little on the conservative side. Are we so stupid that we expected a liberal judge? (More than that, most judges are ex-prosecutors, so what do you expect?????)

I just don't get that liberal groups are making so much of what was on Alito's resume 20 years ago.

Actually, I do get it. Liberals are looking for something to fight about. If they would have found allegations of sexual harassment, they would have used that. If they would have found a drunk driving incident, they would have used that. Instead, these groups are touting this 20 year old cover letter with a straight face. I guess they have nothing else.

Does it say that we are too stupid to make up are own minds using good judgment? Is America Too Stupid? Reasonable people will not use a 20 year old cover letter (unless it said something illegal or unethical) to make a decision like this. But liberal groups think that it will (Some conservative groups would think like this as well). What does it say about what they think of us?

The fact is that when we were all young we tried to sell ourselves to get a job or to win a girl or to get ahead. Heck, we did the same when we were old too. Therefore, regarding this 20 year old cover letter, I say "So what?" Alito is Bush's choice. Bush is president. Next time there is a democrat president, he can pick one, too.

Huricane Katrina

2005-09-04T10:41:00.000-07:00

Just what was the Federal Government supposed to do? I hear all the nay-sayers. I admit that this is a very bad situation. But give me some concrete examples of what the government was supposed to do. The damage is so widespread that it took days just to assess what was needed. Why do we need to blame someone? Politics?

Cindy Sheehan-Using her son's memory to get attention

2005-08-14T23:19:00.000-07:00

I was angry when my father died because the whole world kept on moving along, yet my father was dead. My life had been turned upside down, but the people around me at school and on my rowing team kept moving along like nothing happened. One day, a few days after my father's death, I overheard two girls talking whom I had never met. They were talking about a student whose step-father had died recently. For a second, though there was no way they knew my father or either of my father's step-children and that my thought made no logical sense, I thought they were talking about my father. I was disappointed to realize that they were not. Here, at my small college, another death had occurred in the life of a student. My father's death was special at the college for a moment and then someone else's father's death was special. Or not. I was not special. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, maybe millions, happen every day. Each one means something special to someone. It's just that I was the only one (along with a few relatives) who felt my father's death and who held him to be special.

As a writer, I wanted others to feel my pain. Even though I was wrong about this death being special in the greater scheme of things (my father was young, too, though not nearly as young as Ms. Sheehan's son), I wanted to get attention about it. I wanted to write about it. My father's death made me start writing poetry and eventually fiction. I became an English Major and eventually received an MA in English with a Creative Writing emphasis. That I am writing this is, in part, a result of the death of my father. I felt that writing would get across my pain and that people would feel sorry for me.

Well, I learned to write much better, but I never did interest people in the pain I felt for my father's death. At the time he died, I was 19, immature and with a lack of understanding about the world. Maturity would come later. If anything, writing made me understand that it is personally therapeutic in nature, but, when writing for others, one has to understand one's audience. What happened to me was not unique. Many people lose parents at a young age. Many people aren't even so lucky to have 19 good years with a wonderful father. My story was entirely uninteresting and it was arrogant of me to think that I could sell a novel about the death of my father.

The same is true of Cindy Sheehan. Her son died. Her pain must run so deep that only those who have lost a child can fathom it. Her son was special in that he was fighting for us and for the US Government. Her pain, while natural and sincere, is not special. Everyone experiences it at one time or another. We grieve. Some of us move on. Some of us are destroyed by it. But pain is a part of life. One can say we experience growth through pain, but that's not the point. The point is that pain is not special. To say that you are any more special than anyone else is to be arrogant. I came to realize this after many years of thought, so don't expect Cindy Sheehan to come to this realization any time soon.

I will let her have her grief, but she has absolutely no more nor less authority to speak about the necessity of this war than anyone else. One might argue that she has less authority than I do. I have two young children who are alive and cannot fend for themselves. If I believe that the war is necessary for their safety, then I have more to lose than she does and I thus have more moral authority to speak for or against it.

Also, didn't she say Pres. Bush was respectful at their first meeting? And now she's changed her story about the first meeting and wants a second one. Doesn't that sound overtly political.

Moreover, has anyone asked about what her son thought about the war. I don't know what her son thought, but I believe in this war. If my mother did not and used my death for my country to further her own political agenda, I would not be happy.

Also, he didn't have to go into the military. Wrong or right, he was going to go to war if the President called. When you go in the military, you don't get to wonder about the righteousness of whatever wars you are sent to. You know this or should know this when you sign up.

Additionally, most of the families of the fallen soldiers in this war believe in the righteousness of it. Why are we focusing on this one woman? There are two answers: Anything controversial makes a good story and politics.

Cindy Sheehan deserves our sympathy, but not our respect. She can believe she is special for the moment, but ultimately she is nothing more than a pawn of the left. Pawns are never special.

The Gitmo Prisoners Have Gone Too Far

2005-07-02T09:23:00.000-07:00

I represent prisoners in my job as a public defender. I sympathise with them. I try to get them their freedom. I engage them in conversation. I identify with them.

But . . . if a prisoner defies the gaurds, the prisoner has to sufer the consequences. If a prisoner throws urine on a guard, the prisoner must be punished. And the punishment must be immediate. If a prisoner tries to harm a guard, the punishment must be immediate and severe. If you are going to keep prisoners and keep them secure (for their own safety as well as that of the guards and the public), you can't let prisoners get away with some of the defiance that has gone on at Gitmo. If you do, the prisoners will break more and more rules and take more and more risks. Someone, perhaps a prisoner, will eventually get hurt. The rules are not just for the safety of the guards. And, even if the rules were just for guard safety, isn't that a good thing???

Frankly, this idea that there is prisoner abuse is absurd. Prisoners abuse themselves by defying guards. Guards are trained to use restrained, but they are human beings, too. It would be a fairly extraordinary human being who would be able to use restraint after having urine thrown on him.

Yet, the military is disciplining some of these guards who were clearly provoked. I fear that we are getting too soft. Some think that if we just show respect that we will change the minds of the prisoners at Gitmo and guards and prisoners can coexist peacefully. There are two things wrong with that. One, the prisoners at Gitmo would like to kill their guards and a lot more Americans if they could. Second, in any prison or detention facility, freedom is taken away. That automatically causes tension. People are hardwired to react with defiance when imprisoned.

What will we do with the terrorists? I do not know. But as long as they are imprisoned, the gaurds there must be given a free hand in the discipline of the prisoners. No torture. But the prisoners cannot be allowed to get away with punching or throwing urine at guards.

AP: Papers Show Inmates Defy Gitmo Troops

2005-07-02T09:21:00.000-07:00

By BEN FOX, Associated Press Writer

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Military authorities have previously disclosed some incidents of guard retaliation at Guantanamo Bay, which resulted in mostly minor disciplinary proceedings. What emerges from 278 pages of documents obtained by The Associated Press is the degree of defiance by the terrorism suspects at Guantanamo.
The prisoners banged on their cells to protest the heat. They doused guards with whatever liquid was handy — from spit to urine. Sometimes they struck their jailers, one swinging a steel chair at a military police officer.

And the American MPs at times retaliated with force — punches, pepper spray and a splash of cleaning fluid in the face, according to the newly released documents that detail military investigations and eyewitness accounts of alleged abuse.

Some prisoners at the U.S. base in eastern Cuba have gone on the attack, as in April 2003 when a detainee got out of his cell during a search for contraband food and knocked out a guard's tooth with a punch to the mouth and bit him before he was subdued by MPs. One soldier delivered two blows to the inmate's head with a handheld radio, the documents show.

"Several guards were trying to hold down the detainee who was putting up heavy resistance," recounted a translator who saw the incident. "The detainee was covered in blood as were some of the guards."

The soldier who struck the inmate, and was dropped in rank to private first class as a result, described it as a close call. "The detainee was fighting as if he really wanted to hurt us. ... We all saved each other's lives in my opinion," he wrote.

The documents, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by AP, are far from a comprehensive look at Guantanamo and do not provide full details about each incident.

Names and some other identifying details have been blacked out by military censors. Handwriting at times isn't legible and pages appear to be missing or out of sequence. In some cases, it is not possible to decipher who did what to whom. Disciplinary measures against the troops were either relatively minor or unclear in some reports.

The internal investigative reports do, however, provide a snapshot of life behind the wire at Guantanamo, depicting a tense, hostile and sometimes chaotic place.

In one of the more serious incidents described in the documents, detainees told guards that an MP threw the cleaning liquid Pine-Sol in the eyes of a prisoner in the middle of one night in January 2004. In a written statement, another soldier said he came in immediately afterward to find what smelled like cleaning liquid dripping from the cell.

"The detainee could be seen rubbing his eyes intensely and moaning in pain," he said.

Documents show that the guard, from the 661st Military Police Company, did not admit throwing the cleaning fluid when questioned about it that night but did say the detainee had spit on him, and may have thrown urine.

A medic on the cell block flushed the detainee's eyes with water, a witness said.

Department of Defense investigative memo written six months later concluded the soldier had mistreated detainees twice — the second offense involved cursing at inmates — and that his superiors failed to report either episode.

Investigators recommended disciplinary action against the soldier and a probe into why the incident wasn't reported up the chain of command, but the outcome is unclear from the papers.

In a statement to investigators, one service member said he hadn't seen the Pine-Sol incident but noted that U.S. personnel have been taught to use restraint with detainees: "The training we have received here at Guantanamo Bay has always stressed ... that no matter what happens on the block do not retaliate ... it will just get you into trouble."

Still, tensions between prisoners and guards have been high since the first suspects arrived in early 2002, hooded and shackled, mostly from the battlefields of

Afghanistan.

The detainees' defiance discussed in the documents ranged from mild — prisoners getting matching haircuts in a show of solidarity or refusing orders to stop practicing martial arts in the exercise yard — to hostile acts like spitting or throwing unknown liquids at the MPs. One soldier used pepper spray on prisoners because, he said in a report to superiors, he feared that the unknown liquids hurled could pose a health danger.

One soldier told military investigators he punched a detainee's face because the man spit at him and hit him as he tried to put him in restraints at the prison hospital in October 2004.

"My instincts took over after the hitting and spitting," said the soldier. Documents show authorities recommended that the punishment include reduction in rank to E-4, loss of a month's pay and extra duty for 45 days, though the outcome is unclear.

In the prison camp's early days, inmates showed their anger over the heat and the practice of leaving lights on in their cells at night by banging on the bars throughout one guard shift in September 2002, the documents say. One detainee who was believed to be leading the protest threw what an MP said smelled like water from the toilet on him. The MP tried to spray water from a hose in response, but the detainee blocked it with a mat.

The guard who tried to spray the detainee was charged with assault, given a reduction in rank to private first class, which was suspended, and reassigned to other duties at Guantanamo.

In another case, an inmate threw a partially full urine bottle at an MP in May 2002, apparently because he believed the soldier had intentionally kicked his hospital bed. When the soldier threw the urinal back, the detainee grabbed a steel chair and swung it at guards before they subdued him.

A military witness defended the MP, writing: "I believe (name deleted) to be a good and honest soldier ... and just influenced by negative elements among us." The documents don't make clear what punishment, if any, the MP got.

Military officials at Guantanamo did not respond this week to questions about relations between guards and detainees at the camp, which has held some 700 prisoners from 45 countries since it opened. There are about 540 detainees there now.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: This story is based on information contained in 278 pages of U.S. military documents dealing with investigations of alleged abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The Associated Press obtained the documents under a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

I think Terri Schiavo is already dead

2005-03-22T07:30:00.000-08:00

I don't mean that in some sarcastic way. I mean that in the most respectful way possible. If life is sacred, then the question is: What is life? If you can't hear, smell, feel, see, taste, understand what is going on, and understand that you exist, are you really alive? I don't think so.

Terri Schiavo's parents still think that she can respond to them and that she can recover. I have heard from no qualified physicians who believe that. Instead, 18 experts have stated that she is in a persistent vegetative state, meaning her higher brain functions have ceased and will not come back. The parents are really hoping against hope that there daughter will come back to them and the tragedy of the condition gives them this false hope, because smiling and certain eye movements are really very primitive. The parents seem to me to be very niave scientifically, although I understand their grief.

To some extent, it does not matter what happens now. She is already dead and no act of congress, the courts, or the president of the United States can bring her back from death. No doctor can either. However, the question is who is to make the decision about the feeding tube.

Legally, the next of kin. That means the husband. Not the parents. I make decisions for my wife when she is incapable, not her parents who live 1500 miles away. As for the fact that Terri never told her parents what her wishes were, but did tell her husband, that makes sense. My wife and I speak about all important things like that. We live together. We speak all the time. While I am close to my mom, she hasn't a clue what is going on with me really. A person will usually often talk to his or her spouse (the person who would make the decision anyway). Not the parents.

As such, the arguments put forth by the parents and the right to lifers make little sense to me. I think abortion is immoral in most cases, but, here, life is not the issue. Life is more than just the body and the body, in this case, is all that is left. Let the body dies, stop functioning, or whatever you want to call it and let everyone involved grieve and move on with their lives.

Life is sacred, but it requires brain function

2005-03-22T07:23:00.000-08:00

In a persistent vegatative state, almost all brain function has disappeared but it can seem as though the victim is reacting, even smiling at people talking to them.

"It's common for family members to make the claim that they believe the person is aware and knows they are there," said Bryan Jennett in an interview published Monday in USAToday. Jennett wrote the first clinical description of a vegetative state. She said there are about 10,000 similar cases in the United States.

The smiles and tears are simply neurological reflexes, experts say.

Schiavo, 41, has been at the center of growing international attention since her feeding tube was removed on Friday. She was stricken at 27, when her heart stopped, causing irreparable damage to her brain.

Schiavo entered a persistent vegetative state, which is described by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke as "a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a preserved sleep-wake cycle."

People with this condition will exhibit spontaneous movements and their eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may also grimace, cry, laugh and "appear somewhat normal" the institute said. However, the patient cannot speak or obey commands and all higher cerebral powers have been lost. Without higher cerebral powers, one cannot think, move, feel, hear, see, smell, or understand that they exist.

To determine if a person has entered a persistent vegetative state, neurologists must find a total absence of all signs of consciousness, the conclusion reached by 18 experts who have examined Schiavo.

Her parents, however, hang onto the hope that Schiavo might one day recover, as was the case of a 38-year-old woman, Sarah Scantin, who emerged from a coma after 20 years. However, doctors stress that a patient's brain must be alive to recover from a coma, while much of the brain has died in a vegetative state.

Schiavo's parents have released photos and video clips of Schiavo smiling with wide-open eyes in an attempt to gain support for their bid to keep her alive.

Schiavo's doctors told the Florida Court of Appeals that her heart stoppage was was caused by a sharp drop of potassium in her bloodstream, which was most likely caused by intense dieting.

Reasons to Go to War With Iraq

2004-11-24T02:38:00.000-08:00

1. Install a Democracy in Iraq that will infect the rest of the Arab world. Democracy will eventually quiet terrorists who are born when they feel they have no power.

2. Saddam had WMD or planned on getting WMD in the future.

3. To ensure that Saddam did not have WMD and would not give WMD to any terrorist group. Why take Saddam's word for it when he used to have WMD, went to great lengths to hide it from the UN, has actually used WMD extensively, made us think he had WMD, and Saddam had ties to terrorist groups including Al Qaida.

4. Saddam supported terrorist groups including Al Qaida and suicide bombers in Palestine (although there is no clear evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11).

5. Saddam thumbed his nose at the US for over 10 years. In order to ensure that rogue nations don't feel secure in the knowledge that the US can be bullied, we have to show the world the opposite. We have to project strength and that we will back up our words with deeds if necessary. The world is a dangerous place. If a nation thinks we won't go to war over an issue, that nation will feel it is in a much stronger bargaining position and may act more belligerent.

6. Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN for over 10 years. If the resolutions have no teeth, the resolutions aren't worth the paper they are written on.

7. Saddam committed crimes against humanity. He killed hundreds of thousands. He tortured. He oppressed.

8. Saddam fired on US and other air craft patrolling the no fly zone between the first and second gulf wars. This is an act of war in itself.

9. People were suffering under Saddam while Saddam got rich on the UN Oil for Food Program, the greatest scam in the history of the world.

10. To ensure Saddam does not cause any more wars.

11. To make the region more secure. Saddam was a belligerent fellow.

12. Yes, oil is important. It is either in, was manufactured using, or was transported using every product you own. But we did not go to war to ensure oil profits for Texans and Saudis. Letting Iraq stay isolated does that as less oil is exported from Iraq. Instead, letting the free flow of oil come out of Iraq ensures low prices for customers (in the long run) and ensures the American economy, which requires a lot of oil to function, will continue to grow.

Fahrenheit 9/11

2004-11-24T01:37:00.000-08:00

I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11 for the first time. I vowed I would not see it until after the election.

Here is the plot in a nutshell. Before 9/11, Bush was a bad president. He won because his Daddy's friends packed the supreme court and not because the people wanted him. Before 9/11, he neglected the country and was on vacation more often than not at his ranch. Moore does not show the towers actually being hit or the towers coming down (I wonder why?). When the planes struck the towers, Bush did nothing for seven whole minutes and just read to the elementary school class where he was doing a photo op. Then, Bush protected the Bin Laden's brothers and sisters, because the Bin Ladens were friends of his. In fact, one of Bush's good friends was the guy who dealt with the Bin Laden's finances. Also, the Saudi govt was a great friend of the US. Therefore, even though most of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Bush protected them and went after Afghanastan. Also, Bush decided to go into Afghanastan, not because there were terrorists there, but because he wanted to put a pipeline through it for Unocal. Then, he decided to get rid of our freedoms with the patriot act and, because no one in Congress read it, Moore was forced to drive around in an Ice Cream truck reading the act, but he doesn't tell us what is in it or how it affects our lives. Later, Moore decides to sign up the children of members of Congress for the all volunteer military. Later, Bush decided to go into Iraq and told us there were weapons of mass destruction there even though, before 9/11, he had said there were no wmd there. Also, war is hell and lots of people die in war including innocent people. Also, lots of soliers have changed their minds about the war and formerly conservative mothers, too (at least, one). Also, Flint Michigan looks a great deal like a war zone.

Also, the president and administration officials look really funny when they sit there getting make-up put on them.

Moreover, you can find all this information if you just go through hundreds of hours of tape showing the president and various administration officials talking for hundreds of hours and then edit it.

The movie tries to tackle too many issues without really going into anything in detail. It first starts out with the idea that Bush was in cahoots with Bin Laden, because he knew someone who did work with the Bin Laden family. Well, my wife used to work with a guy who helped blow up the two embassies in Africa in the 1990s, was a member of Al Qaida while she knew him, and who knew Osama Bin Laden himself. This guy, Ali Mohammed, was arrested for terrorism while he worked with my wife. So I say, so what? We are all six degrees of separation from everyone in the world.

And, of course, there is also the age old adage that any war in the middle east is a war for oil. This has always been merely innuendo as no one can point to any actual fact that shows that's why we went to war in the middle east. And Moore never goes beyond the innuendo.

In fact, the whole movie is all about innuendo and conspiracy theories. But, again, no facts are shown.

Moore thinks we went into Afghanistan for 2 reasons: To build a pipeline in Afghanistan for Unocal and to protect the Saudi Royal family. First of all, there was no pipeline on the table at Unocal in 2001. It had merely been discussed in the 1990s. Second, Al Qaida was based in Afghanistan. Why wouldn't we invade that country?

Moore tries to make many points about airline security, the actions of others such as Congress, and various White House policies and gives one rather conspiratorial view about all of them, but never takes into consideration other views that might explain why such policies were implemented. He just assumes there are either no other reasons or the other reasons aren't good ones. A case in point is his point that no Congressman actually read the Patriot Act. Of course, he never tells us that there might be good reasons why others read the laws that get passed and Congressmen only read summaries prepared by highly skilled staff members. Another case in point is this idea that the President and his administration purposely scared us into Iraq by giving us constant warnings about terror threats. He fails to tell you that the color coded system was actually suggested by a Democrat. Moreover, the administration felt it was under pressure to let people know about threats in advance and did not want to look like it was caught off guard. Also, 9/11 scared us. We assumed there would be other attacks. I never thought we would be free from attacks within our borders three years after 9/11. Moore never takes these other issues into questions.

He does make the point that the sons and daughters of the elite don't ever serve in the military, but his idea to try to get congressmen to "enlist" their own children is silly. I thought it was up to each individual to determine whether to go into the military or not. Each soldier, sailor, airmen, or marine is an adult who can make his or her own decisions. A parent cannot enlist their own children. Nevertheless, we have an all volunteer army. These guys know what they are in for when they join up. If you take the benefits, you might be sent to Iraq. I feel for the guys who go, but they knew what they were in for when they joined up. I understand Moore's point, but I fail to see what that has to do with whether to go into Iraq or not. Good war or bad, the individual soldier knows what he or she is in for.

When Moore tries to make his point about the Patriot act, I fail to understand it. He does not tells us what is in the Patriot Act or why it is good or bad. It just fails.

Moore does score points with his depictions of the horrors of war. In fact, his depictions are very moving and include civilian casualties, amputees, dead soldiers, and the story of the mother of a soldier who was killed. War is horrible. People die horribly. People are maimed horribly. People's lives are changed forever. A lot of innocent people are killed. But that has always happened in war and should be expected. One could say the same thing about World War II. We understand that war is horrible. The question is: Is this a good war to fight?

That is where Moore fails the most. He glosses over the intelligence failures. He doesn't mention anything about Saddam's crimes (or even that the US supported Saddam in the 1970s and 1980s). The real question is why did we go to war? There are a few scenes where people are wondering why we are in Iraq, but the issue is never truly discussed. Weapons of mass destruction are talked about in some very quick snippets of news footage, but a full discussion is never made.

If the administration went to Iraq with bad intelligence regarding WMD, then let's fix the intelligence. If the administration ignored the intelligence analysis of the CIA and decided to go to Iraq anyway, then we have a major problem. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the administration ignored CIA analysis. If Moore has some evidence, it doesn't make in into his movie. In my opinion, other than WMD, the administration did not give us any reasons why we should go to war. I can come up with several good reasons of my own, but Bush failed to tell the American people about these other reasons. That would produce some good discussions, but, to Moore, there are no other reasons and, even if there were, it would not matter, because Bush went to war to make his war industries and oil pals rich and that was it.

To Moore, Bush and all his cronies are maniacal crazy wannabe Hitlers who want nothing other than to make the rich richer, to make the poor poorer, and to poor people suffer. And to accomplish these goals, Bush has to lie constantly. Maybe I have rose colored glasses on, but I think that is ludicrous.

The best part is not part of the movie but is on the DVD. It is a small documentary about Arab American Comics. It was hilarious.

The movie is light on facts and evidence and heavy on conspiracy and innuendo. If you are predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories, you might find something in this movie. If you hate Bush, this is a movie for you. If you are a Republican, you might like it just to know what crap the left is listening to. If you are an independent who needs evidence before making up your mind, pass on this one. Moore obviously has a bias and doesn't let evidence stand in the way of achieving his aims. In my opinion, Moore does a disservice to the public. He has a chance to really undertake a hard look at these issues, but his tactics are not unlike those of the insurgents. He takes quick jabs at the enemy and never fights the enemy head on. He merely hopes that the enemy will die of 1000 small cuts. As such, Moore never faces any issue head on. The documentary is a total failure and will only hurt America and aid the terrorists.

Even NPR thinks there was no voter fraud

2004-11-18T11:54:00.000-08:00

I was listening to NPR on 11/10/04, specifically All Things Considered. They did a story about the conspiracy theories that about regarding the presidential election. Pam Fesler, NPR Correspondent, had a conversation with Robert Siegal, NPR Senior Host. You can hear the story at the NPR site: http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=10-Nov-2004&prgId=2. The headline is Nader Raises Questions on Electronic Voting although they don't talk much about Nadar. Instead, they noted that bloggers were touting alleged evidence that there was fraud or at least mistakes were made, which caused Bush to win. But the main part of the story was to debunk the conspiracy theories. There may have been some mistakes, but NPR stated that most of the theories were based on mistaken evidence and the other problems were merely mistakes, which were negligible. They note there is no evidence that there were any irregularities significant enough to change the election.

Therefore, even NPR, admittedly a liberal media source, although one with some integrity, says the conspiracy theories are wrong. Let's move on. Shall we?

Exhaustion

2004-11-13T23:42:00.000-08:00

I am exhausted from the recent election. The contension makes me so emotional tired. I really glad it turned out the way it did. I dared not to hope that it would turn out so well, but I have nothing more to say (no really).

People on the left: Deal with this. This is a democracy and we are tired of you putting judges on the bench who say the constitution says things that it doesn't really say. We are tired of you trying to say that gay marriage is the same as regular marriage (or that a gay relationship is the same as a regular relationship. [Is a relationship just about the type of sex you like?]) We are tired of you taking all our money to flitter it away on programs that do more harm than good and put more people into poverty (because taxes equal fewer jobs), just so you can feel good about yourselves. We are tired of your lies that an unborn child is merely a mass of tissue for the first two trimesters and that the baby miraculously becomes a human the day the third trimester begins. Life is life no matter how to slice it. We are tired of your delusion that socialism, command economies, and big government are the cure to the problems that allegedly plague us. Look, socialism and communism were proven to fail miserably. We are tired of your comments about how evil America is. America is the beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. America is the cure and not to problem. We are tired that your existential angst causes you to see so many problems in the world and to fight against the man only to become the man when the problems weren't really all that great in the first place and you haven't solved them with 100 years of socialism.

People on the right: Stay true to your belief in God, it is the only thing that lasts save love of family and country. Ignore the left. They defeat themselves. Live your life with ethics, honor, love, and morals and don't let moral relativism confuse you. While you should judge not lest ye be judged, their is right and wrong. America is a country based on God, morals, ethics, law, and individual rights. It is not a country based on Atheism, socialism, strange ideas, and particular sexual behavior. The lefties can talk about whatever they want to talk about and express themselves all they want, but we have the right to speak, too. They don't accept that. Speak anyway. Those on the left can have sex with whomever they want, but I merely wish they would not shove it in our face and suggest that they are heroic for doing it. They are not. Those of us on the right are not stupid or bigoted. We merely have moral beliefs. Don't believe what they say about you. Believe in yourselves and what is true. We believe in George W. Bush. We believe in our Country. We believe in our families. We believe their is evil in the world and we have the right to defend ourselves.

Thank God.

Secession?

2004-11-10T01:08:00.000-08:00

When Clinton and the Democrats won in 1992, no one was talking about Seceding then. What's changed?

Can't we all get along with the idea that some people in red states have divergent ideas than those in blue states? Or is diversity a bad thing?

Can the government really control the economy?

2004-11-07T13:42:00.000-08:00

Although there are those who believe that the economy can be controlled by the government, they fail to see that the economy is made up of individuals and the choices they make. Although governments have tried to command their economies and the such nations survived doing that, such a situation does not lead to economic strength.

Each individual choice has consequences for that individual and the economy at large. Moreover, individual decisions are not rational. For instance, during a run on a bank, the best thing for everyone concerned is for everyone to leave their money in the bank. If everyone takes out their money (note that a bank does not have unlimited funds or ever cash to cover the withdrawals of every single bank customers), the bank will fall and some depositors will lose all their money. However, if everyone leaves their money in the bank during bad times and only takes out what they need, the bank will be able to weather the bad times, the economy will stay solvent, and no one will lose their money. But a run is an extreme example of irrational behavior. Society would be better off if depositors did not take out all their money, but an individual feels that they would be better off if they took all their money out, because they can't trust that anyone else is going to keep their money in the bank. Each depositor does not want to be in the group of depositors that is going to lose their money.

Another example is price caps. When the government caps prices, shortages are created. Low prices are good for individual consumers, but some suppliers then determine that they cannot make a profit. As such, they make something else that they can make a profit on or they just decide not to make anything at all. Suddenly, it is hard for consumers to find the item for which prices are capped. A good example of this was seen in the Soviet Union, where it was hard to find consumer goods, because all prices are capped.

One can use propaganda to influence human behavior, but greed, selfishness, and the desire for food, shelter, and other needs are basic human traits, which cannot be overridden. Tastes can be overridden and influenced, but needs cannot. As the economy is the sum-total of the decisions of individuals, one cannot entirely legislate or control the economy, because one cannot ultimately control the decisions of individuals. One can only encourage certain behaviors, but if the behaviors one wants to encourage run counter to innate human behaviors or human needs, the encouragement will fail.

Republicans Won, But The Left Thinks It was Fraud

2004-11-04T22:55:00.000-08:00

Republicans pulled this one off big time. It's so huge that the people on Air America (which I listen to to keep up with what the left are thinking about [although they don't really tell me anything]) are accusing the Bush administration and GOP of fraud in the election. I was told by one talk show host that she can believe that people and North and South Carolina went for Bush "because they vote with one hand lashed to a crucifix." But the Ohio and Florida votes must have been stolen, because the people there aren't religious like Bush and have lost all these jobs.I listen to Rush Limbaugh a lot and I'm trying to turn off my own bias to see if Rush's show is as partisan as the Air America folks. Rush certainly has the Bias, but all I hear from Air America is a bunch of slogans and anger. Rush actually says something and has evidence to back up what he says (although some of it has a terrible slant). Thus, I think the left is in a dream world.

Anyway, it was a tremendous victory. Not just the White House, but the Senate, too. I really wasn't expecting it.

Congrats Redsox

2004-10-27T23:16:00.000-07:00

Congratulations, Red Sox, on beating the Bambino Curse. Let's just hope no one else from Massechusetts wins anything for another week.

America's Choice: Don't Turn Iraq Into Vietnam

2004-10-16T23:17:00.000-07:00

After Vietnam, people all over the world, including Americans, thought that America would not fight. America would not invade. America did not have the stomach for it. Saddam thought that in 1991. He believed it even more after we stopped on our way to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait. The conventional wisdom in the Middle East and in Middle America was that America just did not have the stomach to go all the way and to lose more than a handful of men.

September 11 changed that perception and countries were afraid. After we invaded Iraq, people in other countries have had to face the new reality: America will send in troops if we need to. Lots of troops. And America's military power is very significant.

Now it is apparent to Saddam and others like him that they cannot just thumb their noses at America and do whatever they want. They have to take our military threat seriously.

Now, in comes Kerry. If we elect Kerry, our new found respect will disappear. If we elect Kerry, the world will begin the believe again that the heartland of America doesn't have the stomach to send its boys to fight, because a vote for Kerry is a vote against the war. Two-bit dictators and terrorists will be emboldened. They will once again thumb their noses at us and do whatever they want. They will again commit human rights abuses. The threat of the big stick by the United States will become an empty one.

So we'll have to prove ourselves again in 20 years time (or perhaps sooner) when the next paradigm shift comes and some other country thinks they can take us on. Teddy Roosevelt once said "Speak softly and Carry a Big Stick." A vote for Kerry makes the big stick look kind of small to some. If that's true, we can speak all we want and no one will listen. If it doesn't look like you have a big stick, you have to use it a lot more.

A vote for Bush means fewer 911s and fewer wars in the future. A vote for Kerry means uncertainty for a long time.

Where the Republicans Keep Going Wrong?

2004-10-14T22:26:00.000-07:00

The Republicans could win easily if they find easy ways to explain things. Why is it wrong to be a tax and spend liberal? Because taxes make jobs go away and take money out of your hands and the government is terribly inefficient at fixing problems, so it is better to have jobs and a small government than few jobs and a big one. Big government means more poverty. Why not say that? Supply side economics and free markets have prevailed. Communism is destroyed. I seem to remember the Soviet Union and the communist bloc imploding.

Kerry has a plan. Has anyone asked him what it is? More diplomacy? Make sure the UN approves of our actions? If we waited for the UN to approve our actions everytime we wanted to do something, we'd be waiting a long time. Look, France, Germany, and Russia (two of those countries had veto power in the UN Security Council) were not going to vote yes to go into Iraq. They weren't. We tried to go the UN route. Bush got a final UN resolution, but it still wasn't enough.

Things are not as difficult as people think. People are not as stupid as people think. Yes, the Republicans should cater to our patriotism. But they don't need to be so simplistic that we can't understand. Talk some economics. Speak the truth. People like that. If we speak like real people and explain things, people will respond. If we speak like real people as opposed to saying things like "Do it for the children" people will see the true difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?

Social Security-Will Someone Take the Rudder?

2004-10-14T22:08:00.000-07:00

Look, somebody needs to do something about Social Security. Kerry says it's a covenant between the American people and the government. Geez, liberals are so conservative when it comes to keeping entitlement programs from changing. At least Bush is talking privatized. He's talking about fixing it. Kerry is doing nothing. He can afford to. He'll be dead and safely out of office when my young daughter and I have to start worrying about it. I'm already going to have to wait until I'm 70 to collect anything. But one day, 40 to 50 years from now, or maybe less, if we don't do something, the economy is going to implode, there will be a major revolt among those who will have to support it, or there will be a major decrease in benefits taking seniors by surprise who did not pay for it.

Kerry's two arguments against privatization are these: 1. We can't change a sacred covenant. 2. We don't want to put money in the hands of greedy bankers and mutual fund companies.

Greenspan thinks its a good idea and that's good enough for me, but Kerry is against it. He, like his liberal (dare I say socialist) friends, don't like people making money I guess unless they are the hard working Americans. Well, I'm a hard working American and if I can get a bank or mutual fund company to make me money, then I'm all for them making money, too.

But we have to start now when we can afford to put a little aside in these funds. 25 years from now, it will be too late. Why are Kerry and the Democrats so afraid of change when it comes to government programs and so for it when they want to encourage gay marriage (I don't believe Kerry when he says he's against gay marriage) and discourage traditional western religion and culture?

Whatever you political bent, we are heading for a crisis and Kerry doesn't want to do anything about it. He's too scared to mess with Social Security. If he takes a stand away from the status quo, he'll lose votes. Frankly, he's too scared to do anything. That's why he flip flops.

To take the rudder of the biggest ship in the world, Social Security, so as to change course when there are so many nay-sayers and so many people who are frightened takes tremendous courage and leadership. Obviously, Bush has it. Kerry does not.

Yes, jobs are disappearing, but causes may surprise

2004-10-07T13:37:00.000-07:00

Thu Oct 7, 8:09 AM ET Op/Ed - USATODAY.com

When John Kerry talks about the economy, he invariably focuses on the anemic employment gains of the past two years. As anyone who has struggled to find work knows, jobs have been the key missing ingredient in an otherwise-healthy economic expansion.

Kerry's chief villain is the corporate "outsourcing" of American jobs to countries that pay lower wages. In Ohio on Sunday, he vowed to close $40 billion in tax loopholes that he says encourage companies to move jobs overseas. Tuesday night, John Edwards (news - web sites) hammered home the point again in his debate with Vice President Cheney: "They're for outsourcing jobs. We're against it."

The outsourcing offensive may appeal to disenchanted voters who have seen companies shut plants and move abroad. And it certainly plays on broader worker fears about layoffs in a fast-changing global economy.

But one thing it doesn't do is address the primary reasons why the job outlook these days is so uncertain.

Studies show that the migration of U.S. jobs overseas is a tiny factor in weak employment growth. A Labor Department (news - web sites) study of job losses in the first three months of the year found that only 2% went overseas. Other studies have put the figure closer to 1%.

In truth, several factors unrelated to outsourcing have kept total employment below where it was when Bush took office, something that hasn't happened during a president's term since the Great Depression.

They include:

Productivity gains. Technology lets companies do more with fewer people. In 2002 and 2003, output for each U.S. worker increased by more than 4% a year, the first time productivity was that high two years in a row, according to the Labor Department.

Health care costs. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Board surveys show rising medical expenses - more than 10% annually for four years running - are dampening hiring as firms worry about paying for new employees' benefits.

Terror insecurity. While hard to quantify, fears of another major terror attack may be prompting companies to be conservative in hiring. A survey by the National Association for Business Economists rated terrorism as the biggest threat to the economy, above government debt and rising interest rates.

Some of these factors are beyond a president's control. And in the case of productivity gains, short-term bad news is good news over time; more productive workers are more competitive globally. Productivity is also the key to raising living standards.

The next president can have an impact, however, by focusing on proven ways to spur job growth. One is to boost U.S. exports. Both candidates have sound pro-trade records, but Kerry needs the courage to make the case that trade leads to more U.S. jobs, not fewer. And Bush can avoid popular but counterproductive protectionist moves, such as his imposing steel tariffs in 2002.

Another solution is to do more to restrain out-of-control health costs. Yet neither candidate has a plan that is comprehensive and goes beyond shifting costs from the private sector to government.

Free-trade critics cite studies that predict millions of jobs will be moved overseas in the next decade. But past dire warnings about the dangers of expanding trade have proved false. In the past 20 years, the economy has seen a net increase of 36 million jobs, as new companies crop up to replace others that have withered and died.

Decrying outsourcing attracts votes, but it diverts attention from the real problem of worrisome job growth - and the solutions. Today's debate: "Outsourcing" jobs Productivity, health costs, terror fears hurt more than foreign flight.

The VP Debate

2004-10-05T22:14:00.000-07:00

This sums up the debate:

You aren't telling the truth. No, YOU aren't.

In other words, nobody won. This was a non-event. But it does sum up the fact that there is no monopoly on the truth. Rather, the truth depends on your point of view. I do not think that one can make a truly good argument that Bush lied to get us into war, but if you are a peace-nic, then you hate Bush and what the Kerry campaign says is the truth. But it's not the truth. It's just rhetoric.

Why a Kerry Win is good for the Terrorists and other bad guys around the world.

2004-10-02T23:29:00.002-07:00

Kerry could form a team that could make all the right decisions in Iraq. Maybe his team could be smarter than Bush's team. Kerry isn't stupid. The people around him aren't stupid. Kerry's intelligence and the intelligence of his people is not why I think a win will be very, very bad for Iraq, the US, and the rest of the world.

The reason why I am voting for Bush is because Kerry can't possibly do the things he is saying he is going to do. (1) He says he can run a smarter war. He doesn't give any specifics, but he says that. (2) He says he will get other people around the world to do some of the work, so that the US doesn't have to do all the heavy lifting. Again, he doesn't give many specifics, but that is what he says. However, he is wrong on both points.

I'll start with number (2). First of all, there are about 30 nations helping us in the War on Terror and numerous nations helping in Iraq. I cannot name one reason why they would want to send troops to Iraq. The US bales out other nations. Not the other way around. Nevertheless, nations are already helping. Even nations like France, Germany, and Russia are cooperating significantly with the War on Terror. In particular, these three nations are cooperating with intelligence and immigration. They may not be sending troops anywhere, but they won't be sending troops for Kerry either. How is Kerry going to get France, Germany, and Russia to send troops to Iraq? Or any other nation for that matter? This summit he is talking about is just a meeting. Without some new reason to send troops or money, those nations won't do anything more. They may "like" Kerry better, but "like" doesn't equal money or troops. The countries that have sent money and troops had political reasons for doing so, such as either having fears of their own or wanting to make nice so they could join NATO. Kerry's "likability" will achieve nothing. Frankly, George Bush is a very likeable guy in person. He could do better.

However, there are other reasons why Kerry can't get other nations to do more and why he can't run a smarter war than Bush. This goes to his "flip-flopping", too. The fact of the matter is that it is hard to be a Democrat. There are numerous types of Democrats. It's not that Kerry is a flip-flopper, he just has to say different things for different democrats and for the independents. He has to say he is against the war to the anti-war crowd and he is for the war, but can do it differently to others. He is inconsistent and he might have to change what he does in the war or even pull out depending on what the polls say. And a Democrat president is always more concerned with polls than a Republican president.

The anti-war crowd may ask that Kerry get out ASAP. Kerry may feel pressured to put a date certain on a pull out. If that doesn't happen as he plans (and it never does in a war), he will take a lot of heat. Yet the Republicans will not stand by him. The anti-war democrats won't stand by him. His base is made of people who just want to oust Bush. If Bush is gone, where is Kerry's base? The fact is that Kerry does not have a strong enough base to carry out this very difficult war. Any plan he creates will depend on the winds of politics and, when politics guides the war, the war gets messy and you might lose it. That's what happens in Vietnam (but Kerry isn't seeing this).

Countries like Britain, Australia, Poland, and others know that Bush will stay in Iraq come Hell or high water and will make the right decisions regardless of politics. They know they can stand in a certain position and things won't change even as the tactics of the war do. Who knows what Kerry will do? Will he pull out in Six months, 1 year, when the job is done? Who knows? Other nations who are sending money and troops do not want to waste their time and money on a very hard undertaking if they cannot be sure that the US is going to stay. And if the US leaves, no country in its right mind would stay to take over the roll of the US. Those other countries don't have the power or the money.

With Kerry's inconsistency, he won't get any other countries to send troops or money. And the ones that have won't send any more. The ones that have may decide to cut their losses not knowing what Kerry is going to do. It's bad enough with the uncertainty of the enemy. If you are uncertain about your allies, you suddently have two fronts to watch out for.

The terrorists may be evil, but they are not stupid. If Kerry is elected, the Terrorist know that his base won't stand behind him if things get bad. If too many Americans start coming home in body bags or if the violence gets too intense, Kerry's base will demand the US pull out. And the Republicans won't support Kerry no matter which decision he makes (they will pretend to support keeping troops there, but they won't put their muscle into it) and they will use the failed war against Kerry in the next election. Kerry will have some supporters who will want him to keep the troops there, but the Democrat party will be split and Kerry will do something to save face like Nixon did in Vietnam. A Civil War will start and we will be much worse off than before.

The terrorists and insurgents know that Kerry can't survive too much violence hitting out TVs. The terrorists and insurgents know that Kerry won't be able to approve needed military action where civilians might be put in harms way or that might damage a mosque.

The terrorists and insurgents know that Bush is strong, but Kerry isn't. That is why the terrorists and insurgents are hoping for a Kerry victory. A Kerry victory means a victory for the enemy. For them, a Kerry victory means they can see the light at the end of the tunnel. If Kerry wins, there is be a little peace for a short period of time, but then you will begin to see violence and eventually civil war. If Bush wins, the terrorists and the insurgents know the fight will be too hard to win. The terrorists and insurgents know that they can't destroy American military power. They can only destroy America's will to fight.

A Kerry win means they have done that.

Polls-Did Kerry Pull Ahead?

2004-10-02T23:29:00.001-07:00

It's bad news in the Newsweek poll released on 10/2/04. Kerry is up by 5 points in a poll with registered but not likely voters. Of course, that is just one poll and there are others yet to come out. Previously, Bush was ahead by double digits in some polls. Other polls had a statistical dead heat.

It seems to me that polls in previous elections agreed with each other to some extent. The polls this time around are all over the map. One poll probably doesn't make any difference. We have to see what the other polls say to make any sense of what is going on.

However, I do feel a slight dread in this Newsweek poll. If Kerry wins, we are screwed.

U.S. Commander Claims Success in Samarra

2004-10-02T23:29:00.000-07:00

U.S. Commander Claims Success in Samarra

By ZIDAN KHALAF, Associated Press Writer
SAMARRA, Iraq - Afraid to stray from home, residents buried the dead in their gardens Saturday as U.S. and Iraqi forces battled pockets of resistance in this former insurgent stronghold, where the American military said 125 rebels were killed and 88 captured in two days of fierce fighting.

The American commander declared the operation a successful first step in a major push to wrest key areas from insurgent control before January elections.

Elsewhere the rebels struck back, wounding at least five U.S. forces in three separate bomb attacks. In the latest in a string of kidnappings, militants claimed to have abducted and beheaded an Iraqi construction contractor working on a U.S. base.

U.S. and Iraqi commanders said they controlled 70 percent of Samarra after some 5,000 troops — including 2,000 Iraqis and 3,000 Americans — swept into the city early Friday. Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan claimed success, telling the Arab television station Al-Arabiya: "It is over in Samarra."

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, commander of the 1st Infantry Division, said he was "very confident that the future of Samarra is good."

"This is great news for the people of Samarra, 200,000 people who have been held captive, hostage if you will, by just a couple of hundred thugs," he told CNN.
Batiste praised the performance of Iraqi troops, saying they "really handled themselves well" as they secured the hospital, a revered shrine and centuries-old minaret.

Building a strong Iraqi force that can take over security from American troops is a cornerstone of the U.S. strategy to restore peace in Iraq (news - web sites). But during April offenses in Fallujah and Najaf, the fledgling Iraqi troops melted away at the first sign of confrontation, either fleeing or joining the insurgents.

"The more operations they conduct, the more confidence they will gain, and the better they will perform," said Maj. Neal E. O'Brian, a military spokesman who was in Samarra Saturday.
The city, 60 miles northwest of Baghdad, appeared mostly calm Saturday, but pockets of resistance persisted, with heavy tank shelling and exchanges of machine gun fire erupting in early evening in the northern part of the city.

Batiste said U.S. forces would conduct mopping up operations for at least the next few days before handing over primary responsibility to Iraqi police and National Guard units.
A car bomb targeting a U.S. Marine convoy also exploded east of Fallujah, another rebel-held city west of Baghdad, the military said. One Marine was wounded.

Later, U.S.-led forces attacked a building where they said insurgents were receiving military style training on the outskirts of the city.

The attack — the latest in a series of strikes aimed at insurgents believed to have links to Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — killed one man and wounded his wife, brother and two young sons, the family told an Associated Press photographer.

Another car bomb exploded Saturday near a U.S. convoy outside the northern city of Mosul, wounding two American soldiers, the military said.

U.S. forces also clashed Saturday with Shiite Muslim insurgents in Baghdad's Sadr City, police and witnesses said. Two U.S. soldiers were wounded when a roadside bomb hit their armored personnel carrier, the military said.

The vast slum has been the scene of almost daily clashes and U.S. airstrikes against armed followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, since three weeks of fighting between his Mahdi Army militia and U.S and Iraqi troops ended last month in Najaf.

But aides to the cleric have indicated in recent weeks that he has started to organize his followers to join Iraq's political process as agreed under a peace deal brokered by Iraq's top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Several political parties have begun courting the influential cleric to forge possible alliances. These include the Shiite Dawa party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the largest Shiite groups. There have also been approaches by Ahmed Chalabi, the controversial former exile who heads the Iraqi National Congress.

Late Friday, a U.S. soldier was killed by small arms fire in Baghdad, the military said.
An army general under the fallen regime was captured Saturday during an operation by Polish, U.S. and Iraqi troops south of Baghdad, the U.S. command said. It did not give the general's name but said he was among 10 suspects detained, five of whom were later released.

Insurgent groups have increasingly turned to bombings and kidnappings in a 17-month campaign to undermine the U.S.-backed interim government and drive the United States and its allies out of Iraq.

A video surfaced on the Internet Saturday purporting to show the beheading of an Iraqi hostage identified as Nafie Dawoud Ibrahim. The Ansar al-Sunnah Army, a Sunni militant group, claimed responsibility for the killing, saying the man was an Iraqi contractor at the U.S. military base of Al-Taji, north of Baghdad. It vowed to hunt down others helping the U.S. military.
The authenticity of the tape could not be verified. The same group has claimed responsibility for the killing of 12 Nepalese workers and three Iraqi Kurds.

More than 140 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq since April, some as political leverage, others for ransom. At least 26 hostages have been killed.

Residents in Samarra said American snipers on rooftops in the center fired at anybody appearing in the streets below on Saturday.

"There are dead people that we cannot take for burial and they are being buried in the gardens of their homes," said Ali Abdul-Latif, a 19-year-old high school student.

Marine Maj. Jay Antonelli, a command spokesman in Baghdad, said U.S. soldiers did not fire at civilians. "We had snipers firing at anti-Iraqi forces who were armed and those observed at mortar positions," he said.

At Samarra General Hospital, Dr. Khalid Ahmed said at least 80 bodies and more than 100 wounded were brought to the facility Friday, but it was not immediately clear how many were insurgents.

"Dead bodies and injured people are everywhere in the city and when we tried to evacuate them, the Americans fired at us," an ambulance driver told Associated Press Television News. "Later on they told us that we can evacuate only injured women and children and we are not allowed to pick up injured men."

Wounded people, mostly women and children, lay on beds at the Tikrit Teaching Hospital.
"His pregnant mother was killed," said Sami Hashem, standing over a young boy whose belly was covered in bandages. Nearby was a young girl who lost her left foot.

Shaalan, the defense minister, said Iraqi forces carried out most of the fighting and U.S. troops "only provided cover for our operations." He said up to $40 million was being allocated for reconstruction and compensation to residents of the embattled city.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have promised a series of major military operations to retake other parts of the country ahead of the elections due by Jan. 31.

Ramadi, Samarra and Fallujah form part of the Sunni heartland, where resistance to the U.S.-backed government has been the fiercest. It is feared that inability to stage balloting in the so-called Sunni Triangle would severely mar election results. Baghdad's Sadr City, a Shiite stronghold, is also on U.S. commanders' hit list.

Still, Pentagon (news - web sites) officials and defense analysts have said a U.S. military offensive into difficult-to-capture cities might still be delayed, or avoided altogether, if the United States and Iraq decide to settle for partial participation in elections.

The Arab news network Al-Arabiya reported that Sheikh Khaled Hmood al-Jumaili, who has been mediating between some leaders in Fallujah and the government, held negotiations with Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan Saturday, but said that no solution was reached on how to bring peace to the city.

Iraq's Interior Minister Falah Hassan al-Naqib said that Iraqi forces "came out of a defensive position to an offensive position" during the Samarra operation.

"We want to protect our citizens and to have all Iraqis participate in the elections in Iraq by the end of January," al-Naqib told reporters in Samarra.

Italy's deputy premier Gianfranco Fini, meanwhile, suggested that his country could withdraw its 3,000 troops from Iraq after the elections, saying they will no longer be needed when a representative government is in place.

The Debates

2004-09-30T23:19:00.000-07:00

From what I saw of the Debates, if you were for Kerry before, you will be now. If you were for Bush, you will be again. Kerry is an okay debater, but he wasn't so much better than Bush that it made a lot of difference.

The question still remains for the undecideds: Is Iraq the wrong war?

Bush said one thing. Kerry said another. Without looking at a third party to help you understand, you can't know. As most 3rd parties are biased, you can't really know anything. Thus, my opinion is the debates achieved nothing.

The Debate Rules?

2004-09-29T23:05:00.000-07:00

A lot of people have been worried that we are missing something because there are too many rules for the coming presidential debates. Both parties now control the debates are watering them down in this is somehow bad for America. I don't think it really makes any difference.

1. All debates have rules. Why is this any different? I was listening to a talkshow host today who was complaining a little and stated that he liked the California gubernatorial debates from the latest selection which ousted Gray Davis. The only thing I remember from the debates was a lot of name-calling that did not tell me one thing about why I should oust Gray Davis. Some rules are good. As a lawyer, I'm used to 32-page documents. Frankly, 32 pages isn't really much at all. Besides, without rules, the more Machiavellian party will be slightly less gentlemanly and will do something with a gotcha quotient. Rules are good.

2. Having the two parties get together and run the debates is the best option. It's absurd to think that some third party would be able to create debates which are completely neutral and objective. No one is unbiased. No one. In this case, the two parties make the rules. They are the parties which are, by definition, mutually opposed to each other. They negotiate with each other and try to come up with the best possible outcome for their guy. In the negotiation context, each party gets a little something but neither party gets everything I want. If the League of Women Voters were a little liberal, even if they were not partisan, they would still be a little bias for Kerry. This way, the negotiation context causes a truly neutral situation where neither party has an ace in the hole. Each party is able to negotiate bias out of the system.

3. I am here to vote for a president, not the best debater. My understanding is that George Bush is not always the best speaker. Kerry isn't either, but I would say that he is better than George Bush. Nevertheless, I don't care how the president says what he says. I care what he says. The debates tell me nothing more than who use the best debater. It doesn't tell me what the policies really are and what kind of leader a president will be.

I will watch the debates a little. But what do you remember from the debates. George Bush looking at his watch. Al Gore sighing a dozen times. Richard Nixon's five o'clock shadow. Ronald Reagan's crack about Walter Mondale's youth and inexperience. Ross Perot's diagrams and graphs (anyone remember what was on his diagrams and graphs). How Dan Quayle isn't really like John F. Kennedy. Anyone remember anything else?

Republicans Trying to Divide the US Says Edwards?????

2004-09-26T17:02:00.000-07:00

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday accused Republicans of an immoral attempt to divide the nation by taking partisan advantage of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

That's like the pot calling the kettle black. The democrats have been trying to incite class divisions for decades. Let's tax the rich. The republicans are the party of the rich. The Democrats are the party of labor and working families. Their social policies take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Come on. Bush only cares about his cronnies at Enron and other immoral corporations.

Nevermind that these same "immoral" corporations (I'm not talking about Enron, which actually did have folks working there who were immoral) give thousands of people jobs. Where will the Dems get money for taxes if all the corporations go under, because they can't make a profit? But the dems have been trying to divide the US for their own power (and without really helping anyone) for years. This is rich.

Trouble is: Some people buy it.

Some people don't get it

2004-09-25T17:33:00.000-07:00

So I'm playing basketball with some friends and one liberal the other day. We know we are both on the other side of the fence, but something set this guy off and he goes into how terrible the Bush administration is. He's somewhat informed and he spokes about Bush's links to the Venzuelan Coup back in 2002. He said the Bush was behind it. I explained that that wasn't totally true. Bush may have known about the coup in advance. He may have even cooperated with the coup. But the coup was home grown. So this liberal says to me: You must listen to Fox News. Fox News????!!!! You're saying the news I listen to is biased!!!!???? When people are calling for Dan Rather's head and you are complaining that that news I listen to is biased????!!!

That's why the liberals are who they are. They think I'm stupid and ill-informed, because I have conservative views and love my Country. I happen to believe that all news is biased. Right now, all the news is just about entertainment and doesn't at all inform or put events in context.

But the liberals just don't miss a beat. The Dan Rather/CBS controversy is nothing. I would have expected a liberal (or progressive or whatever they call themselves these days) to at least wait a few weeks before beginning to make comments about how the right leaning media is biased. At least wait for the Rather scandal to die down. But they are right and we are wrong.

I just want to say that I do listen to left leaning media. I listen to NPR, for goodness sake. Some of the stories are good. Some are biased. I listed to one the other day that praised Fidel Castro and Cuban Communist Party. Nevertheless, all media is biased. The question is whether you are smart enough to see through the BS and come to your own conclusions.

The Liberals Did It Again On NPR

2004-09-20T19:30:00.000-07:00

I was listening to NPR this morning. I often listen to it when the news talk gets a little repetitive. I also hate commercials. Anyway, there was this news story that essentially glorified Cuba's communist party. Apparently, no one died in Cuba when Huricane Ivan hit the country and the reason was because the communist party rules with such an iron fist that it makes sure everyone evacuates when they are supposed to and even makes sure that everyone participates in storm drills when the weather is nice, so that everyone knows what to do when the weather isn't nice. As the story said, Authoritarian regimes have an advantage in situations like massive evacuations, because they can order people to do whatever they want.

The story seemed to put a really possitive spin on Cuba's authoritarian govt. Of course, NPR failed to mention that when there is no storm, the people aren't free and that is a bad thing. Maybe a few people die in the US every time there is a strom, because people are free to be stupid, too, but NPR should remember that freedom isn't free and that there is no way to put a positive spin on anything the comunist dictator does. You can't see the benefits of freedom in the short term. But as the US has shown the world, over a period of 200 years, freedom has given us huge benefits. When the Cuban go back to their hovels with no hope of a better life until after Castro dies, they may not know what they are missing (and that is probably a good thing for them personally), but they are missing a lot. NPR should report that. Instead, they glorify communism. Didn't we figure out that communism doesn't work back in the early 1990s? Maybe we have been too complacent.

Kerry On Iraq Documentary

2004-09-20T19:28:00.000-07:00

The RNC has put out a really good documentary on Kerry's flip-flops on Iraq. See http://www.kerryoniraq.com/. Back during 1998, Kerry was saying we should invade Iraq right now. He was a real hawk. But the documentary that you can download for free says it all and says it well, because it just uses Kerry's own words.

Another Couple of Reasons Why Arnold is a Great Governor

2004-09-19T21:31:00.000-07:00

Arnold just vetoed 2 bills. One would have essentially ended all drug testing in schools for any reason, whether it be to play sports or anything. The bill would have made drug testing voluntary for the student. Duh!!! If the student is on drugs, why would he volunteer? I guess the democratic controlled legislature doesn't think drugs are a problem.

The other bill would have raised the minimum wage AND made it nearly impossible for Wal Mart like stores to open. Do the democrats just want to destroy California? Perhaps they are all environmentalists and want everyone to leave. We need to think about business once in a while.

Anyway, Arnold fixed those two problems.

Arnold

2004-09-19T17:54:00.000-07:00

Arnold is an action hero on the screen and in the State Capitol. He's a no-nonsense powerful man with an agenda to help the state of California. It's too bad there is only one guy like him. I married a democrat, too, so I don't fault him for Maria. That gives him power with the Dems. What are they going to do? It's too bad there are term limits for him. What are we going to do when he leaves?

The First Blog

2004-09-19T17:11:00.000-07:00

What is this blog all about? Politics? Law? Religion? It's about all of that. It's a social comentary.

First of all, if John Kerry wins the election, what is he going to do? Anybody know? Take our guys out of Iraq? Put more guys in? Anything else? I'm clueless. Perhaps he's going to do all things for all people. Don't know. But that's the point. At least, we know what Bush is going to do. Love him or hate him. We know with him and we don't know with Kerry. When I've got a bunch of killers with knives at our throats, I'm scared that Kerry won't do anything about it. His base won't do what it takes to win this war. His base denies that there is a war. Kerry may talk tough occassionally, but he can never be a wartime president. A wartme president isn't so wishwashy.